»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Does anybody take responsibility anymore?
| The Alley |
|
Does anybody take responsibility anymore? |
|
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space 
|
While the Iraqi abuse scandal is an outright disgrace on all fronts, I'd like to rant about Private No Class Lynndie England. Lynndie was quick to point the finger at senior personnel claiming she was ordered to participate. She also felt justified that their actions, intended to put psychological pressure on the Iraqi prisoners to talk, were working. Now new photos have been found with Lynndie performing sex acts with numerous fellow soldiers and guards in private and in front of the prisoners. What's her spin now? Was she ordered to take part in that as well? Jesus, everybody's a victim! Take some @#&$^$$ responsibilty for your actions or just shut your mouth. side note: my skin crawls at the sight of Rumsfield, everytime he speaks i swear i can see his tongue dart like the slithering serpent he is. disgusting. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 raphael giuffrida - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Yanno Aenimal...I don't agree with everything you write over here...and I don't dislike Rumsfield...but I do agree with you about this no class "Ho".....I'm surprised she was with guys however..did you see her interview last night?...Her voice is deeper than mine...(and I can hit a low "g"....not to be confused with "g" spot but I can hit that too,)..and she looks like a linebacker for Southern Cal... |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ah, how classy we Americans are. One of our soldiers turns out to be abusive- it's okay, just crack a lesbian joke and get on with it. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
No...not cracking anything, but I agree with animal...she's not the sweetest thing on earth...and she is truly passing the buck...get on with it?..Yep, get on with the prosecution...nobody needs to be treated inhumanely....Hush....quit trying to fight me gal...I just like confrontation and starting trouble and writing bad poetry and was getting bored with my bad poetry?...LOL...have a good weekend |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aenimal, the devil is putting on his overcoat because I agree with you completely. These low-lifes have no out. The pics say everything. The only thing they can do is admit their actions or try to pass it off to superior officers. Sadly, they are all choosing the latter - I would guess one could thank their lawyers for that. One only needs to see the looks on their faces, their clowning around, enjoying their action, mugging for the cameras to know they were doing it on their own, like naughty little children. Too bad they are not man, or woman, enough to simply admit it. They learned well from the O.J. trial.... |
||
|
Janet Marie Member Laureate
since 2000-01-22
Posts 18554 |
taking responsibility for ones actions....in the military???? youre kidding right? http://staaamp.org/docs/lessons_learned.pdf With a history like this... how can we even be shocked that this has happened?....theres been decades of mistreatment-- on OUR OWN by OUR OWN ..so the fact that they would do it the "enemy" should come as no surprise. And I find such irony that the central media target to be villified and become the scapegoat is a woman, considering the treatment females have endured at the hands of "fellow soldiers" and officers. Tailhook ring a bell??? And then there is the mistreament of gays in the military by our own...though I hesitate to mention that, in light of already previously made insults. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I don't think any of the politicians out there are likely to take your advice, Raph, and more's the pity. It could quite literally result in a bit more peace and quiet in the world if they did. Heaven help us, we could use a little bit of both. I haven't been following the hullabaloo, and this thread is the first time I even heard the name Lynndie England. So, I don't have a lot of opinion on the specifics. I have a lot of opinion on the generalities, however, and especially with Toe's obviously irrelevant disparagements. I'm surprised we didn't hear, on good authority, that Lynndie's momma wears combat boots, too. Why address issues, after all, when grade school insults are so much easier. (Interestingly, men only seems to use the word ho when a woman sleeps with another man. When she sleeps with him, it's surely true love. Why is that, I wonder?) I don't know, Raph, last I checked walking on water wasn't a prerequisite for whistle-blowing. Or for much of anything else, fortunately. Of course, it has to work the other way around, too. Whistle-blowing doesn't eliminate or even diminish guilt, either. The issue shouldn't be whether England, or anyone else involved, is pure as the driven snow. The only thing that should matter is whether they're telling the truth. Everything else, from sexual conduct to sexual orientation to how ugly they are in the morning, is just camouflage. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
The first thing i'd like to do is seperate myself from Toe's comments, Toe i like you and all, but there's no way i'm being linked with that. How do you call her a Ho and let off the male soldiers engaged in the same acts. Double standard, theyre vile creatures the whole lot. Balladeer you're right they are passing the buck. However, there's is absolutely no doubt that the stench of this reaches through the ranks. The soldiers had a choice, to do the right thing, but they didn't. I'm not laying the blame on her or them, I simply say take the responsibility for their personal involvment. Janet nobody is taking responsibility, I limited my rant today not because I'm buying the media hype against England but she specifically p-ed me off taking the victim route to wash her hands clean, when there are photos of her performing lewd acts. But I agree with you completely, this isn't anything new regarding the US military. My Lai anyone? Neither is it new for the government to pass it off and find themselves a scapegoat. The stench of this rises right up to Rumsfield and it's an absolute travesty that he hasn't resigned or been removed. Ron again, seperate my comments from Toe's. England specifically enrages me because her and her family claimed she was forced into posing. The lewd acts are not a simply matter of her sexual history, I couldn't care less about her sexual history, it's that the sexual acts were performed IN FRONT of the prisoners. That's my beef, she has the gall to claim her involvment was forced when photos now reveal she was all too game participating in deplorable acts. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Every Picture Tells a Story, Don't It? So, Who's to Blame? By VIRGINIA TILLEY "Secretary Rumsfeld has apologized. Or rather, he read a statement full of apology, now dutifully quoted in the media. Nothing in the rest of his testimony or his bearing, however, indicated the slightest remorse. Instead, with his usual nasal petulance, he lashed out against any suggestion that he had neglected to take proper action, waving impatiently at the time-line of military investigations. He snapped insultingly that a three-line press release in January had "informed the whole world," so what more do you want? (His face went blank when one Senator returned quietly, "You didn't inform us.") He protested his incapacity to follow every little crisis, waving papers about "eight-thousand court-martials"--the only reliable statistic he bothered to bring. When did he inform the president? Well, come on. He had so many important things to discuss in those talks with the president, he could hardly be expected to remember when he had discussed the little matter of rampant torture in the US occupation's main prison. The real culprit, then, in his view? Digital cameras. For without them, the process would have ground on normally, through the months, and resolved itself somehow, while Iraqis lay naked and ridiculed on concrete floors. "So who's to blame? The generals at his side ..." Please read the rest of the copyrighted story at Counterpunch [Edited to add link to story - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (05-14-2004 11:14 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
All of this may be right but I still see a lot of overkill here, almost like the sky is falling. I see pathetic individuals doing this on their own. Seems like everyone who talks about it makes it grow another dimension until the finished product has it reaching all the way to 1600. I seew a lot of political manuevering at work. To blame a Secretary of Defense for actions performed late at night in a room half-way around the world is pretty unprecedented, I think. Media frenzy comes into play, I believe. I would refer once again to my "bad priest" analogy. Imagine a priest being found guilty of abuse. One can go from there and ask if they were given the impression it was acceptable by their superiors. Were there classes of "non-molestation" training? Were there signs, "Do not Molest" in their offices? Was their Bishop aware of their activities? How could it be going on without their knowledge? What about the Cardinals? Surely with all of the cases reported, with priests being moved around like checkers to remove them from parrishes where molestation occured, the Pope would certainly have to know something. Should there be a call to remove the Pope? See where this could go with a little zealous enthusiasm? I see similarities... The main thing that some are seeming to overlook is that this was all uncovered by the military itself. The military found out about it, found the pictures, wrote the reports and sent the entire package to the Pentagon where it was unfortunately compromised by an enterprising news agency before it arrived. The question is this...if this were something that the military directed and condoned, why would they be the ones to discover and report it? If you cannot answer that question, you cannot implicate them with any degree of rationality. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
BTW, Aenimal, the article you displayed of VT speaks for itself. One cannot read that article without knowing full well that it is an extremely prejudiced personal piece of writing. The insults and innuendos are obvious. It is a far cry from a professional article written by a responsible journalist and, as such, loses any right to become a good example. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Oh c'mon Balladeer? Why? Because it was already leaked, it's called damage control and spin doctoring, it's in manuals everywhere. Balladeer, Virginia Tilley is an Associate Professor of Political Science. I'd much rather read the opinion of a student of Political science than filtered mainstream media tripe. Sorry Ron didn't mean to make any copyrioght infringments, I thought adding her name and credentials would be enough. Thanks for the link edit I figured people were more likely to read it here than make the effort to switch to the site. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aenimal, with all due respect, you must have more information on this than I have. From what I know it had been leaked AFTER the report had been made. If you have something to show that the leak happened before the reports were initiated, I'd be happy to see it. As fas as Ms. Tilley is concerned, regardless of her titles, anyone who writes an article with the following: "Instead, with his usual nasal petulance, he lashed out against any suggestion that he had neglected to take proper action, waving impatiently at the time-line of military investigations" "He snapped insultingly...." "His face went blank..." "the only reliable statistic he bothered to bring.." "he could hardly be expected to remember when he had discussed the little matter of rampant torture in the US occupation's main prison" ...is certainly not showing any signs of professional, unbiased reporting. That should be obvious to anyone..She decided to paint a slur article so she did....her right, I suppose. To protray it as a valid news story is reaching.... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Balladeer a misunderstanding, when you said the military reported it I assumed you were referring to their admission of the event rather than the official report. Still, it does little to clear the fact that superiors were in the know, and were in charge. While it's not a reflection of the entire military or action in Iraq, enough people in high enough positions are involved to cause outrage and concern about leadership within the lines of command. As for Tilley's words, the facts still stand and she offers valid points regardless of her obvious disdain for Rumsfield who is, quite frankly, beneath contempt anyway. It's an editorial, not an article, therefor prone to emotion. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (05-15-2004 04:35 AM).] |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
I didnt really want to get involved in this too much..i certainly dont want to get on peoples nerves here..but if the people in charge of the countries invloved in the Iraqi war had listened to the United Nations Hans Blix....they would never have gone to war in the first place....so using cause and effect..the soldiers would never have been put in this position to abuse Iraqi's....the americans and british would not have the casualities of war.etc...you could go on and on...after all mr Blix said then and still says now the war in Iraq was ILLEGAL....therefore the abusers..from both Britain and America..must take responsibilty for their actions....this could have been avoided ..just by not going to war in the first place.....and now they want the UN the clear up the mess that they made....by sending UN troops in!!!!!!!!!!!! Just my take on things here you understand..i am just saying what i believe... I say there should be NO WARS EVER.... Peace and love and rock n roll is the only true path..... Goldenrose. ''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Toerag, I'm not trying to fight with you... but you honestly said a really horrible thing that I couldn't let slide. Don't you see that? I think the excuse that really irritates me the most in this whole situation is the 'lack of training' excuse. So... how is it that without being trained to do these disgusting thing, the soldiers just fell onto it by nature? The argument basically says 'Hey! I was born an awful person!' I think it's interesting that they used a girl as the main scapegoat. My dad, while being disgusted at her actions, also seems to be underthe impression that Rummy is hiding behind the actions of 'a little girl' his daughter's age.I guess my biggest problem with Rumsfeld right now is a matter of accountability. No, it's not his fault, I really don't think he condoned this and probably had no clue what was going on until the story broke... but the point is, he should ahve. It's his job to know things like that, and that's a pretty big thing NOT to know about. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Yea, you have a point...how many girls were involved?...One that I know of...and several guys...it is rediculous..have a good weekend |
||
Ringo 
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Hush- I only have ONE bit of issue to discuss with you. You said that Secretary Rumsfeld should have known what was going on. Breaking away from the priest analogy that is being used elsewhere... Locally, we had a teacher that was verbally abusing the kids, and actually went as far as to pick a fight with a student one day. This teacher shoved the student, and denegraded him in front of the students, and when the student stood up and held his ground, the teacher hit him. Should the County Director of education be held accountable for that ONE teacher's actions? Keep in mind that there are 5 school districts, with an average of 4 schools per district. Put an average of, say, 40 teachers in each school. That makes 800 teachers, plus all of the support staff (secretaries, janitors, aides, nurses, etc.) How is it that the man (actually it's a woman) at the top should be able to know what is going on in that ONE teacher's class room?? The Department Of Defense (as you already know) is much larger. There are 5 branches of the miliraty (the Coast Guard, normally under the Transportation Secretary becomes Defense in times of war), Reserve components, National Guard, Air National Guard, and civilian support staff that he is responsible for on all seven continents. I am not completely sure how many people that is, however it definately in the multiple of millions. How is it that someone who is responsible for that many people, and who is 8 or 9 levels removed from the night shift at one prison should know when fewer than 10 people are screwing up? With that many levels of command, with at least half of them being flag level, and with military action taking place in at least 3 different areas of the world, why should he concern himself with 10 people on one shift at one prison in one of the countries? I feel it is severely unfair, and a little self-serving for everyone to think he should have known what was going on. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Months ago Rumsfield appeared on CBS' 60 minutes. With regards to the capture of Saddam Hussein reporter Lesley Stahl asked whether torture would ever be an option if information wasn not forthcoming. Rumsfield replied: "You know, to even raise the word torture in terms of how the United States military would treat this person seems to me is a unfortunate. We don't torture people and here's a man who has tortured to death tens of thousands of people, conducted rape and brutality the likes of which would be difficult to find a more vicious and brutal dictator in our adult lifetimes. And I just told you he would be treated according to the Geneva Conventions and to suggest that any one would be engaged in torture or conduct inconsistentent with the Geneva Convention seems to me isn't on the mark at all." |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
If you're gonna go the route of holding Rumsfeld responsible for these acts, then you have to hold Bush accountable for them as well. Oh, and if you're going to do that, you have to hold each one of us accountable as well... we elected him. So basically, it's really our fault, right? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ringo- I understand that he's an important man and has a lot on his plate. And I disagree with the people who instantaneously call for him to step down- I think that's sheer partisan politics. However, I don't think your analogy is entirely applicable. First of all, in a school district, I would think that all schools are equally important- that one shouldn't get the bulk of the attention. However, while I admit to having limited knowledge about the military adnd how it works, isn't Iraq our military priority right now? And as such, shouldn't it get the bulk of the defense department's attention? 'Should the County Director of education be held accountable for that ONE teacher's actions?' If the actions had been reported, then yes. It's my understanding that a soldier reported the abuses going one way back in January... and the story is just breaking now. Now, whether that report reached Rumsfeld's level and he didn't see it in there with the multitude of other things going on, or whether the information was poorly passed along, is a good question. But I was watching those hearings they held last week, and when John McCain asked him who was in charge of the interrogations, and what type of orders they were giving, and who was doing the actual interrogating... he couldn't answer the question. At a hearing regarding the matter, he fumbled and stalled for time and finally had to admit that he didn't bring the document with him and didn't know the answer to the question. Why didn't he know about that? It just really seems to me that it's an important thing he should have known. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I totally agree with Christopher's stance that we are all responsible. That, for me, was the main source of pain during this past week. The second most painful thing was listening to the rationalizations of friends and strangers. The only feeling I can accurately pinpoint in my own heart and psyche is shame. It's as if one of my children had grievously erred. And that is all I'm going to say about this subject--but with nods and hugs to C. The only thing to do now is to take that responsibility and make damned sure that something like this never happens again. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Serenity, Thanks. I do feel shame. Regardless of the acts of others, we're not supposed to do such things. Personally, from what little I've been able to gather about the incident, the whole thing strikes me as Dosteyevskian. Specifically, the relationship between Ivan and Smerdyakov in The Brothers Karamazov. I don't recall the exact speech, but Ivan pontificates about the importance of rationalization over and above morality, the sheer necessity and perhaps even justice of the killing of the father, but he never suggests the actual murder of their father. Smerdyakov, thinking that's exactly what was 'ordered', kills Fyodor, the father. I think that's exactly what happened here. No specific orders were probably given except perhaps some general points about the need for humiliation (this point isn't speculation, it follows from many of the other photos from Guantanomo Bay among others), the group of men and women involved took the 'initiative', possibly even in a kind of bull session, determined to follow the 'orders' by their own lights. They filled in the specifics, but honestly felt that it was 'right' even if they also felt, perhaps, that it was wrong. It's no coincidence and no simple PR stunt that the rules of interrogation have been changed. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Civilians discussing matter concerning the military without ever serving in it or having a "first-hand" knowledge of how the chain-of-command works cracks me up. It would be like me, a political science major, discerning which medical procedures are best to use at crucial times or how a doctor should perform his or her duties when the duties performed are intricate to perform. Clueless... indeed. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Opeth? I truly hope that you aren't suggesting that "mere" civilians aren't qualified to interpret the Constitution, or to interpret NATO laws, Geneova Convention???? If that is what you're saying, as a representative of our armed forces, then your reply speaks more a greater concern for the average citizen. That was more than a little bit arrogant. This is a very difficult time for all of us. I've a nephew in Afghanistan. I want him home. And yanno? I'm selfish. Until he is? I'd like to keep things very very quiet...and trust me, my selfish reticence at this time gives me even more to think about. laughing here, okay...um. Nevermind. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
"Opeth?" ~ Yes? "I truly hope that you aren't suggesting that "mere" civilians aren't qualified to interpret the Constitution, or to interpret NATO laws, Geneova Convention????" ~ No. "If that is what you're saying, as a representative of our armed forces, then your reply speaks more a greater concern for the average citizen." ~ It is not what I am saying, so don't be concerned. "That was more than a little bit arrogant." ~ Why is a person arrogant these days, just because they happen to know and have more experience in a specific matter than others? I don't get this. When I was young, and when I talked to a person who knew more about me regarding a specific topic, I never felt him or her to be arrogant... I felt that person to be knowing and listened and learned to what they said. Today is a different type of day. "A bleak garden to cry... when my innamorato died!" |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Today is a different type of day." Yes. That's apparent, now. |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
I guess it is. I guess graduate level classes don't mean anything. I guess vast amounts of experience in a certain profession does not mean anything because what the heck, we are all entitled to our own opinions... not! That would be like me walking into a doctor's locker room and begin to discuss MY opinion on crucial operation matters... and after each doctor explained to me, if they would waste their time to do so, where my errors are... I could say, "I am entitled to my opinion." Sigh "A bleak garden to cry... when my innamorato died!" |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you Opeth, for this example: "That would be like me walking into a doctor's locker room and begin to discuss MY opinion on crucial operation matters... and after each doctor explained to me, if they would waste their time to do so, where my errors are... I could say, "I am entitled to my opinion."" I recently underwent withdrawal from steroid treatment that almost killed me. The expert opinion is that steroid would "arrest" the early development of rheumatoid arthritis. My doctor didn't take the first blood sample before administering mega-doses of a chemical which turns out, has potentially lethal reactions to me. It took me, to say "no, I don't accept this treatment, much less your diagnosis." Good thing I did. I have hepatis C and had I continued his "expert" steroid therapy I would probably be dead. Take that analogy as you wish my friend, but please know that I am not in the position of laying blame. It's all OURS. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Actually, I think Opeth's right. I don't have a clue to the nature of this tit for tat. My guess is that he's conflating knowledge with judgement or speculation with knowledge, or general with specific knowledge, I'm not sure. Knowledge is an aid to judgement, but can never determine it. Otherwise, we'd be robots.  On the other hand, his comment, I think, has or should have a different audience than the one here. It would make perfect sense in a different situation. Though I'm curious: Opeth, 1) Do you think there was a direct order to perpetrate these acts. If so, my post would simply be wrong. 2) Do you think the recent change in interrogation rules was simply a PR stunt? Damage control as they say. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Opeth what exactly is your point? Not on the offensive I'm just not clear what you're arguing against? The military overstepped boundaries laid out by the Geneva Convention amongst other laws and codes of decency? Maybe your point is 'all's fair in war' you do what you have to do to win. But considering many would argue against this being a legitimate war in the first place, that acts like these feed the 'insurgents' idea of occupation not liberation, or the fact that western countries (supposedly) sell and pride themselves as being ethically superior what defense is there for these actions? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you Raph, for asking what exactly is Opeth's point. I was still scratching my head wondering what Brad agreed with... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I was just agreeing that I was clueless. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
grin. y'had me worried there.  |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
The one thing that has me puzzled is the fact that everyone is screaming (not literally, I know) about the US military's lack of adherance to the Geneva Accords. It has been, perhaps, too many years since I attended the training on treatment of prisoners, however, I seem to remember something about those countries that didn't sign the Accords are not afforded the protection they provide. NONE of the Middle East countries, to the best of my knowledge, has ever signed the agreement. It is true that, as Americans, we hold our military to a higher standard of "fair-play" and "compassion", however I find it hard to waste even a half second of my time feeling sorry for the Iraqis who deserved to be there. While we were doing things to mess with them psychologically, and mentally, they were tying our people around the neck to a bridge and throwing them off. We got them naked and took a few pictures and they beheaded a civilian. We restrict our actions to their combatants, and they attack civilian convoys and kill the drivers. We attempt to make life better for their citizens and they slit the throat of a journalist (Dan Pearl). Yes, there were Iraqi soldiers who might not haev deserved to be incarcerated, however if ANY information they gave assisted in the saving of even ONE life of a member of the coalition, then that is the price tht must be paid. IMHO Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
An eye for an eye then? Beautiful, exactly the kind of thinking that causes and will lengthen this 'war'. At what point do we show signs of a civilization? Is it any wonder the world is a toilet. This administration and war hasn't simply divided the opinion of a nation, but it's capacity for reason. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Actually, Raph, I just looked over my lastpost and realized that I did, in fact, give off that impression, and that was not my intention... I understand that there were, and are, Iraqi soldiers/citizens who did not deserve to be in that or any prison. For them, I feel empathetic. I also accept that there are Iraqis who DO deserve to be in there. While I do not believe that "an eye for an eye" is the proper way to behave, as the terrorists are involved in "a body for an eye" mentality. I, as most other Americans, feel that our military should be held to a higher standard due to the fact that the world looks to us to behave in a higher standard. I am also severely angered at what occurred on the night shift at that prison, because the United States IS a signatore of the Geneva Accords. However, I also feel that if the things that were done caused intelligence to extract some little bit of information that was able to save an American life, or one of our allies lives, then I must follow the Jesuit line of thinking that the ends justified the means. (although I do not believe that the soldiers were ordered to do it... it was the isolated actions of a few idiots who were drunk with their own power). The examples I gave were not to suggest "an eye for an eye" rather to explain why I have shed no tears, nor have I spent so much as a thought of regret for what the ones who were in that prison because they truly deserved to be there. I put them into the same category as an inmate in an American prison who killed 40 people because they were home ONLY in the way that they have no reason to complain if they are not treated as model citizens. As far as "at what point", THAT statement makes no sense in my mind. We are building, and equipping schools, we are building and equipping hospitals, we are designing and building a new water system, we are attempting to assist the Iraqis in building a government where people have a say in their how they are governed, we are re-building the infrastructure of that country (even the ones we didn't break), we are fighting the oil fires tht THEY set. Yet, when a very, very small group of people engage in what is basically an isolated incident (no other group of guards at the same prison did anything like that) people ask when we are going to show signs of civilization. I have to agree that the reporting of this war HAS inhibited this country's capacity to reason. That is, IMHO, due to the fact that sensationalism sells and the poular media (most, but not all, of whom are Democratic Liberals) realize that telling a good story will NOT bring in the ratings as much as the bad... and people only know what they see and hear. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Here's what doesn't wash with me. First, calling them terrorists. I'm not condoning their actions, but consider for a moment that in their eyes they are a people attacked and occupied by a foreign nation. They're not terrorizing, but defending. Second, with regards to rebuilding, let's not be as naive to think it's solely a matter of goodwill and compassion, it's industry, with salivating countries and companies competing for contracts. Many of whom have Republican and specifically Bush family links. Let's not forget that Iraq is also paying for the debt of reconstruction with, interestingly enough..oil. My favourite administration quote on the subject the jist of which was 'as Iraq doesn't have the funds repay the debt, out of goodwill we're allowing them to pay back with oil.' Basically an isolated incident by soldiers at that prison? The abuse has been reported outside said prison and not solely in Iraq but Afghanistan. Also civilian abuse and rape have been reported. And lastly, sensationalism by Liberal media? It's not a matter of Liberal versus republican, it's a matter of disgusting conduct. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
But the liberal spin comes into play, Raph, when they elevate these isolated disgusting incidences to an unwarrented level of priority in relation to the larger picture of all the good that is being done. They don't even pay lip service to the flip side of the coin. They aren't putting things in perspective, and it's purely for political reasons in an attempt to diminish the current administration in the eyes of the voting public. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
If pushing someone with a rope around their neck is not a terrorist act, then I have a challenge figuring out what is. If killing women who are showing up to work for the IRAQI government is not terrorism, can you please tell me what is? What about attacking a civilian convoy with supplies for the health and well being of your fellow citizens is not terrorism, then I am stumped. The Iraqi soldiers that have not commited acts of terror have been released back into the world. Those that are left haev committed such acts of terrorism... that, by definition, makes them terrorists. It is also naive to think that it is solely a matter of industry... although it does seem kind of self-serving that the three countries that screamed the loudest about us being there (and had illegal ties to the Hussein regime) are the first ones to put out a glad hand. And what would you have them do to repay the debt? If it is THEIR country that we are re-building, then they should have a hand in the cost of such. And before anyone mentions us doing it out of the kindness of our hearts, the ONLY time that I can recall hearing about where a country was not required by the United States to pay back their war debt was WWI Germany, where all of the Allied Powers were demanding severe reparations and ther US offered to help them pay it. Yes, it was disgusting behavior, however that brings up a question (as most statements do): This was known about in the early part of this year... now, all of a sudden, when Kerry is gaining slightly on Bush in the polls, the scandal breaks, and everything else happens... perhaps it is pure coincidence, however it just seems a little strange... My opinion, though... and I don't try to share them with anyone. To answer a few things that I noticed earlier in this thread... Janet Marie... American military personnel have ALWAYS been held acountable for their own actions... regardless about what might be mentioned by some website, there WERE reprecussions in all of the cases that were listed on that link you placed. In Tailhook, there were 14 Admirals and almost 300 Navy and Marine aviator carrers completly ruined. In most cases, those involved were involuntarily separated, or were denied promotions that eventually ended their careers. Every officer who was up for a promotion board was asked if their CO or anyone in their chain of command was involved in the tailhook incident, those individuals were, in most cases denied promotion because they might have been tainted. This is not something I made up... it was reported on a PBS special about the incident. With Aberdeen... according to the Colorado Springs Gazzette, six officers were court-martialed in that case. Jet Magazine reported that Sgt Maj. McKinney was demoted, and removed from his position because of the conviction of the scandal. And while everyone is complaining about the "unfairness" of the trial, it took the jury 20 hours to come up with their verdicts and there were women on the panel. and it was the jury panel that decided the punishment. Not the President of the Court. The military DOES hold it's people accountable for their actions. You might think that losing rank or being involuntarily separated is a nothing crime, however it is the ulitmate punishment for any officer. That is something that I do not expect civilian to understand, however the destruction of a career is the worst thing you can do to someone in the military. Raph- you brought up the name My Lai, and I was honestly waiting for it to show its ugly head. Lt. Calley was put on trial, convicted and sent to life in prison, with a loss of all rank, pay and priveledges a full two months before the story made the papers. The reason the government "passed it off" on Lt. Calley is because he was the commanding officer that ordered the killings. Goldenrose- The desire to have UN troops in Iraq was a spoken goal from the beginning of the fighting. This is not something new that the US has decided to use to make points with the public. It was being announced as early as April of last year. As for your take that there should be no wars ever.. I would defy you to find a member of the military that doesn't agree with you 100%... ESPECIALLY the ones who have smelled the gun powder. An old Marine Corps recruiting slogan was: No one wants to fight... Somebody has to know how. If the United States Marines, who ahve an historical reputation for being blood-thirsty killers don't want to fight... well, anyhow. I understand that I am bringing up "old news" however, I wanted to present the "other truth" about these issues. I also stand with Goldenrose in stating that this is the way I see things. I welcome anyone to their own views. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I don't understand how anyone can justify the unjustifiable. Isolated incident? As if that somehow makes it better? Someone's daughter will be murdered on the street somewhere tonight, and that too is an isolated incident. It will remain isolated for most people until it happens to their daughter or wife or mother. Then it will hurt like hell. People have been hurt, laws have been broken, and no matter how much irrelevant and meaningless sugar you sprinkle on top of dirt it's still dirt. I fervently pray the reprehensible can never be justified. Because if it is, we are all sorely lessened. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise what is unwarranted? Reporting the truth? This 'liberal' media is the same media who initially supported the administration war on terrorism and lynched many opposing voices early on, for example the railroading of Bill Maher. As for the 'good being done' that is thusfar debatable. Ringo: ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm) n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons If your going to label them terrorists then by definition the unlawful coalition offensive is in fact an act of terrorism. As is the abuse of both prisoners and civilians. The Iraqis themselves aren't attempting to intimidate society or their government, but occupying forces. They are militants attempting to defend their cause. Their means are no less deplorable and are crimes of humanity and war but not terrorist attacks. quote: It would be naive indeed, but I never for a moment suggested it was. I simply said it was not solely a matter of compassion. Of course there is a compassionate element and many non-profit and religious groups are assisting. quote: But why are they rebuilding? Because they've been devasted by a war and attack, one that was never asked for by the people of Iraq. It's like me cutting your hair in the middle of the night and then charging you for a styling. If they have to repay there will eventually be finances but it will take time. quote: The only reason you're seeing such a swift and strong display of accountability is media coverage and damage control for PR. The attrocities JM posted, the My Lai incident, or statistics on the military's handling of spousal abuse, off and on base violence, will give you a better idea of how well, and just how long it takes before accountabilty takes place. As for My Lai Ringo, read about Hugh Thompson's plight to do the right thing and how he was treated by that military and something the soldiers blowing the whistle on the Iraq abuses may have to face: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/60minutes/main615997.shtml You make the accountability and punishment sound noble, but is it really when it's only after a cover-up uncovered that begrudged admissions are offered? Thank God for the soldiers who did the right thing in not participating and reporting this and thank god for the media for making it public. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I have been hearing about this "unlawful" or "illegal" coalition for over a year... mostly be people who are opposing the war, yet have not seen anyone offer to show proof that it was. If you can do so, I would be willing to check it out and more consider your viewpoint. It is very doubtful that it would change my thoughts on the situation, however I am willing to look at evidence on both sides. Also, using your own definition, are these (and again I will say it) Terrorists not looking to coerce the people of the world and to intimidate the people they are opposing? Certainly be-heading a civilian is the use of violence by an organized group with the intention of intimidating the other civilians who are there (NONE of whom are in a combat capacity), and to coerce the American people to react against their government for the political reason of getting the Americans out of Iraq before the job is finished? No, it isn't THEIR society they are attempting to influence, but OURS. Quite possibly the kidnapping of Japanese newspaper reporters and the threat of burning them alive to get the Japanese troops out falls into that line of thought. Or how about killing Iraqi women who are lining up for work at a government office. Isn't that being done to intimidate the Iraqi people? By giving us a definition, you have proven my point. As for the prisoners, the actions taken against them were not to intimidate or coerce a society, or a government for ideological or political reasons. If you believe that the guards acted alone without any orders from a higher authority, then it was a bunch of people being stupid and drunk with their own power having "fun" (and I use that term to show how stupid it is)... No political or ideological changes there.They hated us then, they hate us now. If you believe, as the defendants would have you believe, that it was ordered from the chain of command to extract information, then- again- no ideological or political points to be made. Using your own definition, then, the acts against the prisoners, regardless of how tasteless and... well, I an not permitted to use the words that come to mind, however I am sure you get the idea... anyhow, those acts were not terrorism. As for the Iraqis not asking for the war... The people of Finland, Hungary, and Romania did not want war during War II, however each was required to make good for $300,000,000 each to the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, it is part of the political "game" and the cost of war. Also, It has been reported that the Iraqis will be given up to 100 years to repay the war debt. Considering the ONLY country to have ever fully repaid their war debt to the US is Finland, from War One, I don't see that they will ever pay anything. Again, with Lt. Calley: I have absolutely no clue as to how that fits into your statement about accountability occurring ONLY after the offence being uncovered, or about how "long" it takes before the military reacts to a situation. He was charged and sent to Court September of 69... the first news reporter sniffed out the assault on Son My (the villiage where the assault took place) in November. With the Prison "cover-up", the military sent a general (I don't recall his name at the moment, however he was the first Phillipino to make it to the rank of General) to the prison to check things out, and he was back in the United States with a full report that he gave to the Senate AND the House committees. A full scale investigation that allows for the type of detail that this general had for his testimony before both committees takes more than the few weeks between the media splashing it all over the airwaves and the legislative branch being able to get the papers together to have the hearings. He was "in-country" starting the investigation BEFORE the media got wind of it. It seems to me that the facts in these cases at least bear out my thoughts in this part of the discussion. I will concede the article on Hugh Thompson due to the fact that my computer refuses to load the page, for some reason, and I am not going to debate a case when I am not able to see the case the opposition is presenting. Also, I can tell you from experience (I was a material witness in a summary court) a court-martial takes just as long as a "regular" civilian trial to get together, and to allow each side to gather and form their respective cases. I was providing depositions and evidence to the lawyers a full three months before court in a simple motorcycle theft. The first court-martial is being held next week in the prison case. These Courts-martial were in motion before the media got wind of it. Punishment and accountability is not noble, unless the accused cops to the crime and accepts whatever recourse without argument. The actions are not noble, only the fact that the accused knows he/she is guilty, and is willing to accept the responsibility for his/her actions. IN all of the cases discussed in this thread, from My Lai to Aberdeen, to Tailhook, to Iraq, NONE of the punishments, or accused being held accountable was noble, as they were forced to do so. I will join you in your prayers for the soldiers who chose not to participate andwho chose to do what they could to end the abuse. As for the press, I feel that there are certain things that shuld not be reported, as they make it more difficult for the Americans who are left behind who are required to interact with the Iraqi citzens on a daily basis. It puts their lives at risk, because many of them are going to feel as many protesters at home do, that this is the norm of behavior rather than the very poor exception, and it puts American lives at risk... and there is nothing more going to happen that wasn't going to happen without it being reported. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... http://www.cmlb.net/ringo |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
As i said in my post earlier...Hans Blix said that the war in Iraq was illegal...he said this because the SOLE reason for going to war in Iraq was because they have weapons of mass destruction.My country voted on weather to go to war in the first place based on the so called inteligence reports of weapons of mass destruction in iraq and the threat to the UK. Blair won that vote by a small margin so he comitted soldiers to Iraq and blindly followed Bush and co into war.Why is it now that the media over here are already gearing up for Blair's resignation?Because he knew that the war was illegal, because no weapons of mass destruction were found, so it totally negated going to war in the first place...there WAS no threat....that is what Blix had said all along..as the head of the UN weapons inspection team...he knew there was nothing there...THAT is why it was illegal..the coalition forces were using it as i pretence....just to get into the country in the first place. Now people in the UK are saying that if Balir is in charge at the next election over here he will LOSE..because of his refusal to stand up to Bush and tell him he was wrong. One other thing that occurs to me is that if this torture situation was in reverse, how would american people react to the discusting behaviour by Iraqi's?...i think that most people can answer that question....do unto others as they do unto you...treat them with respect and gain the respect of the free world....at this point they have no honour or respect and they trawl genuine caring americans through the mire..that is the saddest thing...they have let all of you caring americans down. But like i said all this would NEVER have happened if the soldiers were not sent in illegally...and i agree with Raph...on his terrorist stance too... Maybe one day Britain and America will learn to just stay within their own borders..and not try to interfere with forein countries who dont need their help.... Peace and love to the world.... Have a great summer to all.... Goldenrose. ''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Well it's fairly obvious, the UN said don't attack, the coalition went against the UN. Illegal action. quote: No, they're trying to defend and drive you out of their illegally occupied country by any means necessary. It's defense and a counterattack. Again i'm not condoning their actions but if you're going to define them as terrorists then apply the same label to the coalition. Either label it all acts of war or label it all acts of terrorism. quote: You're in their country, trying to change their government, trying to bend their will to suit that purpose and your vision of what Iraq should be. quote: The Soviet Union was helping it's allies post war, it wasn't the cause of the damage, and those countries certainly owed a debt to the USSR. Now consider had Germany and it's allies, causing the damage in the attack and occupation, demanded a debt for rebuilding would you find that just? As for the My Lai massacre, it occured on March 16, 1968. A year later Ronald Ridenhour, a former GI, composed a letter detailing the My Lai massacre and sent it to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. It was only then, under pressure and fear of the story leaking, that the military launched an investigation. Over a year after the massacre. The investigation began in June and Calley was charged with offenses in September. ONLY after the story leaked to the US public did the Pentagon and the Army's Criminal Investigation Division launch a deeper investigation. Out of 25 officers and high ranking officials charged with murder, rape and cover up, ONLY Calley's charges stood. As for Calley he only served 4 years of a life sentence. Justice? Accountability? Hardly Ringo. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
I don't know of one...not one case where Rumsfeld has tortured a single person?..I know that I've had as many as 80 people working for me, and God help anyone that would accuse me of being responsible for their "self decisive" antics....should I resign for what they took upon themselves to do?..Should I resign or be responsible for what their immediate supervisors instructed them to do?...A zillion miles away?..I think not...and if fact be known, we should do what Gen. Black Jack Pershing did and stop alot of this terrorism all together...furthermore, and don't take me wrong...what these idiots did was wrong, I have no doubt, why they've decided to make this one gal a publicized scapegoat I don't know, but I would not do anything that I knew to be inhumane unless it would save the lives of my fellow soldiers, and, I did much worse, not to captives, but to the enemy...and unless you've been there, you have no idea what it's like...the whole thing's a mess, and in my opinion, the worst is yet to come....and by the worst, in my opinion...not for the Iraqi prisoners that are captive, but for the poor Americans that are held captive because of this atrocity...... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I've been there, Toe. And I know what it's like. Sadly, I've also had to learn what it's like to see the things I fought to preserve cast aside. Those who would "do anything" to save the lives of fellow soldiers mock over two hundred year's of sacrifice by those who refused to believe "anything" should be allowed. They believed the enemy could be defeated without first becoming the enemy. They offered their lives to that end, and if I could save one of them today, at the cost of my country's honor and humanity, I really don't think they would thank me. Life is precious. But there are thousands upon thousands of dead warriors in our history who knew it isn't the most precious thing we risk in war. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Calling for things to be put in their proper perspective is not an attempt at justifying the unjustifiable, Ron. I am not justifying the prison incidences or attempting to diminish the gravity of them because they were isolated incidences. What I am attempting to explain is that perspective is lacking in the media coverage and lacking in the rhetoric of the liberal politicians in light of the enormous good being done and good conduct of the vast majority of our armed forces, that does not make the headlines, and in light of the lack of moral outrage at far worse atrocities committed by the Islamists. Raph, the mainstream media long ago abandoned reporting, sad to say. They do spin some fanciful yarns, though. As for the U.N., it is not a governing authority over Sovereign nations, despite their posturing as such. They are not an elected body answerable to those they wish to govern (and tax) and not gaining their approval does not necessarily make something illegal. And how many of their voting membership were discovered to have had clandestine economic ties to Saddam and his regime? I suppose that didn't sway the outcome of their vote not to give their stamp of approval to the war? Perhaps they knew that war would destroy the "deal they had made with the devil". It sure explains why they did absolutely nothing for the previous 12 years, despite all the resolutions that they passed. Goldenrose, WMD's have been found in Iraq. A stockpile of long rage missles and drones banned by the cease-fire agreement were found shortly after the war began, as well as test strains of biological material under the sink in the home of one of the scientists. Last week some Al Qaida were arrested in Jordan with large quantities of VX nerve gas, quantities too large to have been manufactured in Syria based on its current capabilities and it is therefore suspected that it was probably obtained in Syria after it had been transferred to Syria by Saddam just prior to the war, since the quantities are in keeping with Iraq's production capabilities at the time. And just today Sarin gas was discovered in an explosive device that went off in Iraq, as well as a stockpile of drums of mustard gas last week or the week before. We don't have to have the situation reversed for us to know how we would feel about the prison humiliation situation. Far worse has already been done to coalition forces and civilians, like being burned and hanged, throat slashings and having heads sawn off. (Honestly, whose prisoner would you rather be if you were a prisoner of war?) Let's hear some outrage and moral indignation over these things against the perpetrators of those actions, at least as much as we are hearing over the prison mistreatments. As terrible and unacceptable as the treatment of those in the prison situation, it pales in comparison to the atrocities suffered at the hands of the Islamists. Not something I'd categorize as an 'eye for an eye' scenario. If that were our mentality, we'd be burning, slashing, and sawing too. And Opeth, in answer to your question in the deleted thread, I did hear Shawn Hannity talking about the discoveries of WMD's that had not been reported by the mainstream media. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise: quote: No doubt, but a mainstream 'liberal' slant was mentioned, as if there isn't a mainstream conservative voice equally slanted that supports Bush. With regards to the UN, when it served you and checked other nations from expansion and war it was a great institution. The moment it disagreed with coalition plans for attack, it was a failure and undermined. Before speaking of deals with the devil, look into the Bush families ties with the Bin Laden family or their ties that have profited from this war. As for WMDs they found plans. Drones were found but there were no stockpiles of long range missles but "Plans and advanced design work" for them. Plants suitable for their construction, fuel propellent and chemical agents were also found but while they are, no doubt, failures to comply with UN resolutions, there have been no actual weapons of mass destruction. Nothing found that would pose the significant and immediate threat to the US or it's allies, that the administration pushed to start the war. This discovery, incidentely, is were some of my favourite spin doctoring took place. Where Bush announced that it was weapons plans not weapons the US had always been after. Beautifully Orwellian. quote: Except that the atrocities were not limited to the prison(example the helicopter crew firing on wounded men another Geneva violation) and unto civilians as well. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Denise, you're stirring in large dollops of completely irrelevant sugar in hopes it will mask the taste of the medicine. Trouble is, this particular medicine loses its potency when made to taste palatable. If it doesn't leave a vile, bitter, burning taste in your mouth, the sickness will only spread. quote: You've missed the point entirely, Denise. The victims of this aren't just those immediately humiliated and hurt, and we shouldn't need to pity them to express outrage at the atrocity. How many Germans do you think justified their treatment of Jews with similar arguments? How many Americans do you think died so that would end? Those responsible here didn't just hurt a few foreigners. They have snubbed their collective noses at every person who ever wore an American uniform and spit in the face of every mother and father who proudly watched their son or daughter stand in defense of our country. Far worse has been done? Don't kid yourself, Denise. The worst pain can only come from those you loved and trusted. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Thank you Ron, for yet again, saying so eloquently the things I seem to be unable to express. This incident truly hurt, and to feel "dismissed" because I have no experience in the military or wartime behaviors doubles that pain. I've lost a lot of faith, and the condescension of those who have served our country (and continue to serve) has done nothing to replace that faith. Your calm assessments and open-mindedness does help me. I was beginning to think that the veterans of our armed forces would also like to revoke my right to vote, because, after all, I truly couldn't comprehend the facts of world affairs having never been there. Thank you. I managed to read in this thread without my blood boiling over. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
BTW Denise, I find your comment 'at the hands of Islamists' disturbing. You link their religion with their attrocities but I don't read a link between coalition beliefs with theirs. One could see it as an example of western/christian self-righteousness. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (05-18-2004 12:13 AM).] |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Denise described doing deals with the devil...well i would have thought that selling Saddam Hussein chemical weapons BEFORE he became an enemy of coalition forces was doing EXACTLY that...who was it that sold him these weapons...hmmmm ..if my memory is correct that would be Rumsfeld..but hey at least he used the weapons on the Iranian's and Kurds. As for the Syria situation with WMD...is that where the war will be taken next?...Why not...?....Then it will be like finding the needle in the heystack..going from county to country in the middle east..alienating other arab nations and making things worse.. in the vain hope of finding the WMD's...War was illegal..British and american soldiers lost their life on a ''Lie''..as quoted by a fellow american at the Cannes film festival..yes you guessed it... Michael Moore...and i think that i believe him... Peace to the world..no more wars... Have good day... Goldenrose. ''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies. |
||
|
Craw Member
since 2003-09-11
Posts 73Scotland |
Exactly right. The point I made in a previous thread that disappeared into the ether was that at the very core of this problem about justifying US and British activities in Iraq is the level of hypocrisy involved. Both Britain and the US supported Saddam Hussein and, in fact, armed him when we thought the big bogey man in the region was Iran. How much did we care then about what happened to the Kurds in Iraq? Now suddenly we're pretending that the war was fought for 'moral' values, yet that is clearly a lie and is seen as such by the rest of the world. If we cared a jot about the Kurds we would be pursuing the Turks for their appalling record of persecuting the Kurds in Turkey and the border with iraq. But we don't because Turkey is a member of NATO and a member of the coalition against Saddam and therefore one of the good guys. To justify our policies in Iraq involve scores of these mind-boggling contortions of logic and should, if we've any sense at all, continue to throw up questions such as: Q: If we're really bothered about human rights issues why don't we invade North Korea and China? A: Cos they really have weapons of mass destruction while we knew Saddam was an easy touch who didn't have any. Q: If we're worried about nations in the middle east who have vast and illegal stocks of weapons of mass destruction as well as a hugely dubious record of human rights in its illegally occupied territories, why don't we take on Israel? A: Cos it's a friend. And, when it comes down to it, we don't let petty matters like morality or human rights get in the way of advantageous political relationships. The whole of our political history aside (For instance, the British gassed the Kurds before Saddam was born)these questions comprise part of why our attempts to justify ourselves in Iraq are looked on with total scepticism by the rest of the world and why the US and Britain are objects of hate and ridicule. This is the context in which we must see prisoner abuse: it simply confirms to many people that we talk morality while practising the only thing we've ever been any good at: intimidation. |
||
|
Mysteria
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328British Columbia, Canada |
quote:Sitting up in Canada as a neighbour of the United States - this is what scares the hell out of me personally. I am not able to give an opinion one way or the other about the contents of this thread, as I have never been held captive, nor have I been a soldier in any war so my experience of wars is limited to what I feel. I do know one thing for sure, this war makes me feel sick. I am hoping others will be feeling just as sick too, and put an end to it, at least this war, this time. I wondered too, if Americans were worried about another draft? Then maybe just then, it would be enough to stop it? The one thing that impresses me most about the States is the sincere patriotism display and talked about down there. I respect those who uphold it, and fight for the freedom I think of when I think United States of America. What happened in this war to the prisoners has happened over and over in many wars, and certainly it doesn't make it right. I can still hear some draft dodgers in my mom's kitchen telling us all of their encounters in Viet Nam, and I have to tell you that what I heard from those young men I never forgot. From that point on, I just assumed everyone lost their sanity somewhat in any war. It still doesn't make it right, but to me, I try to understand it and the circumstances. How can I possibly judge having not been there? I came from Winnipeg, from a mainly Jewish community, and many of my friends were Jewish, so when I heard their stories those also made my stomach turn a bit. It amazed me but somehow they forgave the Germans, but as I was told, they will never forget they said. The look on the Gramma's face when this subject came up actually used to make me cry as a teen. Sorry to intrude on the thread without the greatest knowledge on the subject, but I have so many feelings just reading what each of you write. I have to tell you I do pray for everyone, and all nationalities in any war, as I could be so wrong, but when a country's traditons, beliefs, and way of life is treatened, and they fight, I have to wonder who the villian really is? Throughout history wars have seemed necessary, but I guess I am a peacemaker at heart, and don't "get" world economics. Does anybody take responsibility anymore, well I sure as hell hope so. The greatest thing about a democracy is you can vote! Peace! |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Ron, in all due respect...(cuz anyone that saw anything near what I saw is due respect), but I doubt you witnessed what I did...or your reply wouldn't have mentioned "mockery"....I'll just say this Ron, I am positive you didn't do what I had to do, under orders, in places we weren't in....LOL...or you wouldn't mutter that insult....and, I doubt you meant it as an insult....but, I did, and would do again, ANYTHING that was necessary to free or save American lives....and was thanked by literally dozens....and by vets when I got back when Vietnam wasn't popular....I still know the name of every person in my "little group"...one of very few "little groups" that had to do what we did....I remember EVERY NAME, and, every name of the ones that didn't come home....I have nightmares nearly every night, not only from what I did, but what I couldn't do, and believe me Ron, I'm sure you're a proud vet...but you have no idea what some of us had to do and why we HAD to do it....speak from experience Ron, you should be proud to, but don't speak of things you don't know...and believe me, you don't know all, most don't....as I'm sure I don't....I took no offense, honestly, but I know things not many people do know...and wish I didn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Toe? With all due respect to you, and as you know, with the utmost affection as well--I realize that I will never know what you feel. I've said those same words to others, about things that I've encountered in my life too. Perhaps it's a sorry analogy, but let me try this. I can say to others, "you will never know what it is like to be an abusive relationship until you've been there." I can say it and mean that. But I also know, that just because I understand the experience of it, doesn't mean I'm the best the judge of how to resolve it. Sometimes it takes a bit of distance to judge the insanity of a situation, because, as is evident by the topic of this thread, our rational mind becomes tainted just by virtue of belonging to the actual experience. I'm sure you didn't mean to diminish my feelings, or anyone else's. Nor did I (or, I believe, anyone else) intend to diminish yours. I'd still like to believe we're all in this together, all of us responsible for what happened, which makes all of us responsible to correct it. Peace.  |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Yep Serenity...we're all in this together..just hopefully it will be a "wise" majority that leads this country to a decent and wise end....I take no offense to anyone's opinion, though it may not show on these posts....that's why I'd rather just stay away from these topics..don't know why the hell I came over here?....LOL..take care sweets... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Maybe someday, Toe, we can surprise each over a few cold beers. You might be the first to hear my story, and one of very few to even hear my MOS. But I can assure you that what happened to me, or whatever happened to you, would make no difference in how I feel today. Those who value life over liberty deserve neither, and anyone who saved my life at the cost of what I fought for will receive only my spite. If our ideals aren't worth my life, then they were never worth the lives of our friends either. That, my friend, would be unacceptable. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, if you go back and read Bush's statement prior to the war, he did not say there was an immediate threat. He said that we can't wait until the threat becomes imminent. As for the mainstream media...it is liberal. There is no such thing as a conservative mainstream media. As for calling the terrorists Islamists, well, I'm just calling them what they are. Not all adherents of Islam are Islamists. An Islamist is a person of the Islamic faith who believes in any means necessary to advance their violent version of Islam. I'm not the one linking their religion with their violent actions. They are the ones who have done that. And it doesn't surprise me that some could see it as an example of western/christian self-righteousness. They'd be wrong, though. Goldenrose, Yeah, in hindsight it was not the smartest thing to sell any weapons to Saddam, but hindsight is wisdom that comes after the fact. Iran was our biggest problem back then and we had no way of knowing that Saddam would turn the weapons on his own people and a neighboring country. And you really have to stop listening to Michael Moore. He really is an idiot.  No, you're misunderstanding me, Ron. I am not condoning or diminishing what has been done, nor dismissing it. It is a disgrace on all of us. But I doubt that there has ever been a war without some members of the military behaving disgracefully and dishonorably. There will always be the bad apples in the military, just as there are in society at large. No one can be naive enough to believe that every member of our military will always behave in an honorable fashion. Recognizing that inevitability is not condoning it or dismissing it. We deal with it when it surfaces. And they will pay the consequences, as they should. That is what defines us, as a nation, as honorable...how we deal with those who have disgraced our honor, not the fact that there are dishonorable members among us. My point is that this is being used as a political football in an attempt to discredit the current administration by the political hypocrites who discriminately manufacture moral outrage when it suits their political aims. Other than that, moral outrage is a foreign concept to them. And their lack of moral outrage concerning the atrocities being perpetrated against our military and civilians speaks volumes to me. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron....I'm not invited for the beers??? I have a few antidotes to throw in... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Semantics.. quote: There are no conservatively slanted newspapers and outlets? LOL thanks, it's been a rough day I needed that. quote: I don't think in the case of Iraqis, that its a matter of their faith or advancing their version of Islam, but of trying to get occupiers out of their country. But if you do believe this then the armies that currently occupy and change the land of the Islamists are mostly christians. Shall we call this a crusade then? As for Michael Moore being an idiot, he's not. I admit he does have a tendency to exaggerate and slant his information but there are truths in what he says. There are ties and links and they're well known with regards to Bush family and republican interests and contracting/profits. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, How is it semantics when what the President actually said is just the opposite of what you and others claim he has said? Sure there are conservative news outlets (thank God!), I never said that there weren't, but they sure as hell aren't the mainstream. Your rough day probably explains why you didn't actually read what I wrote. But it's good that you got a good laugh out of it! The majority of those causing the current violence in Iraq are not Iraqis, they are those with Al Qaida ties who have flooded into the region from surrounding countries, attempting to get us to give up and go home, (they haven't learned yet that Bush is not Clinton...slow learners) thus ensuring that Iraq does not become a free self-governing democratic society. No, I wouldn't call it a crusade, but I have heard that...in the mainstream media! The best liars in the world lace their rhetoric with little tidbits of truth, otherwise nobody would ever believe them at all. If more people gave heed to Michael Moore, I'd call him a dangerous idiot. But as it stands, he's just an average idiot, in my opinion. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Perhaps semantics isn't the proper word. If "what the president said" doesn't equate with the facts of what occurred, I do believe we can advance to calling that LIES. But yes, I too, wait, to weigh the facts. Anybody know where we can get some?  |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Goldenrose- When Saddam Hussein came to power (you want to talk illegal and violent... read HIS story) in 1979, Donald Rumsfeld was the CEO for a pharmesudical company, and had been since 1977. He remained in the business world until 1993. Since the US didn't sell Hussein any weapons until 1979 when Secretary Rumsfeld was out of politics, and stopped selling them to him in the late 80's when Secretary Rumsfeld was still in the corporate business world... WHEN did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld sell even ONE weapon to Saddam Hussein?? Secretary Rumsfeld didn't sell Saddam Hussein so much as a sqirt gun. It is true that the US sold the weapons to him, HOWEVER that was a long dead presidency that had done so. Blaming Rumsfeld for selling weapons is akin to blaming Chancellor Schroeder for mistreating the Jews in Nazi Germany, or blaming Mikhail Fradkov for the Walker Spy ring. Both occurred under a past era that the present administration has nothing to do with. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... http://www.cmlb.net/ringo |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Did someone mention beer?..Hey Ron, for God's sake invite Balladeer, he can buy... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise: Karen's right, my first choice of words would have been edited. My second choice would have been the Orwellian doublethink or it's relative doublespeak. Why use semantics? Look beyond the first speech. Over the course of months leading to the final declaration of war there was a subtle, and not so subtle manipulation of words (leading to often contradictory statements within the administration) which created a dread sense of urgency to a looming Iraqi threat. A sense that allowed many to justify, at least initially, the need to steamroll over the UN and into action. quote: No the laugh came at the fine example of reflex Partisan thinking dividing your nation. On the one hand the Democrats are screaming that the media is TOO conservative, while the Conservatives are claiming it's TOO Liberal! As for liberal, it's not surprising many conservatives might think so. Afterall, even conservative wasn't conservative enough for some, Enter the Neo-Cons. quote: According to whom? The liberal media reports or Bush intelligence(now there's an oxymoron). You're right this isn't Clinton, Clinton was diplomatic, intelligent and a great speaker. quote: I also seem to recall someone else using that word...George Bush! quote: I completely agree, the dangerous idiots are the administration and thinking that's lead to this war. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Toe, Ron, Balladeer? I'm the youngest I'll buy the first round. Cheers. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sounds good to me, Aenimal. I'll have a Busch!!  |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
ROFL, who'd have thunk it? |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Denise....Michael Moore is a man who gets under the skin of average americans because he tells them truths they dont want to hear... As for Rumsfeld not selling chemical weapons he went and met Hussein IN PERSON..that is a well known fact over in europe...but then again i dont excpect people in america to beleive it...since they are spoon fed everything they have to know...and censored at every step by the republican owned media...the news teams in america just dare not tell people what is actually going on they might lose the next election,if the people really knew.... But hey i just live in a country that has a leader that blindly follows Bush.... Peace and love Goldenrose. ''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness''- Dalai Lama [This message has been edited by Goldenrose (05-20-2004 05:43 AM).] |
||
|
Craw Member
since 2003-09-11
Posts 73Scotland |
Oh well folks, Another 19 Palestinians killed by Israeli tank shells and helicopters, 6 of them children and an Iraqi wedding party obliterated by an American helicopter gunship killing four chidren under the age of 10, beheading one of them. Just one more ordinary day in the brave fight for democracy in the middle east. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Aenimal....(Balladeer has a dozen Platinum cards...and drinks cheap beer)...But did pick a "brand Name"...the libs would say Bush drinks oil....Kerry's Suv DRINKS oil, while hauling ketchup and he drinks Billy beer...but, since you're the youngster, (Who you calling old anyway?)...you can buy the first round fersure...yall have a good day now .....ya hear? |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Craw....Pamphets have been dropped over 115 times, thru out Iraq, broadcasts almost daily, over Iraqi TV and radio, Iraqi troops/police have spread documentation almost daily since the occupation....TURN IN YOUR WEAPONS...DO NOT CELEBRATE REUNIONS AND WEDDING PARTIES WITH GUNFIRE, IF MISTAKEN FOR OFFENSIVE AGRESSION TOWARD COALITION OR IRAQI POLICE, THERE IS EXTREME DANGER IN RETURN FIRE....Does this make this an excuse...does this lessen the terror and terrible result?..Not by any means...but, until this war is over, and until soldiers from ANY nation, including Iraqi police do not have to be concerned with being fired upon,,,it's a fact that this can and probably will happen......sad situation....but if YOU were a soldier, from any nation, not just the U.S., and, with the ambushing, suicidal attempts, boobie traps and being fired upon at an almost hourly rate....it can happen and will.... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
.....and. of course, the fact that there was a large amount of cash uncovered, along with weapons and radio equipment in this wedding held almost 80 miles from civilization, Toerag...but who wants to take that into consideration? Who cares that the terrorists commonly use women and children as shields....forget all that. It's easier just to quote headlines. ...and let's give thanks to Goldenrose for enlightening us as to how America really works. We just live here while I'm sure he must have a wealth of inteligent data at his command to show such expertise... |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Balladeer, do you remember the Hanoi trail?....Our kind hearted President Johnson wouldn't allow us to attack their supply lines, not even fire back because the 'Cong would use women and children as human shields.....war is hell....but, then it was more hell on the U.S....I just don't understand so many people's perspective...I know the liberal media makes things sound like we are animals....(Please do not interpret this wrongly Aenimal)....LOL..but ya have to be there...ya just have to be there to know...I know Ron's explanation and opinion...but, if you were a POW, under circumstances and torture unheard of, not like the crap our very few soldiers have done to Iraqi's...I wonder if anyone would be "spiteful" if they were freed or saved under any circumstance? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Well Deer one could also assume monies recovered were gifts (bride/grooms recieve envelopes of money), firing of weapons is a known part of arab tradition, and the radio equipment might have been DJ/show equipment. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that's what it was, I'm waiting for specifics. Toe I know what you're saying about being there, I do, but there are limits. You can't apply that to the Abhu Ghraib prison abuses, you can't apply it to soldiers forcing female citizens to bare their breasts, and you can't apply it to soldiers getting children to pose with posters that say SGT. so and so killed my parents. This latest incident with the wedding party, I understand. But the rest, no excuses. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Aenimal...I'm not making excuses for any of that crap...That's exactly what it is and shouldn't be tolerated......I agree whole heartedly.....I'm referring to entirely different things..think that's where the misunderstanding is coming from.. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
No I know what you meant Toe. I'm just specifying what it is I'm arguing against. There may be some misinterprations about me so let me clarify I'm not completely anti-military and I'm not completely anti-conservative. I'm anti-BS and anti-partisanship. I'm also anti-Busch..ugh who drinks that? Tell you what I'll bring down a case of Labatt Ice, higher alchohol content, which considering some of our past frictions, is an absolute neccessity. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
As for Rumsfeld not selling chemical weapons he went and met Hussein IN PERSON..that is a well known fact over in europe...but then again i dont excpect people in america to beleive it...since they are spoon fed everything they have to know...and censored at every step by the republican owned media...the news teams in america just dare not tell people what is actually going on they might lose the next election,if the people really knew.... Would you people make up my mind??????? FIRST we have people saying that the news media is telling the truth about the Bush administration, and America needs to know the truth... THEN we are told that Michael Moore is telling the truth about the Bush administration... yet,somehow, the news media that is telling the truth about the Bush administration is conservatively owned and hiding the truth from the Americans... Can they do that and still hide the truth from us?? And, geez... where is Michael Moore durinig all of thes?? If he is telling the TRUTH about all of what is going on, then WHERE IN THE NAME OF THOR'S HOLY HAMMER IS HE DURING THIS??????? Why hasn't he splashed this bit of information about Rumsfeld selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein all over the news? And since the President's administration is under fire for the Prison scandal, why aren't the Democrats slamming this all over the news in another attempt to drop President Bush's popularity rating even further, so their candidate can surge ahead in the polls??? Oh, I apologize... when was this supposed to have happened??? Perhaps it was while he was the CEO of G.D. Searle & Co, a pharmaceutical company...??? Maybe, it was while he was the CEO of General Instrument Corporation, a leader in broadband transmission, distribution, and access control technologies... If it wasn't then, perhaps it was while he was CEO of Gilead Sciences, Inc., a pharmaceutical company... Actually, I have another thought that has literally just occurred to me while I was typing this... Why haven't the French, or the Russians, or the Anti-Bush/Anti-Blair/Anti-War personnel in Europe started screaming about this??? If it is such common knowledge, then WHERE IN THE NAME OF ODIN'S LEFT KNEECAP IS IT?????????? How is it that everyone knows about it, yet no one is talking about it??? So much for the truth. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... http://www.cmlb.net/ringo [This message has been edited by Ringo (05-20-2004 07:13 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aenimal, that was a very smart thing you said - you're waiting for specifics. That's exactly the right thing to do. I'm also waiting because every expanation you said could have very well been true or perhaps firing guns at 3 in the morning combined with intelligence the military claims to have that it was a safe house for terrorists may also have merit. Hopefully, the truth will come out. Frankly, I doubt that any Bush or American haters would buy whatever came out if it went against their way of thinking but one can hope. If it comes out that it was a soldier overreaction situation I could buy that because I've seen it happen. Waiting for facts insteads of jumping on headlines as gospel is the best, and most honest, thing we can do... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, RIngo!! Lithium level getting a little low??? Believe me, I know exactly what you mean. Everytime I hear of the media favoring the conservatives I have to smile. There are good and bad things happening in Iraq. When's the last time you read of any of the good?? Doesn't happen. Surely if the media supported Bush they would make sure to get some of it noticed. I heard on NPR the other day that one director put together a 30 minute presentation of the good we have done for the Iraqis. There was footage of children who had had their hands cut off in Hussein's prisons that were taken to the US where mechanical hands and arms were created for them; the doctors, hospitals and surgeons all donating their time and expense. There were other human interest scenes where many Iraqis were thanking the American soldiers, not only for overcoming Hussein, but for humanitarian things they were doing. He took his tape to every news agency in the US. No one would show it - said they didn't have time. Does this sound like a pro-Bush move? Hardly. Peter Jennings and his buddies never miss an opportunity to get smooth, disguised digs in at the administration and that's a known fact. The day that any good news or positive reporting comes out of Iraq I'll believe it's not a completely liberal press - and before any wise guys jump on that to say there are no good things to report, there are. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Actually, 'Deer... the presrciption ran out... the Doc said that he couldn't give me a strong enough dose. I also agree with the lack of "good" news. I wasn't watching too closely, however I didn't see a story about the little girl that the American doctors are busting their... uh... well... you know... to get over here for some surgery that will save her life. I don't have all of the details, however, because I caught a 10 second blurb on Headline News that mentioned it. Let's see Michael moore report that. (if it DID make the mainstream news, then I apologize to Dan Rather and company. I just didn't see it... but I still want to see Michael Moore report that truth in his next movie) Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I would agree, Karen, IF that is what had happened...but it isn't. Raph, it's not reflex partisan thinking...it's called REALITY. Clinton was also a liar and a perjurer and an appeaser of terrorists who did absolutely nothing to strenghten and defend our nation, de-funding the military, tying the hands of the FBI & CIA, all the while trysting with Monica. Swell guy. Republican owned media censoring what we hear...  That's not the way it is, Goldenrose. You couldn't be more wrong. You really have to stop listening to Michael Moore and those who listen to Michael Moore. Until you do you won't have a clue as to how things really are here. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Actually, Denise, there is ONE mine little thing wrong with your thinking... According to former President Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" He only had an "inappropriate" relationship with her. lol Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yeah, I forgot, Ringo, lol, and he's also the guy who redefined the meaning of "sexual relations" and thought we needed clarification of what the word "is" is. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
This is an e-mail which describes the good I referred to much better than I can.. This is a letter from Ray Reynolds, a medic in the Iowa Army National Guard, serving in Iraq: As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media. They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened. I am sorry that I have not been able to visit all of you during my two week leave back home. And just so you can rest at night knowing something is happening in Iraq that is noteworthy, I thought I would pass this on to you. This is the list of things that has happened in Iraq recently: (Please share it with your friends and compare it to the version that your paper is producing.) * Over 400,000 kids have up-to-date immunizations. * School attendance is up 80% from levels before the war. * Over 1,500 schools have been renovated and rid of the weapons stored there so education can occur. * The port of Uhm Qasar was renovated so grain can be off-loaded from ships faster. * The country had its first 2 billion barrel export of oil in August. * Over 4.5 million people have clean drinking water for the first time ever in Iraq. * The country now receives 2 times the electrical power it did before the war. * 100% of the hospitals are open and fully staffed, compared to 35% before the war. * Elections are taking place in every major city, and city councils are in place. * Sewer and water lines are installed in every major city. * Over 60,000 police are patrolling the streets. * Over 100,000 Iraqi civil defense police are securing the country. * Over 80,000 Iraqi soldiers are patrolling the streets side by side with US soldiers. * Over 400,000 people have telephones for the first time ever. * Students are taught field sanitation and hand washing techniques to prevent the spread of germs. * An interim constitution has been signed. * Girls are allowed to attend school. * Textbooks that don't mention Saddam are in the schools for the first time in 30 years. Don't believe for one second that these people do not want us there. I have met many, many people from Iraq that want us there, and in a bad way. They say they will never see the freedoms we talk about but they hope their children will. We are doing a good job in Iraq and I challenge anyone, anywhere to dispute me on these facts. So If you happen to run into John Kerry, be sure to give him my email address and send him to Denison, Iowa. This soldier will set him straight. If you are like me and very disgusted with how this period of rebuilding has been portrayed, email this to a friend and let them know there are good things happening. Ray Reynolds, SFC Iowa Army National Guard 234th Signal Battalion |
||
|
gemjop Member Elite
since 2002-11-18
Posts 2587Pencilveinia, USA |
its unlikely we'll ever know any truths. people lie, cover up, cover for other people, it's the way of the world unfortunately, regardless of who you are. if there were evidence, would it be trustworthy? would you believe it just because an official enquiry was made? No matter how important a person is, or their job, like its been said, no one wants to take responsibility. We'll never know, because, in the grand scheme of things, we have zilch power, money or status. I sometimes like to think we do have an eensy smidgen(of power), but really? zip. the power to vote in a president/prime minister of our choice, and that is where our influence ends. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: "There is no way you can use the word "reality" without quotation marks around it." ~Joseph Campbell "Mind imposes reality on the data of the senses." ~Kant "Reality . . . what a concept!" ~Robin Williams Well, no doubt you've accepted it as your reality. And I admire your absolute conviction, but for its slaveshly partisan skew. It's not an attack, you're loyal to it's thinking, I on the other hand lack conviction in either party, preferring to focus on the issues not partylines. quote: It's all the previous administrations fault.Never saw that coming  I never said he was a swell guy, he did lie and was exposed for it, just as the Bush administration is slowly being exposed for it's share of crapola. Remember Clarke's and Woodward's books? I'm sure you do and have dismissed them already. Recall Clinton ordering the bombing of Al Quaida camps? He was railed for it and it was labeled a distraction tactic. By the liberal media no doubt? Sexual dalliances and trysts are nothing new in the Presidency (there are books on the subject wanna list of presidents?) Personally I think any man who find time to be that sexually active and still run a country and its foreign relations as smoothly, deserves some credit. A better leader with his pants around his ankles then Bush will ever be. I'm not entirely sure Bush can even put on his pants without assistance. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Personally I think any man who find time to be that sexually active and still run a country and its foreign relations as smoothly, deserves some credit." Very clever, Raph. It makes me wonder that, had Bush been involved in such shenannigans, you would be so gratuitous in your reply. Somehow I doubt it... Concerning you final remark about Bush, obviously you have progressed (or is tha digressed) from intelligent conversation to crude sarcasm that weakens whatever sensible points you were trying to make.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That's the problem, Raph, Clinton wasn't "running the country". He had his pants down, period. If people want to place blame for 9/11 other than where it primarily belongs (with the Islamists), Clinton should be at the top of that list. And no, the mainstream media did not castigate Clinton for his diversional bombing escapade. That would have been the members of Congress who were getting ready to impeach him. The media mentioned it in passing and quickly "moved on" as they do so well when they want to pretend that they are fair and balanced. I do plan on getting Woodward's book, but not Clarke's. The words I heard out of his own mouth proved to me that he was nothing but a political opportunist and a liar. And I guess to some reality falls under the same category as truth...it's all relative. I never saw that coming either. My party affiliation for most of my life has been Independent. I don't vote the "party line", I vote on issues. You don't have to actually be a Republican to see the "new" Democratic party for what it really is...hard left socialists, not the same party it used to be. And if you all could actually come up with something against Bush that would 'stick' that would actually prove he is such the awful leader that you claim he is, you'd stop falling back on that tired old "Bush is stupid" line. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Actually,Denise,I would have to disagree with you on the fact that Clinton did nothing. As you can tell from my posts all over this issue, I am a Bush man, and I lean towards the Republicans (although I voted for the local state Reresentative 4 times already and he is a Democrat), however I also am willing to give proper due when it is owed. The economy under Clinton did get better, and was actually on it's way up. The deficite (my spelling sucks) was lowered, and the budget had a surplus. It did, however, start to drop BEFORE President Bush came into power. Regardless, it was on the rise at one time. Just because he was one of the weakest presidents on defense in the past 40 years, does not take away from his accomplishments. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry, Ringo...not to get on a "bash Clinton" routine but there was no "real" surplus under him...they called it a surplus by not calculating social security payouts and also by the investigation at the end which showed that the White House had "restructured" the figures by almost 40% to make them look better. You could have read that back on page 13 or so. It never made the front page of our "conservative" press. Most economists agree that drastic changes in the market can trace the root causes back several years...the collapse after Bush took over was Clinton's house of cards falling down. He made everything look as good as it could during his time in office and could care less what happened after he left. That is the legacy of Slick Willie... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Balladeer: quote: If it was Bush's sole fault, yes I would be as gracious, I'm not a democrat. I'm not completelyagainst republican politics, I'm against the Bush administrations many many faults! Hmmm Deer, Why doesn't it surprise me at all that you would comment on me but not see anything of digressive or sarcastic concerning any of Denise's or Ringo's comments or potshots concerning Clinton? Can you say hypocrisy? I knew ya could. quote: There's nothing that would 'stick' when you've ignored everything thusfar by falling back on tired propaganda about unfair liberal media hype and dismissing all voices from the left. You dismiss Clarke but I'm positive you think Condaleeza Rice's testimony honest and informative. Look, whatever makes you sleep at night in this horrible horrible world. I'm done arguing because there can be absolutely no middle ground where partisanship is involved. It's destroying the west, choice and democracy have become a complete farse. Let it all rot. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nice side-stepping, Raph...and if you want to call me a hypocrite by inference, that's ok. I've tried to steer clear of personal insults (not always successfully) and will leave it at that. Yes, the arguing is over...peace. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Shiva H Vishnu! Side-stepping no, exasperation yes. It wasn't an insult it's an observation. If you're critical of me while completely ignoring comments by those who happen to share your views, is that not hypocritical? Why do I bother? "Squirrels must adore you." "Why?" "Because you're @$*#@% NUTS!" |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
don't...  |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Actually, Raph, That poke at President Clinton was very simply a one liner... it was a JOKE. Anyone who engages in oral SEX and then says he didn't have sex deserves to be hammered on his word choice. I have also poked wise at President Reagan, who was a much better President than all of his successors combined, IMHO. I have also made comments about "Dubya", although not here, that were wise cracks. I have also, either in this thread, or another, I forgot... I think it was the one about the economy and bank rates that Brad started... made statements to the fact that President Bill Clinton, while EXTREMELY soft on Defense, and WAYYY too pansy-butt when it comes to deploying the military (he left Somalia because less than 100 people got hurt... and less than 30 died... at the cost to the Somalis of thousands) was a decent president that did good things for the economy. I do not blindly follow anyone, however, I do tend to support my leaders in a time of crisis. Do I agree that this war was started on decent intelligence? Absolutely not. And I have said so in other discussions. Do I think that President Bush went into this headstrong with no support??? Absolutely not. The 11 nations with casualties and the 38 that offered assitance of some sort proves that. I also feel that he needs to work on being as strong on domestic policies (beasides the economy... the numbers prove his worth there) as he is on Foreign ones. I agree that there are too many circles being run in this thread, so I am going to end my part with this: Once the dust clears and the fallout (for lack of a better word) has settled, (in about 50 years or so) I firmly believe that the sitting president is going to be looked on as one of the great presidents of this century, and on par with FDR. For proof, I offer: FDR had job approval ratings at the beginning of WWII (before Pearl Harbor) very close to what President Bush has now. He was elected by a minority margin. He was thought to be very weak on domestic issues while being strong on forign policy. He had people screaming about abuses in the military (hence the commission that was headed by Eisenhower to end the corruption) and he was involved in the worst terroristic attack in the nation's history. Eventually, the economy turned around (from Depression to boom), and he served enough terms to have a Constitutional Amendment added because of him. I also offer Ronald Reagan, who took the economy of the Carter Administration, and turned it around. He also served 2 terms as president, only the 4th Republican to ever do so... and only the 2nd to finish his term. And, even thought the Democrats were screaming and gnashing their teeth because of him, and spent NO time being kind to him or his administration, they were the first ones to denounce the movie that was made about the Reagans that was a movie of the week. Now, history is beginning to show Reagan for being the good president that he was. I believe the same will happen to Dubya. These are just my thoughts, and I invite everyone to their own as well. Happy thinking. Anyhow, I said I was going to end the rant. I wish everyone a great day and an even better tomorrow. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... http://www.cmlb.net/ringo [This message has been edited by Ringo (05-21-2004 08:34 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Actually, Raph, I personally think it is socialism that is destroying the West. I think the main difference in my comments about Clinton and yours about Bush is that I was stating known facts about Clinton's conduct during his presidency. He did lie under oath, he lied to his cabinet, he lied to the nation, he did have 'inappropriate relations'. He was impeached. He did nothing about the terrorist attacks. Your comments were basically Bush is stupid and Bush lied, because what you think should constitute an amount of WMDs necessary to justify war did not materialize. WMDs have been found, but the amounts found do not seem like that big of a deal. What are a few viles of bacteria? Some chemical compounds? Banned long-range missiles capable of delivering them? Some mustard gas and VX nerve gas? Or the convoy to Syria that intelligence spotted three days prior to the war that has recently been verified to have contained WMDs? Where was the immediate threat? Bush never said the threat was immediate. He said we can't continue to do nothing about Saddam's capabilities until the threat becomes imminent. That doesn't make him a liar. People can disagree with Bush's conviction that it was time to take action, that's certainly their right. But that doesn't make Bush stupid because they don't agree with him. He may have been right that it was time to take decisive action after 12 years (and I think all but two members of Congress supported that decision at the time), he may have been wrong; and they may be wrong that we should have given it more time, but then again they may be right. Only time will tell. But I don't find any justification for the hateful, undermining behavior that is being exhibited by some who disagree with his decision, especially by those in leadership positions in Congress who originally supported his decision. And I'm not dismissing out of hand every voice from the left. I seriously consider all voices when they are thoughtful and delivered in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, most of what is heard from the left is snide, baseless, hateful and vile invective. Their anger gets in the way of my hearing them. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Since most of the major players in this debate have had their say, I would like to ask that it stop... please? We are all saying the same things over and over,and there in NO ground being gained... we are fighting over the same hill that we started on, and the only thing happening is the hill is getting blown to pieces. Thanks. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
As you've all added another comment I'll add my last. quote: Joke away. Ringo I have absolutely NO problem with the joke or Denise's cracks at Moore, my problem is good o'l Deer's double standard that pegs me for sarcasm and digressing to humour while ignoring yours (which just happen to coincide with his beliefs). I don't think Clinton was a perfect president and can't I defend bedroom antics, the pants around the ankles crack was joke, it works both ways people. I just happen to think he was a better president in some respects and that he was diplomatic, intelligent and well spoken. quote: Have you forgotten that 'evidence' linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons programs, which the administration and the British government produced in speeches and their case to the UN, were known forgeries? This was followed by a period of contradictory statements, finger pointing,and a claim that the FBI was looking into a possibility that ' a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq'. Despite the fact that CIA officials said that it had warned the administration the information was untrue, months before Bush's state of the Union address it was still used. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm http://www.robincmiller.com/art-iraq/b67.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17888-2003Mar12?language=printer http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3129950/site/newsweek/ Let's go back to my semantics/word manipulation comment. While Bush did not to use the term imminent threat, he did use the term 'grave and gathering danger' which suggests the same thing. To gain support for action against Iraq, they admin embarked on a long campaign to heighten the perception of an Iraqi terrorist threat. This despite a CIA report that found no links and no evidence of Iraqi attacks since 1993 attempt to assinate Bush Sr. prompting the infamous and confusing 'known unknown/unknown unknowns' Rumsfield justification. Failing to find links between Saddam and Al-Queda or 9/11, members of the administration inundated the public with references to WMDs and threat in a media blitz. Suggesting that, with the US occupied with Afghanistan, Iraq was primed to move on the region or the US and later that it was best to stop Iraq to prevent the possibility of another 9/11 attack. As for WMDs it stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Not weapons plans, not weapons fuel, not weapons materials. No nuclear program, No stockpiles, none of the 'overwhelming' evidence that would prove the US's justification for an immediate attack against UN and international disapproval. I'm not defending what was found, they are indeed violations of UN laws. But they are not WMDs and could have been discovered without an all out war. quote: The justification is that there were many who, in the early days of the war, voiced their dissapproval and were labeled unamerican and unpatriotic for it. As the war goes on there is evidence enough to pose a reasonable doubt against the administration and it's handling of affairs. Deception, profiteering and murder is cause enough to be irrate. As for my comments regarding Bush and his lack of intelligence, it's based on his horrible public speaking, reporter responses and trouble with any non-prepared statements. |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
I would like to add my thoughs to this thread and outline Bush's real input since he took power...but i would just get into trouble again..so i will go back to my poetry...oh hum....peace and love to the world.... Goldenrose. ''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: From the link you provided, it seems that it was decided that the documents referred to by the CIA were not proven to be “not authentic” until after (notice the date of the article and the date that the U.N. and independent experts decided that the documents were not authentic) the State of the Union Address, and that the CIA indeed did not tell the President they were untrue…they said they had questions about whether they were accurate, not that they were untrue. Tony Blair still stands behind Britain’s “source” on the matter. From the below article, it seems that there was more than one source, more than one set of documents, not just the documents that have since been proven forgeries. That President Bush trusted Britain’s other source, despite the questionable source that the CIA was investigating (ongoing at the time and which had yet to have been proven untrue), does not make Bush a liar. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33756 quote: I disagree. Saddam’s capabilities, past record, evidence of intent regarding WMD production, along with his deception towards and lack of cooperation with the U.N. inspectors in proving he had destroyed all his known weapons, proved him to be a threat. And in recent weeks WMD’s have been turning up: mustard gas and sarin gas, as well as VX nerve gas found in the possession of Al Qaida in Jordan, in quantities too large to have been produced by Syria, but which coincides with Saddam’s known production capabilities prior to the war, which, according to intelligence, was most likely part of the convoy of materials shipped to Syria prior to the war, and since transported to "Lebanon's heavily fortified Bekaa Valley." And just because past intelligence has proven unreliable, that doesn't mean all intelligence is untrustworthy. If the majority of intelligence reports were found to be questionable, I'm sure the liberal left would be all over that information. To date, I've only heard of the one that was proven to have been false, although that doesn't mean that more couldn't be. Maybe the left just hasn't uncovered it yet? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20040521.shtml http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38528 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38447 quote: Not to me. “Grave and gathering danger” is not time-qualified, let alone linked with the term “imminent”, even if it were not in the same speech with : “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.” To me it only suggests a sense of urgency, i.e., seriousness, gravity, crisis, emergency, necessity. quote: And all of this “reasonable doubt” is conjecture posited by the left. It does not equate with deception, profiteering and murder, let alone prove such allegations. quote: I don’t think a person’s public speaking ability is grounds to question their intelligence. But even so, I think he has improved in this area over the past couple of years. |
||
|
Janet Marie Member Laureate
since 2000-01-22
Posts 18554 |
quote: sounds a lot like WAR to me..... but then, isnt that how it happeneds??? everybody wanting to be heard...have the last word... and so--the "right" fighting goes on ...(and on) dont ya wish poetry threads would get this many pages of responses and effort... guess not even poets can keep the peace.... *sigh* |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Denise, however you choose to spin it, the evidence was questionable and the administration though warned months before the addressused this information a means to coerce support for military action. As for the other reliable British evidence it has yet to surface. Where are the nuclear materials and facilities? quote: I'll say again materials are not weapons. weap·on An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. ma·te·ri·al The substance or substances out of which a thing is or can be made. Intent to build WMDs and the possesion of WMDs are wholly different things. I've never argued intent, given Saddam's past there was certainly cause for concern based on intent(which the world conceded), but intent wasn't the sole reason for attack. Possesion and evidence of possesion was claimed. Enough to shift focus from Afghanistan to Iraq for fear of Saddam's threat. Yet, into the second year of war no 'hidden stockpiles' of weaponry or damning evidence of a nuclear program have been found. Just materials and potential. quote: Denise I still argue a matter of semantics. You used the term crisis whose definition is: An unstable condition involving an impending abrupt or decisive change. Impending is defined as: about to happen. Gathering isn't solely accumulative it also means: to come to a head. All these words are suggestive of imminent danger. While the word imminent was never used the administration was manipulative in causing a sense of urgency that wasn't actually there. Should Saddam's threat be stopped, undoubtedly, was there a pressing need, so much so that the coalition should steamroll over the UN? No. A brilliant Orwellian tactic by the administration. quote: With regards to profiteering: William Bush(uncle) is head of ESSI, a military goods distributor. The firm made up to $380 million from the pentagon alone and signed a $19 million dollar deal to provide chemical shelters in the first week of the war, on top of a $44 million dollar deal earlier. Marvin P. Bush's Winston holdings owns substantial stock in Sybase, who developed money tracking 'Patriot Act compliant solution' enabling banks to successfully prove they are not laundering money to terrorists. Sybase is also a significant government contractor that has gained millions in contracts in the last year alone. Not to mention other links between republican backing companies like Halliburton, Bechtel etc. I'm not saying these are reasons for war, but it's not conjecture that the Bush family and friends are profiting from War in the meantime. Now I'm certain you will come back say its all liberally slanted conjecture anyway. That's fine, the fact of the matter is I'm not liberal or anti republican, I'm anti BS. There's enough BS lying around to cause a reasonable doubt amongst not only liberals bu non partisan thinkers. Peace. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess we two non-partisans will just have to agree to disagree, Raph. Ringo and Janet Marie, discussions eventually end when everybody is talked out, when people finally realize that they aren't going to persuade others of their point of view. I wouldn't compare it to battles or war, though. Discussions of opposing views is healthy, I think. |
||
|
Craw Member
since 2003-09-11
Posts 73Scotland |
I don't know why people continue to worry about whether Iraqi WMD programmes existed or not. It is clear that this was never a matter of principle. It is clear that the US and Great Britain are prepared to tolerate states in the Middle east with illegal stocks of weapons of mass destruction as long as these states are called Israel. It is clear similarly that the US and Great Britain are prepared to turn a blind eye to a campaign waged against innocent civilians which amounts, in the words of Amnesty International, to "state sponsored genocide" as long as the perpetrator of these atrocities is called Israel. Did you note the words of the Israeli Justice Minister yesterday? As a death camp survivor he was brave enough to liken the current devastation being visited on the Palestinians in Gaza to the Holocaust. Israeli Ministers are now using language that would not be out of place in the Third Reich. Dehumanising people by, for example, labelling an entire civilian area as "a nest of vipers", makes it easier to contemplate civilian casualties on a virtually limitless scale. The war on the Palestinian people is not a war "against terrorism". Israel is illegally in occupation of Palestine. The Palestinians are faced with one of the biggest and best equipped armies in the world. The Israelis who fought against the British in the 1940s and used any methods at their disposal including "terrorist" bombings of civilian areas are regarded in Israel and elsewhere as freedom fighters. Yet the Palestinians are regarded as terrorists. This is the crux of the problem facing us all and if we don't persuade our governments to do something about it, then our troubles are only just beginning. Because of our hypocrisy over Israel we are making an enemy of every Arab that's not got an economically vested interest in toadying up to us. That's a lot of Arabs. How many potential "terrorists" are we creating daily in the Middle East by our lop sided policy of supposedly dealing with rogue Arab Governments while letting the Israeli Government trash international law and human decency on a daily basis? If our leaders weren't midgets they would foresee that a policy based on short term political gain is going to wreak havoc for us all. |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
I just want to use this thread to congratulate Michael Moore for winning best picture at the Cannes film festival..the first time in the festivals history that a documentary has won the top prize....and also to point out that the talk around the Cannes film festival was not about which actors and actresses were there, but the gross censorhip that is sweeping America at the moment..all of the news teams picked up on it....and even the American actors were saying that the ''news'' in America is a joke..but i was pleased for Michael Moore after all he is just a ''stupid '' film maker...a stupid film maker that is not affraid to tell the truth about Bush and his government.....well done Michael Moore...now let us see Fareneit911 in America and watch Bush squirm.... Come on down John Kerry....the oval office awaits..... Peace and love and Gods protection to the real people in this war The British and American soldiers on the front line... Peace and love.... Goldenrose. ''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Yes, Come on down, Mr. Kerry.... Even though your own hometown newspapers are NOT supporting you... Even though the nation's leading economic newspaper says your economic plan will kill the growing economy... even though you are attempting to be everything to everyone, and showing that you stand for nothing at all except winning... Even though you decide which side of an issue you stand on depending on what the latest poll states... even though you have turned your back on two of the MAJOR beliefs of your religious upbringing, and yet proudly proclaim your religious faith... COME ON DOWN, Mr Kerry... you are just what this country needs. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
Ringo ..i find your remarks insulting in the extreme and aggressive...i think you would be better served to back off from this situation before things get out of hand..i particularly take exception to you involving religion in this when the present president has sent 800 of his own countrymen to their deaths...i dont think John Kerry would have done that..but maybe you think the soldiers are ''collateral damage'' just like the president.... NO more war..peace around the world... Goldenrose. ''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Insulting?? Yes they were... to Senator Kerry. Agressive? I don't believe so. As for me backing out of the situation??? I don't think so. To suggest that I back off before things get out of hand could be considered as an aggressive statement, although, I will choose not to see it as such. As for my comments... Thereis absolutely nothing that I haev stated taht is not 100% fact, and that I cannot show you where I got the information. The Boston Globe and the Boston Herals, from Senator Kerry's hometown of Boston, Mass specifically DID NOT support him in this election. The Wall Street Journal stated that the Kerry Economic plan would hurt the economy. Joh Kerry is very proud of the fact that he is a Roman Catholic, and uses it in his campaign. HOWEVER... As a Catholic, he supports abortion rights, AND gay marriages. Both of those issues are huge No-No's within the Catholic Church. His stance has even gotten some Bishops to suggest that Senator Kerry not be allowed to partake of Holy Communion. Again, it is on the record, and not the ramblings of an ultra-conservative, gun-toting, right-wing, environment-hating redneck. (BTW... I am more of a moderate, and I don't even own a weapon of any kind.) Since I have opened my yap and made such hateful allegations, please allow my to elaborate with a few well chosen facts: TAXES Senator Kerry voted against the middle class tax cuts that President Bush proposed (HR 1836, CQ Vote #165) "I will roll back George Bush’s tax cut..." CNN's Paula Zahn Now 2/2/04 Switching Sides on Issues -"I'm the only candidate running for president who hasn't played games, fudged around," said Kerry, a Massachusetts senator. Assiciated Press 1/26/04 During his appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America Monday, John Kerry either refused or was just unable to reconcile the differences in a variety of statements Kerry’s made over the years regarding what he did with his military decorations in 1971 while leading the militant anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. ABC News Good Morning America 4/26/04 -"And if elected president, I will nominate judges who will seek to expand rights and opportunities-not reduce them. In this area, anyone who values a woman's right to choose in particular or constitutional privacy rights in general will have the clearest possible choice between me and President Bush in 2004." Sen. Kerry A Call To Service 2003, pg 182 -"I think people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted, and if they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a judge does." John Kerry yesterday said he'll back President Bush's call for $25 billion in extra funds to support U.S. troops in Iraq, after taking lots of heat for voting against $87 billion for the troops last fall. … Kerry took so much flak over the $87 billion that he tried to defend his "no" vote by saying, "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Washingotn Post 5/14/04 Abortion Rights -Sen. Kerry Boston Globe 4/9/03 Kerry "Recently Announced He Will Support Only Pro-Choice Judges To The Supreme Court." http://www.johnkerry.com As for religion and Presidents and deaths, etc... President Richard Nixon was a Quaker who sent 10's of thousands of Americans to their death. President Kennedy was a Catholic who sent men to their death in the Bay of Pigs. President Clinton sent American servicemen to their deaths. What does one have to do with the other? One of the MAJOR stands of the Roman Catholic faith is anti-abortion/pro-life. That is not an opinion, that is a full blown, internationally recognized fact. It is also proven (read above) that Sen. Kerry, A CATHOLIC, is for abortions. that is why a recent Harris Poll shows that the majority of Catholics are against Senator Kerry. They aren't necessarily FOR president Bush... they are just against Sen. Kerry. Now, as far as my thoughts that American fighting men are "collateral damage". You owe myself, and every other miltary veteran on this site an apology. There is NO discussion with that. To suggest that I would consider ANY American life to be worthless is the most abhorrant thing I think you have ever put on these pages. You also owe an apology to every memeber of the foreign military that is currently serving in Iraq... especially the 11 nations that have combat casualties besides the United States. Collateral Damage?? Without getting into too many specifics, I spent six years in the service gto my country and have- on more than one occasion- had the blood of my compatriots on my uniform as I busted portions of my anatomy attempting to prevent them from dying from a gunshot wound that they had recived while in service to their country in a combat situation. One of these days, if happen to meet in a bar and I am blindingly drunk, I will show you my little pieces of colored cloth, and explain what each and every one of them is for, and what it was that I was doing that I earned them. Perhaps I will even show you the newspaper clippings from the past year with my picture standing as part of the honor guard for an American miltary personnel who fell in Iraq and Afghanistan... including Capt. Christopher Seiffert USA, one of the very first casualites of the war... including Sgt. Andrew Baddock USA, a neighbor, who died attempting to save members of his unit. Perhaps I will introduce you to Sgt. Robert Lerch USAF, my girlfriend's son, who was injured while in country. There are two very prominent members of this site that have got, probably, more pieces of colored cloth that also have blood on their uniforms, and the memories to haunt them. I will guarantee you, Sir, that they do not feel that ANY american life is collateral damage. There are also many members of this site who have written in support of the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan who will tell you that THEY do not feel that ANY american life is "collateral damage". You suggested that I would be better served backing off the situation before it got out of hand... Sir, I respectfully suggest that this situation just might get out of hand, however it will not be my doing. I was willing to allow everyone to have their own thoughts, and ideas about this event in our history, and to even engage in honorable and semi-friendly debate over it. As for you,Sir, I care not what your thoughts are, and will not be checking back on this, or any other thread where you have made statements, for I honestly could not care what you have to say... however, while you are saying and thinking those thoughts, be sure to thank one of those collateral damages who allowed you to have them. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
I see a pattern,,,it seems no matter what Ringo says,,,golden has something to say about it,,,lol, you should try a face to face debate with Ringo sometime, its good stuff, he has all the facts and figures at hand, or can show you where pretty quick,,,,,I've never known him to toss a debate out there, that he hasnt researched, as for smart alec comments, he is second only to me,,, Best part about our grand land, no matter who's in charge, how much good they do, or how many times they mess up, we have the freedom to sit and banter around like this, so, even tho I don't do the pray thing, I'd like to ask Golden a favor, when you're asking for blessings on the fine military forces that keep the status quo, how bout a shout out to all of them, after all, maybe the "bad" guys, are just following orders..... Michelle I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Michelle- I just got an IM message about your post. While I thank you cvery much for the support, there is one small thing that I feel is in error, and I would be doing the people I haev disagreed with a disservice if I do not point it out to you, regardless of how much you have my love and respect. I do not believe that Goldenrose feels the servicemen who are serving their country are the "bad guys". The heartburn he has is with the man that was chosen to lead the country. I might have missed it somewhere, and if I have, I apologize to you, however I don't recall ever seeing anything where Goldenrose has said any ill of the men and women themselves. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Craw Member
since 2003-09-11
Posts 73Scotland |
Ringo- I'm afraid that the fact you experienced combat and had the terrible experience of having friends killed does not make you better qualified to judge whether the Iraq war is justified. In fact it possibly undermines it. My brother was killed fighting in the British army against the IRA in Northern Ireland, a conflict that most Americans still consider part of a fight for Irish freedom. I consider his death as an absolutely unnecessary tragedy which has destroyed or damaged many more lives than his own; for instance his wife's, his childrens', his parents'. It confirmed to me that there are no justifiable wars, and whatever pathetic justification is given at the time for them does not stand the test of years. There is now a peace process in Northern Ireland: the British army is standing down, the IRA is disarming. And what contribution did my brother's death make to all this? Nothing. We have a duty as civilised human beings to question wars. In fact it should be the most rigorously questioned topic there is. We should continue to question them even when our loved ones are involved, in fact especially when our loved ones are involved. Uniting behind the flag is the most cretinous thing we can do: it's what our politicians hope we do, what politicians have always hoped their peoples would do since the beginning of the nation state. Remember no politicians die in wars. George and Tony in 10 years time will be writing their memoirs or be engaged in lecture tours. When you say soldiers die so that miserable whiners like us can be free, I must tell you that that is both insulting and wrong. Soldiers die obeying orders. Civilians die as the collatoral damage implicit with modern ordinance. Where's the honour, where's the glory? Where's the necessity? You should not as Wilfred Owen said: "...tell with such high zest to children ardent for some desperate glory, the old lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." |
||
|
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
Craw, While I am sorry for your loss, again, have to take Ringos back... In his reply to GoldenRose,,,he made no statements that did ,or did not, justify such loss. I know he has questioned some of the decisions made involving this recent war, as I also feel, that we should have gone all out, and finished the job the first time, too often, any more, we do a so half job,,,then have to go back in , and end up losing even more lives. Lets see, no politicians have fought while IN office, however, many did fight before taking office. I.E. Bush Sr.and Eisenhower,and former congressman Duke Cunningham,,the first american flying Ace in Vietnam. Heck, Senator McCain was a POW in that war. To be fair,from across the pond, Prince Andrew flew Harriers in the Falklands. I know he, as well as I, rallys behind the TROOPS, not the flag, HUGE difference. I have never heard him say, or seen him write, that someone was, "a miserable whiner" when they didn't agree with his views,I have heard him say other, less flattering things, that I can't say here,,but that's a different story. He doesn't believe that soldiers "die for our freedom"( that phrase has always irked me), rather, they FIGHT for our freedom, dying is an unfortunate by product. There is no glory or honor in dying.(unless you are a Klingon) Those left behind, bestow those words to the ones lost,,,,those lost, only know they are dead. I wonder if the men and women sitting in a burned out basement, that used to be their home, felt the war was unjustified, as the RAF (and some Americans) were fighting the German Luftwaffa overhead? In closing, I'll follow Ringos suit,,,and use a quote... "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." --John Stuart Mill I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Kerry Recently Announced He Will Support Only Pro-Choice Judges To The Supreme Court. Good, and hopefully he will reverse the insane ban restrictions on stem cell research. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Washington (AP) - Democrat John Kerry (website - news - bio) said Wednesday he's open to nominating anti-abortion judges as long as that doesn't lead to the Supreme Court overturning the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal. Kerry, the presumptive nominee of a party that overwhelmingly favors a woman's right to abortion, struck a moderate note as he lashed out at one of the high court's most conservative justices, telling The Associated Press he regrets his 1986 vote to confirm Antonin Scalia." "As fellow Democrats and abortion-rights groups demanded clarification, Kerry issued a statement after the interview pledging to not to appoint anybody to the Supreme Court who would undo the right to abortions. He left open the possibility of appointing anti-abortion judges to lower courts." " Kerry said he has voted in favor of "any number of judges who are pro-life or pro-something else that I may not agree with," some of whom were nominated by Republican presidents. "But I'm going to make sure we uphold what I believe are constitutional rights and I'm not going to pick somebody who's going to undermine those rights." "Do they have to agree with me on everything? No," Kerry said. Asked if they must agree with his abortion-rights views, he quickly added, "I will not appoint somebody with a 5-4 court who's about to undo Roe v. Wade. I've said that before." "But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia." Later, aides said "some court" was not a reference to the Supreme Court, only lower federal benches. Kerry tried to clear up the matter with a written statement that said: "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo that right" to an abortion. Steve Schmidt, a spokesman for Bush's re-election campaign, noted that Kerry promised during the primary campaign to nominate to the Supreme Court only individuals who support abortion rights. "John Kerry (website - news - bio) 's reversal today on appointing pro-choice judges shows a startling lack of conviction on an issue that someone seeking the presidency should approach with principled clarity," Schmidt said. How in the world does one know what Kerry means or for how long it will last? The Waffle house has been very busy lately. On the other hand, Aenimal, I agree with you completely on the stem-cell research....absolutely. To change the subject slightly, two nights ago President Bush made a speech on Iraq to clarify our position there, our short and long term plans there and speak of the turnover to the Iraqis next month. These are issues that many people are concerned with. Was it a good speech? Liberals will say no - conservatives will say yes. That's not my point. The speech was applauded by the governments of Russia, China, France and the UN Security Council. That's not my point, either. The speech was not going to change anyone's mind. My point is that no major networks carried it. A speech that millions need to hear, that people all over the world were tuned in to was not covered by the major networks in prime time in the United States. Let there be no more talk of the "conservative news agencies supporting Bush and spoon-feeding us what they want us to hear". If the news agencies were truly conservative, you can bet the farm they would have carried that news conference. The fact that they refused to do so leaves little doubt of their liberal affiliations....so for those of you complaining about the conservatives ruling the news agencies this is certainly proof enough exactly where they stand, unless you have another explanation for their completely biased actions..... |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
I am not against the soldiers fighting and if i upset any serving or veteran soldiers then i appologise to them, i am actually on their side here..what i do not get is why anyone should attack John Kerry...it is almost like saying i like Bush because he likes war...i just dont see the logic in that especialy when someone has been wounded in action...you would have thought that in that case they would be calling for an end to war not glorifying in it. Kerry served with honours in Vietnam...but as soon as he came home he could see the futility of war and he was wounded in action...so he tried to do the only thing he could... campain to change, it is all a state of mind..if you TRULY want to change you can ...human beings are so capable of doing anything..why do they utilise their God given gift to make war and weapons? As for the soldiers serving i say this..i hope that all of you come back from war, and that you live a joyous and fruitful life... that is one of the reasons i am asking people to send a poem to remember the fallen on the 60th anniversay of DDay...i just dont see why Kerry should be attacked in such a way.... Peace to all..... Goldenrose. ''There is no need for temples, no need for complicated Philosophies. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
This frustrates me so much... I've mostly been reading and not really replying because I don't much see the point. I don't like Bush, but I don't see the point in trying to turn Kerry into some stellar candidate, or the point on putting Micheal Moore on some godlike pedestal just because he knows how to push buttons. I agree with what Christopher said in another thread- it's the lesser of two evils. Will Kerry really be the lesser of the evils... I hope, and that's why I'll vote for him, because I'd rather see a change in the way the country's going... and if I don't like it, at least I know I didn't just twiddle my thumbs and basically say "well, lets give it four more years." BTW- I am under the impression (from news articles I've read) that Kerry's plan of action in Iraq isn't all that much different than Bush's. I've also read the Kerry is actually against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. (Really, it's just a distinction of semantics, but it's there all the same.) |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
|
||
|
Michelle_loves_Mike
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189Pennsylvania |
Isn't it funny, how, we can identify a president by the rumors/stories/myths about them,,,,lets see,,,,,,you tell me,,,, 1. "I'm not a crook" 2. "I didn't inhale" 3. peanut farm 4. 1000 points of light 5. wooden teeth 6. "well" 7. "I don't like broccoli" 8. "I have sinned,,,,,,wait,,that was a televangelist,,,,, I get them confused sometimes,,such similar scandals,,,,, guess thats why we seperate church and state,,,so we can keep them all straight,,,,, Michelle I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Not to belabor this, Raph, but in re-reading your reply to me I noticed you accused me of spinning. I'm not spinning anything. The sources that Bush cited in his address were the as yet undiscredited British intelligence sources, not the documents that were being investigated by the CIA and later proven to be forgeries. You are confusing two entirely different pieces of information. And why would you equate discovery of nuclear facilities and materials with 'evidence' as to the validity of the British sources? The sources stated that attempts were made to purchase materials, not that they had been successful in their attempts. As for materials not being weapons, do you not consider the sarin, mustard and VX nerve gas that have been discovered weapons? Not even when the sarin gas discovered is in an explosive device that was detonated against the troops? Our 'conservative' press has been very diligent in supressing these discoveries, or dismissing their importance when they do mention them. It scares me to think what it would take to convince some folks of the very real dangers that we are facing, and who the real enemy is in this war on terror, but I sadly suspect that not even another 9/11 would do it. This is just some of what we are up against: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38709 Thanks for the chuckle, Michelle! You don't know how badly I needed that! |
||
|
vlraynes Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229Somewhere... out there... |
/pip/Forum89/HTML/001835.html Peace... "When the power of love overcomes the love |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101424/ I don't think this is going to change anyone's mind, but then if you think "You're either with us or against us" and "I'm a uniter, not a divider" crowd, maybe . . . |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Sigh..If Bush was not citing the eventual forgeries, why(oh lord why) was that the information provided to UN inspectors by the US as evidence? After it was deemed a forgery by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the administration went into damage control trying to explain their actions, and a period of conflicting stances took place with outright denials and embarrassed admissions made. It was only after it had all hit the proverbial fan that the administration finally synched and claimed 'another' source as the basis for their evidence. A source and information that has never surfaced along with any evidence of nuclear programs or WMDs after the invasion. quote: Nitroglycerin. Nitroglycerin is a chemical, not a weapon. It's only after fuses or charges are added that it can be used as a weapon. Chemicals on their own are not weapons, and certainly not Weapons of MASS destruction. I never claimed Iraqis did not have weapons or the 'potential' to create them. But the coalition did not attack 'potential' it attacked based on evidence of WMD stockpiles and a nuclear program. None of which have surfaced. There's a distinction between potential and existing weapons. By the way, where do you think those chemicals, particularly mustard gas, came from? Good old Ronnie Reagan sent it to evil Iraq for use in its war on Iran. quote: God, give it a rest. I mentioned earlier, it's sad how conservatives think the media is overly liberal while liberals claim the media is conservative. I'm not partisan, I can see both sides. I've seen and incredibly conservative media blindly support Bush and an incredibly liberal media tear him down. Every city in western civilization has a conservative paper and a liberal paper. Conservative outlets and liberal outlets. You'd all see this if both sides would take the partisan goggles off. quote: It scares me to think people can't see that Bush has used the anxiety and fear of 9/11 to push an unneccesary war. It would also see undisputable evidence that Bush and Admin are clearly profiting from military and defense, contracting to companies in which they have substantial holdings and interests. If world safety and stability was really the issue the coalition would: *First have completed it's mission in Afghanistan, a legitimate mission that gained clear support from its allies and in world opinion. *In a true war on terror, would target Saudi Arabia, an Al Queda haven, and destroy it's bases and factions there. *Focus on stabilizing Israel and Palestine by making Sharon and Arrafat keep their word. Will some good come out of this war? Perhaps. But while manure can produce roses, but it doesn't change the fact that it's BullS. Nuff said. Take care. I have enough to worry about with lying liberals and conservatives in Canada's next election. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Go back and re-read the State of the Union Address, Raph. The confusion and denials centered around the discredited source, not the British source, which was the source that Bush cited. Bush and Blair both stated from the beginning that they stood behind the British intelligence. All Saddam had to do was cooperate and show that he had destroyed his known weapons, as per the cease-fire agreement. He decided not to cooperate and to play games for 12 years. That's why we attacked. I think it only reasonable to believe that he had not destroyed them. And I don't believe he did. I believe he destroyed some, hid some and shipped the rest to Syria. Not all chemicals need 'fuses'. Iran was a genuine threat to Iraq and its other neighbors at the time. Too bad President Reagan couldn't see into the future to see that Saddam would also become such a serious threat. Such a terrible character flaw on his part. My city does not have a conservative news outlet of any kind. We have the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer, both owned by the same publisher, Knight-Ridder. Extremely left wing. I do catch Fox news about once a week, though. We are still fighting in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia may well be next, if their promised cooperation against terrorism turns out to be bogus. It seems they are paying the price for cooperating with us though, judging by the recent Al Qaeda attacks there. Arafat won't allow stabilization. Have fun with your upcoming elections! |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Are you defending Reagan sending and authorizing the use of chemical weapons on Iran as something noble? Nevermind. Arafat won't allow stabilization As opposed to Ariel Sharon? We know Arafat's involvement, it's time to stop turning a blind eye to Israeli encroachment of Palestine as well. |
||
|
Craw Member
since 2003-09-11
Posts 73Scotland |
.....And their illegally held weapons of mass destruction, and their campaign of state sponsored assassination, and their mealy-mouthed apologies for killing 8 innocent civilians for every one "so-called" gunman. It's the key to the Middle East. People would stop accusing the US and Britain of double standards if we showed a commitment to justice and peace in Palestine. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
exactly Craw |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I'm not turning a blind eye, Raph. I never said that Sharon was faultless. Arafat is the one, though, who got up from the table at the last round of peace talks, after having gained every concession from Israel that he asked for and inexplicably walked away. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Just came across this article. It seems the UN finally agrees that Saddam shipped out his WMDs before, during and after the beginning of the war. http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
interesting that they are called "innocent civilians" when killed by the Israelis but I don't hear a peep of that same voice saying anything about "innocent civilians" when they happen to be Israeli women and children killed by suicide bombers....why is that, I wonder?? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=18919 quote: Molly Ivins |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, all I can say is....spare me! I, and a good deal of American people, can't believe the bandwagon that has been brought out with reference to this subject. Was the actions of the soldiers wrong? Yes, of course, but the conclusions and amount of balderdash being weaned out of it by the media and people who quote the media is insane. Our constitution is in shambles because of the abuse of prisoners? Give me a break, please. Molly Ivins...you want to discuss Molly Ivins? Let's see what she's written.... Any time that the president claims credit for or praises some government program, it is an almost-certain kiss of death. Budget cuts follow. ( By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate, 06/10/2004 04:01 AM CDT) 'Recovery' is a fiction of this administration. For real people, life is harder and a lot less fair. ( By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate, 06/03/2004 04:01 AM CDT Someone left the 'cakewalk' in the rain We are a practical people, so let's cut our losses, go get al Qaeda and leave Iraq to international authorities. ( By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate, 05/20/2004 04:01 AM CDT) Another day in Fantasyland President Bush, you recently had an unreassuring news conference. What are you going to do next? ( By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate, 04/25/2004 04:01 AM CDT) Watch the birdie … keel over In the current administration, even the fowls of the air have a price to pay on behalf of America. ( By Molly Ivins, Creators Syndicate, 04/01/2004 05:01 AM CDT) This is the authority you are quoting as if she's saying something unbiased and factual that we should take into consideration?? She is a radical who has NEVER said anything positive about the administration and misses no opportunity to knock it. To elevate the prisoner abuse to the level it is - the destruction of the constitution, the fall of democracy, the end of US importance in the free world - is utter nonsense. It happened. It shouldn't have. The constitution still lives. Put the whip away. The horse is dead. To show the utter lunacy of it, what about the officer who scared the terrorist into giving information which saved a planned attack on his men? Remember that one from a few months ago? He knew the terrorist had information that a band was going to make a surprise attack the next day. He told the little fellow he was going to die if he didn't spill the beans and fired a shot over his head for effect. Beans were spilled and the attack was thwarted, saving soldier lives. SO what happened? The officer was relieved of duty. He was written up for having used excessive force to obtain information. He was disciplined. Members of Congress applauded his actions and stood by him but you know what? His military career is over. It's part of his record and he is finished. The inmates are indeed running the asylum. So keep beating the dead horse if you wish and give it ten times the importance it deserves and quote left-wing radicals as authoritative experts if you want...but there are actually a large group of decent Americans - and non-Americans - who see it as it really is, which is NOT the greatest disgrace in the history of warfare but just a sad event which happened and shouldn't have. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
When have I ever used the argument from authority? On at least two occasions, I've disclaimed exactly that tactic so whose beating a dead horse? I like Molly Ivins, you don't. The difference between us isn't that we have different authoritative experts, I make no such claim; the difference is that I want people to read more, you want them to read less. Glad you posted those sound bites, but your last argument is still one of justification, and it doesn't explain why at least six people have died under dubious circumstances. It doesn't explain why Ashcroft avoided producing the memos. By all means, post counter articles and opinions, in none of this, am I shooting for the last word or a knockdown argument -- I don't know what it would be -- but let's not pretend that saving soldiers' lives or that this is just the way it is. That's not a reason, that's an excuse. From there, we're just a hop, skip, and a jump (HUH?) to Andy Siphowitz. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Saving soldiers' lives is not a reason but an excuse??? I consider that to be quite an incredible statement, Brad. Perhaps he should have let the attack occur in order not to frighten the terrorist who was a part of the plan to kill his soldiers. Yes, scaring someone is definitely cruel and unusual punishment, I suppose. The man could have had a bowel movement. The poor fellow could have developed a complex over it...could have made his hands shake so much he wouldn't be able to make bombs or fire at nasty Americans. You, and many others, may believe that two people doing the same action are equally guilty. Frankly, I don't. I believe that reasoning and motives come into play. Criminals definitely prefer it your way. They've been laughing at that concept for a long time. Saving soldiers' lives an excuse? If one of the soldiers had been a son of yours, I'm sure you would have been happy for that "excuse". As far as reading less is concerned, no, I would prefer that people read more factual information unbiasedly presented, if it exists anywhere. To say "look at this" while presenting views of radicals and fanatics serves no purpose. You present her - I present Rush Limbaugh. What purpose is served? Nada. I'm certainly not going to present any counter-views simply because I don't consider it important enough to keep milking. For those hungry to find any morsel available to show disfavor with the administration, it will certainly continue to be carried on and squeezed for all it's not worth. As I said in my previous statement...spare me! When you referred to "dubious circumstances", are you sure your mind wasn't thinking "dubya's circumstances"? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, no, you're shifting the point. The fact that it can help American soldiers, give officials the right to order violations of the eighth amendment? Does it allow officials the right to waffle in technicalities in order to avoid the Geneva Accords? Who is above the law? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mule muffins!! It all depends how you define the 8th amendment, I suppose? Does the 8th amendment say you can't scare anyone, trick them into thinking they are in danger? I think not. Had the officer begun cutting off fingers or body parts or buried the terrorist alive with a rabid rodent, I would agree.....but scaring him? Bluffing him? That was not worth the lives of fellow soldiers? Surely you can't think that, Brad. If a businessman says "We may not be able to give you our business unless you drop your prices (when he is intending to give you the business in any case), is that a violation of your 8th amendment rights? Saddam Hussein killed millions, maimed millions, imprisoned and tortured millions and we have some idiot like Ted Kennedy saying we are as bad as Hussein because underwear were put on a prisoner's head. He claims the prison is no different than it was in Hussein's day, just under different management. Has there ever been a bigger idiot in the world than Ted Kennedy? The rules of the Geneva COnvention may have been bruised but they still stand. They are rules that only we follow anyway, unless you feel they were observed at the Hanoi Hilton, in Cambodia, Laos, Bataan, Japan...the list goes on. We see American bodies being dragged through the streets through crowds of chanting groups and we say, "We are no better. We made an Iraqi terrorist stand naked in front of a female soldier. I say - get a life. The amendments are well, Brad, and taking an event, even one so distasteful, and pretending that the constitution is in shambles is silly. Criminals scream foul if we don't follow the rules they have never followed...and they keep winning. Think of everything that has happened in Iraq - the good, the bad and the ugly. Look at what is getting the most attention - improper treatment of prisoners. It defies belief. Think the constitution is getting battered if you will. It's simply a feeding frenzy of headline-seeking reporters clever enough to bring people who should know better along for the ride... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: quote: Clearly, the officer's superiors felt the coercion was wrong, Mike. You know something they didn't? quote: So you would prefer anarchy? No one follows the rule and the last man standing wins? Americans need to get their priorities straight again. If the only thing we are fighting for is survival, whether in the desert or in our own streets, then tens of thousands of lives have been wasted in the past 250 years. You can put a thousand criminals in jail, Mike, and if it costs one innocent his freedom because you didn't want to follow the rules, then the price will have been too high. This country was founded on the premise that some things are more valuable than life, and has survived because there were men with sufficient courage to match those convictions. You want to do what's expedient? Expediency is always born of fear and inevitably leads only to defeat. How about we start doing the right thing again, instead? And consequences be damned. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Ron,I don't know anything they didn't....but, apparently, members of Congress did since they awarded the officer a medal for his actions and called him a hero, despite his superiors writing him up. Again, I repeat that the comments are overkill. The tens of thousands of lives over 250 years have not been made in vain. The country and what it was created to stand for has not fallen. The constitution is not in shambles. To come up with such comparisons as those and ones made by others, along with politicians and members of the press with regards to those actions in Iraq I still, and will always continue to find, mind-boggling. Make it monumental if you will. I am obviously too simplistic to do so. Goodnight... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Would it be fair, Mike, to characterize the event as just a "little" adultery" Nothing that would actually ruin the marriage or the years of hard work building trust as long as everyone kept their heads and didn't turn it into something, uh what was the word, monumental? I'm actually far less concerned with any one event than with people's attitudes. Your implication that the rules of fairness and justice no longer work is a common one, born of fear and frustration, and while one man's opinion is hardly monumental, it is perhaps a harbinger of the monumental. When your hand is cut with a dirty knife, it's not wise to wait until the whole arm is riddled with gangrene before considering treatment. Monumental probably isn't something we should wait to see. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Michael, there are no 'innocent civilians' when Israelis or Americans die because, according to some, the Israelis and Americans are only getting what they deserve. Victim status is reserved only for those who perpetrate terrorism (in the name of political disenfranchisement and because our soldiers 'desecrated' Islam by being in Saudi Arabia, according to OBL), and for unintended civilian casualities in a war zone, not for intentional civilian massacres. Double-standard thinking...sort of like chemicals in Saddam's hands were not weapons, but in Reagan's hands they were. The liberal left makes mountains out of mole hills because they are desperate and grasping at straws. Muslims can dance in the streets and give out candy when Israeli and American civilians are killed and nary a word is said about it, let alone any display of moral outrage. But let a few soldiers humiliate some terrorist prisoners and the moral outrage hits deafening decibles, despite the fact that the soldiers were being disciplined for it before the news hit the airwaves because we are a nation that has regard for the dignity of all humanity. How many people have heard that U.S. troops are putting themselves in danger when under enemy fire in an attempt to limit civilian casualities, by not returning fire when being fired upon if civilians are known to be close by? That hasn't gotten any airtime in our 'conservative press', has it? Of course not. Ted Kennedy is surreal. I can't believe the things coming out of his mouth. He has to be about the most outrageous person in Congress, although most of the Democratic leadership is not far behind him. I could almost wish a Democrat would be elected just to see an end to the unprecedented non-stop whining and hate-mongering that has been going on since Bush was elected (maybe that's their game plan, be as annoying as possible in an attempt to get their own way, just like a two-year old?) It will be interesting to see the impact of the news that the U.N. now agrees with the U.S. that there were WMD's being shipped out of Iraq by Saddam before, during, and after the war. I'm betting that there will be only silence on the issue from the left. Ron, as in my reply to Michael above, we were handling the prisoner abuse situation prior to it hitting the airwaves because we are a principled nation that has regard for the dignity of all humanity. I don't see that Michael or anyone else here has defended the soldiers actions, just stating that it is being overblown by the left and the media (there's an oxymoron!) for political purposes. If it were not being handled already by the military and there was an attempted cover-up, that would be a different story entirely. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You seem to be saying, Denise, that doing what's right isn't right unless accolades are given in return? I certainly share your frustration with people who see only what they want to see and ignore everything contrary to their own preconceptions. I share your frustration with unbalanced reporting that paints everything in shades of black and white. But I fail to see how mimicking those who cause the frustration does anything except further the frustration. Nary a word was said about Muslims dancing in the streets? Makes you wonder how you and I heard about them then, doesn't it? To very freely paraphrase Mathew 7:2-5, if we spend a little less time worrying about what others have done wrong and a little more about what we can do that is right, there's a good chance we'll all be able to see a bit more clearly. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (06-13-2004 09:53 PM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No, Ron, not looking for accolades at all for doing what is right, we aim to do what is right regardless, nor am I advocating mimicking the wrong that has been done to us. Just looking for things to be kept in perspective. Report the good and the bad, not just the bad. I meant nary a word from the Muslim world or from the leftists. I saw the dancing in the streets on Fox News...the only place I saw it...and also read about the dancing and giving out candy whenever an Israeli or American is killed by terrorists on WorldNetDaily...two news outlets out of how many in the world? And I'm still waiting to hear any moral outrage over it, even just a fraction of what has been voiced over Abu Ghraib, from the Muslim world at large, but particularly from our very own leftists here at home, because having been raised in a country that values human rights and dignity and freedom, they have less excuse for their ignorance and moral confusion. We don't have to worry about the wrongs already done to us, but we sure better be ever vigilent about the future schemes against us that are being planned even as we speak. We can't let our guard down. We still have to protect ourselves until the terrorists begin seeing more clearly at least. And I'm still waiting for the left to retract their "Bush lied about WMDs" now that the U.N. issued their statement agreeing that they were there and that Saddam did ship them to other countries before, during and after the start of the war. But just as with the other issues, there's only silence. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I made no implication that rules of fairness do not work. I have no idea where you come up with that one. Do they ALWAYS work? Of course not but nothing in my comments stated that I believe all rules should be abolished and "last man standing" should be the only law of the land. I'm afraid that is your personal embellishments of my words. Perhaps if you were in a room with a man who had buried your daughter alive you would say, "I'm sorry, daughter, but I must respect this man's 8th amendment rights and not mistreat him to find out where you are and save your life." There are always exceptions, Ron. This doesn't address my point, however, which was that firing a gun over a man's head to scare him does not constitute conduct so dastardly it unravels the thread of American decency.. Denise, don't hold your breath. As I demonstrated in my "It's all about the oil!" query, there won't be any comments coming forth...such is life. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Frankly, Mike and Denise, you keep missing the point. 1. I think it's disgusting when Muslims or anybody dance for joy over the death of innocent civilians or anybody. Okay? To bring that up is like a wife beater saying, "Yeah, I only beat my wife seven times, he's beaten his wife 21 times. I'm not so bad." 2. The question isn't what you would do or I would do in extreme circumstances, but whether or not the administration actively went against the constitution. I don't mean interpret it differently, I mean willfully abrogated the 8th amendment. My first post in this thread assumed the incident to be an isolated case, more and more evidence points to the fact that it is not. Is it systematic? Is it policy? These are the questions that are being asked now. If it is systematic, what would your response be to that? As far as WMD's go, don't you think your grasping for straws? No one, as far as I know, denied that there weren't WMD's -- we gave them to Saddam, remember? Was it a valid justification for going to war? Many in the administration have already stated that they were misled by faulty intelligence. Bush points to buses. 3. I still think getting rid of Saddam was a good idea so as far as the oil thing goes, its hard to defend a position I never held. The complaint I had then and still have now is the way this administration went about doing the right thing. The interesting thing is that the UN, suddenly, seems to have been accorded a new found respect. Why in the world do you want us to listen to them now, Denise? Moral confusion or short memories? |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Originally, I was going to sit back and not get involved in this part of the discussion... I WAS going to just let it go by and hope it eventually went away, however there is a question taht has been nagging at me since this thing about the 8th Amendment came up, and the harsh treatment given to terrorists while they were being questioned: What actually went on???? And is what everyone thinks happened, and says they heard, or were told, or saw on TV actually what happened??? Do I agree with tghe things that were done?? Not entirely. Do I think innocent people were unfairly treated?? Probably... More than likely. Do I think that people who are NOT living in the United States, and who are NOT Americans being incarcerated by Americans be afforded the protection teh AMERICAN Constitution affords AMERICANS??? Yeah, right. According to the television series M*A*S*H (and Col. Henry Blake) there are 2 laws of war: 1) Young men die... 2) Doctors can't change rule # 1. Well, I submit that there are a few other "rules" that people seem to be either forgetting, or are ignoring. 1) There are no niceties on a battlefield. 2) When enemy personnel (or suspected enemy) are captured, they get questioned. 3) If they are not cooperative, and there are American lives in the balance, or it is in the heat of a combat environment, no one gets Marandized, and the on-scene interrogators might not have the luxury of waiting the prisoners out. Do I feel that the prisoners who were physically abused, severely injured or killed were mistreated... yes. Do I think American lives were spared by keeping the prisoners awake for more than 24 hours, or by standing for hours, or by scaring them with (mostly) idle threats? Absolutely. Actually, I have one further question... Let's bring that situation here to the US.... (The camera fades in on an interrogation room in an inner city police department. We see two police officers in their freshly starched shirts, and a prisoner who is very tired, needing a shave, and is complaining about needing a drink of water. He has been awake for over 24 hours, and has been interrogated for the last 16 of those hours. The police officers have just come on duty 15 minutes ago) Police Officer 1: (screaming) Admit it... you planted the bomb that killed all 17 of those cops. YOU did it... WHY??? WHY??? Accused: (wearlily) Could I please just have a glass of water? (Police officer 2 places a glass of water just out of reach) Police Officer 1: Tell us where you planted the other bomb, and who is helping you out, and we'll let you have the drink. No Problem. Police Officer 2: (Unhooking his holster) Let's just shoot the (choose your own) right now. What do we care? Accused: OK, OK... I'll tell you... The bomb was found... in the State Police barracks, and it was set to go of during shift change. All of the conspirators were arrested, and the cops lived to arrest another day... Why is no one on here complaining about THAT??? Just a question. Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38894-2004Jun13.html So the argument is this: We don't do these sorts of things and they deserved it anyway. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, Brad, the argument is that we are simply evil people. Our constitution is a sham and we pretend to do good things to cover up the fact that we do bad things. We do not deserve the same respect granted to decent people. We enjoy berating and torturing others under the guise of doing good. Our country should be banned from the history books and every American should be forced to flog himself each morning before breakfast. We are as bad as everyone says we are. People have the right to despise us. We are indeed the "EVIL EMPIRE". Since you use the word "we" when referring to the actions committed by them I must suppose you are referring to all of us. If not, perhaps you would have to acknowledge that just maybe it was "them" and not necessarily "us" and put it into a little more proper perspective. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Short memories, Brad? Just look around these forums or the archives of any major news outlet to see the "Bush lied about WMDs." I personally don't want you or anyone else to listen to the U.N., but I find it hypocritical when the left, who usually hang on the U.N.'s every word and elevates its prouncements to the level of infallibility (or is that just in anti-Israeli, anti U.S. matters?) don't even have a passing interest in what they say when the U.N. does occassionally agree with the U.S. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Isn't Human nature funny? I dare some one to count all the finger pointing of different people in this debate. The fact of the manner is I don't know enuff to say who is too blame. What I do know is that we as Americans must take responciblity. Unfortunitly this event was not prevented. All we can do is build on what has happen. We must define our selves as americans. AND Don't forgit the UN is kinda corrupt and Kinda against us. I hope the united states can continue down the balence beam of the middle east. Because once we started down that rope the only options were to fall off or continue down to peace. We can't back out now, ever time we have given up hope it has been veiwed as a failor and we as a nation has been laughed at. We must finish what we started and bring peace to the middle east. -Juju |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
nm. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (06-15-2004 03:35 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, You're confusing the issue here. As far as I can tell, they don't agree with Bush's pronouncements. You misunderstand the article. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Ummmmmmm.......... what does "nm" mean I am guesing "not me?????????" |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
nm=nevermind was going to rejoin the conversation but would rather maintain the weakening grip i have on sanity |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Weakening grip?...Oh hell, I lost that a long long time ago....Sanity?...what the hell's that?....Doesn't that have something to do with those paper thinggies they put on toilet seats in your finer Hotels? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Michael, silence is sometimes the loudest sound in the world, isn't it? Brad, how am I misunderstanding the article? I've read it several times and it still seems clear as a bell to me that the U.N. committee is saying that Saddam shipped out WMDs and WMD components before, during and after the war, and they're showing up all over the place, and some complete with their U.N. inspection tags still on them. They also state they don't know whose hands some of it may have fallen into: "It raises the question of what happened to the dual-use equipment, where is it now and what is it being used for," Ewen Buchanan, Perricos's spokesman, said. "You can make all kinds of pharmaceutical and medicinal products with a fermenter. You can also use it to breed anthrax." So that means that he had them, right? That means he didn't destroy them as he was supposed to, right? That means he wasn't in compliance with the cease-fire agreement, right? That means that Bush didn't lie about WMDs, right? Honestly, what point am I missing? Raph, speak your mind. Why should you be the only one left gripping onto sanity? I've heard it's greatly overrated anyway! Toe, you're not alone, me too. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Remember the discussion we had before the war over imminent v. potential threat? It's the same thing here. Those that are mad at Bush over the whole WMD thing aren't saying that Saddam never had WMD's or that he was a good guy. They are saying that Bush misled the public into thinking that Saddam was an imminent threat rather than a potential threat. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102373/ quote: quote: |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
uhg.... An potential threat is still a threat? Right? uHG. JUJU |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Juju, when you're determining whether to wage a full scale assault the difference between potential and imminent threat is a large one. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
To answer the 'Original' question... which was 'Does anybody take responsibility anymore?'... There are two or more remarks/answers/questions... 1. Yes, Nobody does! 2. Why, is anybody crazy to do that? 3. What responsibility 4. Who is responsibility? 5. What's anymore? ... Anyway, before I overstay my welcome... I will disappear |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Who was that masked man? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And those who are saying that would be incorrect Brad. Someone unfamiliar with the political landscape over the past couple of years would really think that Bush misled and lied going by the sniping soundbites coming from the left and from the media. A lie repeated often enough starts to sound like truth. But the truth actually is, Bush never said the threat was imminent. He said the exact opposite in his State of the Union Address. How do some people keep missing that fact? How do people get away with stating, as fact, the very opposite of what the truth of the matter really is? Bush said we could not wait until the threat became imminent. He did not mislead, as some say, and he did not lie about WMDs, as some say. To disagree with his decision of the need to go to war is one thing. Disagreement is honorable. But to accuse the President of being misleading and of lying when the facts do not substantiate the accusation is far from honorable, not to mention intellectually dishonest. What I and others see coming from the left, for the most part, is a palpable hatred for the man, a blinding rage that seeks to destroy the character of someone they view, not as their President, but as an enemy. This is evident even among those who hold high positions in the Democratic Party. It's become apparant to me that the welfare of our country is not their highest concern. Their highest concern is 'the party' and getting 'the party' back in power at all costs, and they don't much care how they have to do it as long as it gets done. Anything that gets in the way of their goal must go, even if it is truth. Listen to the rhetoric. They are not seeking honest debate of the issues and presenting a viable alternative platform to the American people. They are attacking the man and his character, calling him a liar, a traitor, a deceiver, a warmonger, a greedy opportunist. They don't miss any opportunity to slander him. They have taken dirty politics to a new low and they should be ashamed of their actions, in my opinion. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: The same way you keep missing the fact that after the initial address, the administration, in speeches and interviews, created that air of imminence and panic. Innundating us with information about Saddam and his arsenal. Also, the fact that the coalition mobilized quickly and against UN wishes seemed to suggest a hovering threat that had to be dealt with quickly. So much so that attention had to be pulled from Afghanistan. quote: Except that he did lie, using knowingly false information about Iraq's nuclear ambitions and presenting THAT evidence(not the other british intelligence), to the UN as proof. quote: Funny, I recall the same attitude from the right when there were cries for impeachment after the Starr report. It works both ways which is why I said earlier partisanship is destroying us. quote: Not all are accurate no, but considering the substantial profit his holdings have made, the fact that military contracting has gone to companies linked to his family and many of the Republican friendly companies? Well it sounds like poourtunism to me. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (06-17-2004 02:28 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html quote: George Bush, 2003 |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
! [This message has been edited by Sudhir Iyer (06-17-2004 10:08 AM).] |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, I'd have to disagree. There has been no time in my lifetime where the divide has been so pronounced between the right and the left, and no time that I can remember where those differences have been evidenced by such a pronounced and vocal hatred for a President. The left hated Reagan too, but were not as vile in their attacks on him, at least to my memory. I do agree with you, however, that the type of partisianship that we see today is destroying us. We need to become more civilized and have the well being of our country as our focus again and not the welfare of a particular party. And as far as your statement about Bush having lied: you believe your sources and I believe mine. Brad, none of which speaks to imminence, but rather the seriousness of the threat posed by Saddam. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I agree, Denise. This type of unrestrained hate-filled partisanship is very destructive. I've never seen it in my lifetime. There has always been bickering, poking and jabbing and shennanigans both parties commonly engage in but this is different. Personally I believe it's because the Democratic party is so much on the defensive and, in their defensiveness, they are striking out in any way they can. That's one reason why topics like the prison abuse gets beaten to death, not that it's not important, but that it's an instrument to fire at the administration. To link it to being the same as when Hussein ran the prison (which Kennedy stated) to unraveling the fabric of the United States, which has been insinuated here is foolish but it's an arrow they cannot pass up and so it will get milked for all it's worth, not so much for the action of the abuse but for the show of resentment and hatred of Bush. Perhaps the Democratic party feels defensive because they did almost nothing over the ten terrorist attacks against the US and US soldiers from 1992-2000, when a Democrat was President. Perhaps they are mad that Bush DID take action and the majority of Americans agreed with him. Even now, with many negative things happening and a liberal press there to insure that the negativity will be exploited to its fullest, still the majority of Americans stand behind Bush. This HAS to infuriate them so much the vileness comes out. With all of the top Democratic leaders calling for Clinton to attack Iraq in '98, with everyone, including the UN, feeling certain that there WERE WMD's in Iraq, it is foolish to attack Bush for lying about WMD's and yet that is what they do. They have to know that won't float and I'm sure that infuriates them more. Most arguments they use have been taken from them - the "it's all about the oil" is gone. The "It's the economy, stupid" is gone because the economy has come back very strong. SO what do they have left to do but attack whenever the possibility presents itself? We are seeing pure hatred on display by political leaders born of frustration and desperation. Kerry is struggling to come up with topics for his platform. He offers no solutions at all. In a current ad he speaks of "There are 43,000,000 Americans without health insurance." That was basically what Clinton had siad when he ran and eight years in office still did not produce a health care plan and people are aware of that - and he does not say how HE would produce it. Last week he gave a speech stating that he has a way to insure that millions of Americans will be safer from terrorist attacks than they now are and - IF he is elected! - he will divulge this plan. In other words, I suppose, he;s saying if he is not elected, to hell with them. Does he think that's going to get him votes??? The hatred and the degree if partisanship has to stop and the country needs to be the main concern. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. We can't even make it happen in our small threads here - imagine the battles in COngress!! As a country, we lose in this type of mudslinging.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Released this week; http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/project/project.html quote: Most notable of the signatories: http://www.diplomatsforchange.com/signatories/signatories.html Admiral William J. Crowe, USN, Ret. Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1985 (under Reagan) Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Command The group also is populated by prominent diplomats from the Middle East and former Soviet Union as well as top military commanders. Many were appointees of Reagan and Bush 41. Of course other Bi-Partisan efforts in the news this week is the finding by the 9/11 commission there was no collaberative effort between Saddam Hussein and OBL. Is there any bi-partisan effort somewhere that is supporting Bush 43? I'd like to see what it says if there is. Polls in Iraq this week show a dismal outlook for sentiment toward the U.S. there. Everyone here should remember that I supported this effort and gave the President the benefit of the doubt (in addition to having trust in the opinions of Colin Powell and Tony Blair). The handwriting is on the wall though. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I have never in my life voted for a political party. IMO, the greatest presidents of my lifetime were Kennedy and Reagan, each for very different reasons. I find the thought of unnecessary war only slightly more frightening than National Health Care. I never look at parties and, frankly, I rarely even look at issues too deeply. Instead, I look for leadership. I look for a man with the strength of character and will to unite, lead, and accomplish. Personally, I'm not convinced the opposition to Bush is any more antagonistic today than in many, many other Presidential elections I've seen. Goldwater played nasty and lost, Nixon played even nastier and won, and everyone seems to accept that "all is fair in love, war, and politics." Still, let's assume for a moment that Denise and Mike are right. Let's assume that there really are millions of people who are being overtly nasty and antagonistic toward the present Administration. Is that the fault of the people? Or is that a failure of leadership? I can't remember any President enjoying the support Bush did during his first year in office. Even LBJ (the worst President in my lifetime, btw) took over the reins of Camelot with less support than Bush had that first year. His popularity was so strong, in fact, that today we don't even have a better alternative because all Democrats strong enough to run a nation didn't want to bet against Bush in 2004. This is possibly the most important election since 1860, and arguably the most disappointing. Bush had the support to do just about anything. If that support has turned to antagonism, it might be wise to ask why. Both leadership and divisiveness, after all, begin at the top. |
||
|
Goldenrose Member Elite
since 2003-05-30
Posts 3665 |
I have had my say on these pages....but let me just say that if we spent less time arguing about the rights and wrongs of war, and more time on the more important issues concerned with this life we are living..ie that fellow humans are STARVING and close to death NOW...then we MIGHT just be able to effect the outcome of a worthy cause with positive news for a change rather than the negative view that war has. Just think of all of the people that could have been saved if we just used all of the money that went into developing and buying weapons that do HARM...into giving that money to people on this planet... that we all live on?....but NO..we have to spend Billions of dollars to fund things that are going to KILL...all in the name of money. All that i can say on this is when the people involved in these decisions meet their maker....i hope they are prepared for his wrath and long journey down below... Who on this planet WANTS war?....And yet it is ironically the poeple's taxes that go into buying these weapons....i say scrap ALL of the funding for weapons by every nation..and give it to the people like the people of Sudan...who are dying NOW AS WE SPEAK.... Goldenrose. ''Death where is thy sting? Love where is thy glory?'' William Shakespeare. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, I agree with Michael's assessment. I believe the level of hatred seen today is unprecedented and I believe it is purely partisian and I believe that the Democratic leadership has deliberatly fomented the growing unrest in this country by their non-stop verbal attacks on the President. So I would lay the lion's share of the blame on them, not on the President. They are out to destroy him, regardless of his leadership abilities, simply because he is a Republican. And as Michael noted, every arrow they have attempted to use against him has failed. And that makes them even more angry. And the angrier they get the better Bush looks. He appears calm, mature, and in control, while they appear as temper tantrum throwing spoiled brats. Sadly, John F. Kennedy wouldn't recognize his party today. L.R., that statement is loaded with so much garbage, how can it be taken seriously? For one thing, the U.S. did not strike out on its own. We do have a coalition. And who are the "traditional friends and allies" that we were insensitive to, places like France? Such a pity that we didn't consider their clandestine trade deals with Saddam before we went to war. Bush exhibited disdain for the U.N.? I don't think he did, but I wouldn't blame him or anyone else for showing disdain for that organization. In fact, the next candidate who runs for office on the platform of disengaging us from U.N. membership has my vote, regardless of their party affiliation. Bush got us involved in an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain? Ill-planned is a judgment call. All wars are costly. I don't think our exit is uncertain. It will be when the new government of Iraq is stabilized and they tell us they no longer need us there. As for the findings of the 9/11 Commission regarding the Saddam/Al Qaida connection, that was in reference only to the 9/11 attacks, and only to information that they were able to ascertain as credible. But there were definitely links between the two: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025 |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: If that's true, Denise, then their attack isn't on Bush, but on the party. "Simply because he is a Republican" obviously implies they would and will attack all Republicans in exactly the same manner. If you really believe that, then you can't really call the attacks either unprecedented or personal. On the other hand, if the attacks *are* both personal and unprecedented, any unbiased exploration will want to investigate cause and effect. I don't necessarily buy into all those where-there's-smoke-there's-fire theories, but I have to admit, when I smell smoke I'm going to at least LOOK to see if there's a fire. Any other reaction would be foolishly dangerous. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not only wouldn't Kennedy recognize the Democratic party, I don't think our founding fathers would recognize the U.S., this land with 8% of the world's population and 90% of the world's lawyers. They would probably say the same thing Toerag's parents said in the delivery room - we created THAT!?!?!  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102608/ quote: I suppose you could certainly read this in the way Fred Kaplan reads it. Sneaky, but technically not a lie. http://slate.msn.com/id/2102589/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
you mean like fellatio is not technically sex, Brad? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: From the worldnetdaily article. More on this later by the way. quote: --from the NY times editorial "The Plain Truth" C'mon guys, you know I love doin' this. 0 |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What gives the Bush camp any credibility Denise? You pointed out earlier the State Department (Colin Powell) hates Bush. Let's assume this is true just for argument's sake. Why would Colin Powell hate his boss? Would you take a job from a boss you hated? Probably not. We can assume Powell didn't hate Bush going into the relationship. Why would he hate him now -- assuming he does? I don't base my opinions on my opinions. I make decisions based on data. And while Argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) can be a logical fallacy if one, for example, says -- Tiger Woods drives a Buick -- therefore they must be good cars -- it wouldn't be a logical fallacy to say Tiger Woods drives a Titelist -- therefore they must be good clubs/balls. It is unprecedented for the Diplomatic Corps to get involved in politics in this manner. This is a subject on which they have authority. Taken by itself it is not a slight matter. Added to the volumes of information that is becoming available it is weighty. Does this mean that America is bad? Of course not. And I'm growing weary of the charge as is any American. There is a word Americans use -- and some others as well -- that isn't generally found in other countries -- Un-American. When CEO's in Germany screw the workforce you won't hear Germans saying that's Un-German. In reference to the specific thread subject it was Joe Lieberman who characterized the problem the best -- how do we say that America isn't the same as the terrorists? Because unlike those who are beheading their captives we're investigating, and prosecuting the perpetrators of Abu Ghrab. (paraphrased -- I don't have the direct quote in front of me.) We have to hold our elected officials to the same, if not higher, standard. Bill Clinton lied to the American people about an incident with Monica Lewinski. The Republican-led house and Senate called him to testify under oath about it. Is Mr. Bush, I wonder, going to ever testify under oath about what he posed to the American people and the world through Colin Powell as truth that has directly led to the deaths of American Sons and Daughters? And you want to talk about vituperant attacks -- take a look at what the Worldnet Daily News which you cite is doing here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38433 Calling the Democratic party the 'Enemy within' and 'The Party of Treason'. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (06-20-2004 01:48 AM).] |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise: (from an earlier response) quote: quote: State Of The Union Adress: "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." THIS evidence (the African uranium) was brought forth by Powell to the UN investigators and found to be forged. The White House then admitted the African uranium claim was false and should not have been in the president's address. Furthermore in the administration's presentation against Iraq Powell stated (regarding the aluminum tubes): "There is controversy about what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium" Powell said. However Greg Thielmann, who was part of Powell's investigative bureau, and analysts from Oak Ridge National Laboratory(who enrich uranium for the United States)had informed the administration, beforehand, that the tubes could not be used for this purpose and were shocked to see that the information was used anyway. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Ah man, I was going to jump on the WND. You got there first. But as soon as I have the time, I'll try to so that they've been it longer than the last four years. By the way, I don't have any problems with posting biased essays. I don't see anyway around it. I do wonder why Michael loves to stick the ad hom tag to just about everything I post and completely ignores when Denise throws out another WDN circularly referenced work. By the way, did you know that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the Oklahoma city massacre? And the first bombing of the World Trade towers? I gotta get more information on this stuff. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: LR, I understand the point, but since I gave Opeth such a hard time over stuff like this, I have to point out that an argument from authority is still argument from authority anyway you wash it (and therefore not logical in any strict sense of the word). |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The appeal to authority is only a fallacy Brad when it is either an appeal to a false authority as I demonstrated, or if there is no consensus among experts. We rely on medical doctors for medical treatment, an auto-mechanic for auto repairs, but we don't go to plumbers for dental work. There are areas where we don't have access to the information, or we just don't have the time or expertise ourselves to be able to evaluate the data. We don't need an expert to calculate the sqaure root of four -- unless we're four years old. Our data has to come from somewhere. To determine its' veracity we always must question the source and what else the source does and says. The Diplomats for Change statement wouldn't carry any credibility if it was composed of all, say, Carter appointments. But it is an unprecedented act from an imposing cross section of OFFICIALS. I'd like to see more discussion from the signatories because the statement does have some generalizations that should be explored. I will agree though that it is a weaker argument than perhaps an opinion from Ron Carnell on how to administer a message board site since there are both military commanders and diplomats who might disagree with the statement. But, since the President's own Diplomat and Military commander -- Colin Powell -- hate's the President |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, I do believe that the attacks are personal and unprecedented because he is a Republican, and that they would do the same to any Republican. I don't believe that a Democrat attacking a Republican or vice-versa is unprecedented, but I believe that the level of hatred that we see today behind the attacks is unprecedented. And I believe that the hatred is due more to the fact that the Democrats are not in power and calling the shots than disagreement over Bush's policies. I have never in my entire short life heard a politician of either party insinuate that the President is a traitor and a tyrant until this year. It's absolutely shameful, in my opinion, at any time, but especially during a time of war.And I agree, where there is smoke it is always wise to investigate. But sometimes there is no fire. Sometimes it's just smoke & mirrors. I agree, Michael. The founders would never recognize today's America. L.R., I didn't say that Colin Powell hated Bush, I said that the State Department is flamingly anti-Bush. They would probably be "anti" any Republican President since they are infamously liberal in their ideology, and Republicans tend to be conservative in their ideology. Next month WND will be having an expose on the Republican Party. They aren't for either pary. They just call it like they see it. I don't agree with every opinion from their multitude of commentators, of course, but I read the pros and cons on a given issue from various sources and then make up my own mind as to whom I think is giving a more balanced view of an issue. I've read this month's expose on today's Democratic Party, and I can tell you, I found it credible and frightening. I think it's time for those capable in that party, like the Joe Liebermans, to reclaim it, and again make it the Party that it used to be before it was influenced by those of a more socialist persuasion, like Kennedy and Clinton. As for Bill Clinton, didn't he first lie under oath before the Grand Jury investigating a case of sexual harassment against him by Gennifer Flowers? My memory could be wrong, but didn't that come before any Republican led action seeking his impeachment? And just something to think about: Why did our 'coservative' media never miss a chance to refer to Nixon as "our disgraced ex-President" because of Watergate and his subsequent resignation to avoid impeachement, and yet the media never refers to Clinton as "our disgraced ex-President" when he actually was impeached for his admitted perjury? Brad, no matter how you slice it, I don't think there can be any doubt that there were terrorist ties to Iraq. Perhaps without verifiable ties to Saddam directly, but definitely operating freely in Iraq under the knowledge of and with connections to members of his government and surely with his knowledge, unless he didn't know what was going on in his own country, by his own ministers. Raph, the intelligence in question was not confirmed to have been a forgery until well after the Address. Some thought it credible and others didn't prior to that. That doesn't make it a lie to have used it, although it probably shouldn't have been used if they were not 100% sure of its credibility. It certainly wasn't necessary to use it to make a case against Saddam. And the British intelligence has not been discredited, it was the CIA intel that was in question, to my understanding. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Denise, you and I have contact, a relationship, ties. But what does it mean? The 9/11 commission report is a staff report and therefore in progress.. it isn't a final conclusion -- but the commissioners are pretty clear they are seeing things differently from the way the Bush administration has characterized this -- particularly Cheney. Isn't Kerry the one that's supposed to be the master of taking three sides to every issue? What is the State Department Denise? Who is in control of it? Who said the media is conservative? Worldnet Daily is... but, as for the rest of it -- if you think ABC, CBS, and NBC are liberal and liberals think they're conservative -- what do you suppose they are? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Oh, and no. Clinton never faced anyone except Hillary and Barbara Walters over Flowers. He was called to testify about Lewinsky and faced impeachment for purjuring himself and suborning purjury over the matter. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Well Denise, while the uranium information was officially discredited by the UN after the state of the union address, the CIA had clearly warned the admin months earlier not to rely on what they considered shaky evidence. After the address the information was used again in Powell's presentation. Deplorable, but fine we won't call it a lie. The information regarding aluminum tubes, however, was analyzed before both speech and UN presentation by Powell's people and by Oak Ridges. Despite their conclusions the information was presented as evidence. Which is undoubtedly a lie. When you're comparing Bush's ethics to Clinton's, citing the latter's lies, you shouldn't forget Bush's repeated denial of a DUI conviction to critics and press, that is until court documents were revealed proving otherwise. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (06-20-2004 06:22 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"if you think ABC, CBS, and NBC are liberal and liberals think they're conservative -- what do you suppose they are? " Reb, perhaps you didn't see my question before about asking for a reason all of the three major stations refused to broadcast Bush's State of Iraq news conference, which was broadcast by other stations and, indeed, stations all over the world. It was certainly a newsworthy event, one in which the AMerican public, to say the least, was very interested in. If there is another reason besides prejudice I'd be very interested in hearing it.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., but if I allowed you to come into my home, provided you with sanctuary from the legal authorities and also allowed you to plot illegal activities while there and did nothing to kick you out, or at least attempt to stop you in your endeavors, but looked the other way while others in my home aided and assisted you, I would be held legally accountable for your activities. Or are we to believe that Saddam had no idea who was in his country and what they were up to? I find that awfully hard to believe. I don't think too much got past him. I think you may be seeing differences where none exist. The Commission didn't say that there weren't ties to Al Qaeda in a general overall sense, but that they didn't find any credible evidence that Saddam was involved operationally with the 9/11 attacks, specifically, which is what they were commissioned to investigate, only those things actually pertaining to the 9/11 attacks. To my knowledge neither Bush nor Cheyney said Saddam was directly involved with the 9/11 attacks. What they did say was that Saddam was a threat because he gave terrorists safe-haven in Iraq and that there was evidence that terrorists had training camps in Iraq and that there were meetings between folks in Saddam's government and known terrorists. Powell, of course, is currently heading up the State Department, appointed by Bush. But he isn't the State Department, the organization, which is noted for its left leanings. Memory can be unreliable at times. I could have sworn that he perjured himself before a Grand Jury as well. I'm glad I didn't put money on that one! It's been stated around here that the press in the U.S. is conservative. I don't see how anyone can see ABC, CBS, and NBC as anything but liberal in their presentation of 'news' and in their commentary. I'd really like to hear a liberal's perspective on why they view them as conservative, if they do. I can't even imagine what those arguments could possibly be. Raph, I think that they still may have considered it credible intelligence despite the CIA's misgivings. But even at that, they shouldn't have used it in the Address if it was in dispute. They certainly didn't need it to bolster their case against Saddam. I wasn't comparing Bush's ethics with Clinton's. I was comparing the similar situations between Nixon and Clinton regarding the threat of impeachment and impeachment, respectively, and how they were treated very differently by the media in the aftermath. Why is Nixon touted as 'disgraced' and yet Clinton is not? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
btw, Denise, Clinton's testimony over Monica that landed him in hot water occured during the Jennifer Flowers trial...that may have been the confusing part (hard to keep track of them) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
He did have to testify before the grand jury -- Ken Starr's grand jury -- but not over Flowers -- there was never a Flowers trial -- I believe you both are confusing her with Paula Jones. I'll be back in a bit... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok Deer.. let's take a look at your argument... You basically say the media is liberal because the networks didn't carry a speech by the (conservative) President in prime time. This was true for ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox. Fox News, however, did carry the broadcast as did CSPAN, CNBC, CNN, MSNBC. I don't imagine though that you feel CNN is conservative or objective because it DID carry the speech. Why then would you infer the converse? Not every speech or press conference by the President is made to pre-empt network broadcast programming during prime time... especially during May sweeps. Denise says the networks are liberal, the liberals here say they are conservative -- if both sides feel alienated by the overall coverage of the major news outlets (excepting for the 'fair and balanced' Fox News which conservatives find objective and liberals find conservative) then -- what is the inference? I find the networks neither liberal or conservative -- and objective isn't exactly the word I would use either. I find them -- commercial. Well Denise -- They're in Saudi Arabia too. And Egypt. And Syria. And ... shall I continue? Is the Bush Administration planning any bombing runs there? You give Saddam far more credit than he deserves to say not much got past him. His entire system got past him. He's most likely been duped by all his senior advisors for years regarding his military capabilities as well as WMD status. And I assure you -- what I saw on 'This Week' this morning was a clear disdain for the Bush / Cheney representations by the Chairman of the 9/11 commission -- even though he was careful to stress the scope of his work was strictly 9/11 and that the report is strictly a Staff report. I've also listened to the commission in progress live on the radio throughout the process and heard the testimony first hand (yes -- we all know broadcasting raw live feeds is a liberal tactic of NPR to confuse us into thinking we can make up our own minds )Are we far enough from the topic now? Or shall we chase red herrings some more? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Not every speech or press conference by the President is made to pre-empt network broadcast programming during prime time... especially during May sweeps." That's your response, Reb? At a time when everyone is concerned about the war in Iraq, at a time everyone is questioning the President about what's happening there and what are future plans, at a time that Iraq occupies every waking minute of every day for every reporter, not to mention, citizens....to have Bush schedule a prime-time press conference to discuss his thoughts and America's course of action there.....you are saying THAT or something equally incredible about May sweeps??? For a man of your intelligence that's a little unworthy of you, LR. Is it so hard to acknowledge it for what it was? Ok, then, we'll leave it at that...what's the difference? It is what it is... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Nope. This was my reply; quote: And you didn't answer the question. You're making some sweeping assumptions that simply don't have any basis. It is not uncommon at all for the networks to not carry a speech that has basically no news in it and is largely political. Similarly - they don't cover every speech made by his opponents. Your evidence is simply not compelling. The speech http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html wasn't either. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Denise- if people are calling him a tyrant because of the war, then why is it even more inappropriate to call him that during wartime? It seems to me that it makes it more appropriate. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A speech touted to discuss the Iraq situation with the country and the world, to outline the steps to be taken by the US and the new Iraqi government has no news in it? It's just a political ploy, unworthy of air time? I doubt there's enough Viagra in the world to make that stand up, reb. However you happen to feel about the speech has no relevance. It was the decision not to broadcast it, without the contents even being known that is the point of my question. In reality, the speech was actually important to some, since Russia, Germany, France and the UN security council applauded it. They must have found a non-major network somewhere to view it. My opinion is that it was shunned and even the revues downplayed because it actually contained some optimistic views and some good news of what's happening there. The major networks have proven that they lean much more heavily on showing and exploiting the negative....why give Bush a prime-time opportunity to state differently? Not that it really matters that much but there was one member of a famous rock band that went to Iraq a couple of weeks ago to visit some of the wounded soldiers and he stated he was absolutely amazed at the good that has been done there. He stated that the American people do not see that side...he is right. Of course, one may say he was a Bush plant being told to say that from the CIA who is holding his guitar, wife and kids hostage but he's not the first civilian to say that, after going over there. The major networks will not carry news that is not negative concerning Iraq, a fact they have proven over and over. So no need to beat this dead horse, too. Obviously you feel that the speech concerning Iraq was pre-judged by you and the networks to be non-newsworthy and strictly political and turned out to be nothing more than a disappointment. Of course, by pre-judging it that way you are stating your view of Bush fairly clearly, which makes your explanation more understandable. The networks are not supposed to be that way...... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What in the speech (you have the entire text in front of you) was news Micheal? It's your argument to make. Not mine. You have to demonstrate that the reason this speech wasn't broadcast in its entirety on ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox live is because they are liberal. All you have is conjecture. (and an ad hom at me -- you have absolutely no grounds to say I pre-judged the speech). Those networks are commercial enterprises. They get a heads up before every Presidential speech -- unless it's a breaking news announcement -- to let them know what the speech is about. They have to decide if it's a more political speech or if it's actually an executive speech. Everything he talked about in that speech had been in the news at least a month before the speech. Where was the news? What was the speech for? It was a stay the course speech. Television is broadly segmented now due to cable. (which is not new). Over the last decade or so the gavel-to-gavel coverage of the political nominating conventions has faded more and more on the entertainment networks -- probably next month in Boston you'll see even less. The viability of entertainment network news has been in question for some time now as the cable outlets continue to increase market share. Now. Would you give me an answer to MY question? If both sides feel alienated by the overall coverage of the major news outlets then -- what is the inference? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My apologies, reb. You are absolutely right to say I have no reason for claiming you pre-judged the speech. What I was referring to (and badly) was that you made an assumption that the networks did so and that could very well be the reason the conference was not carried. As far as your question is concerned, what it the inference when both sides say the other is biased? My answer is simple - and, admittedly, biased. When one party is accused of something, it can be a knee-jerk reaction to say, "No, YOU did!!" just like Billy screaming that at Charlie over the question of who ate the crayons or painted the dog green. I believe the media IS biased and one heck of a lot of Americans happen to agree which can be found in the disdain in which the major network's news agencies are viewed, as has been noted in polls. So when the conservatives call them biased, what would you expect them to answer? "Yes, you are right"? Not hardly. They did exactly what little Billy would do - "No, YOU are!!". They had no other defense. I don't understand why you give this question of yours so much important since it was the only path for them to take. You state that major news networks do not always carry presidential news conferences so let that be the litmus test. Give me one example of any president of the United States giving a prime-time news conference world-wide concerning the US role in ANY international affair that was not carried by the major news networks. I'll make it easy - doesn't need to be about war, doesn't need to be a topic where American lives are being lost daily, doesn't need to be a topic that is on the front page of every major newspaper every day - just give me ANY example of that occuring and I will willingly retract my accusation. If your statement is correct, there must be many...I'll settle for one. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hush, I actually said it was shameful behavior, at any time, but especially during a time of war. There was a time when political adversaries kept their disagreements out of the limelight during war time for the sake of the troops, the welfare of the country, and so as not to give the enemy any possible political advantage that they could use against the commander-in-chief, which would have been characterized as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Some things are more important than power and politics. But I guess some politicians today don't see it that way anymore. L.R., I'd have to have a person of the liberal persuasion present their arguments as to why they view the press as conservative before I can actually consider their point of view, and before I can answer your question as to what the press actually is if it is not really liberal or conservative. As for unanswered questions, I still have a couple of those floating around the forums. That Michael and I believe that the press is liberal is not a decision made in a vacuum based soley on their not airing a Presidential speech, but see that as just another indicator of it. Their commentators consistently have a liberal spin, which is less of a problem, of course, than the fact that their news "reporters" do the same thing. Why do they only report the tragedies in Iraq? Why don't they occassionally report on the reopened schools filled with kids instead of munitions? Why don't they report on the fully staffed hospitals that are actually able to treat patients adequately for the first time in decades? And the lower unemployment rate? Why don't they report that at least some women are going to school and work again? Why do they characterize Iraq as a quagmire and another Viet Nam? My opinion is that they are trying to advance their own political agenda, which is not their job. Their job is to report the facts, as many of the facts as they can gather, not pick and choose and only present a one-sided view of the sitution. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The problem with that kind of misplaced attitude, Denise, is that it would play right into the hands of the wrong kinds of people. When the best way to silence all criticism is to start a war, this country will already be in big trouble. Open debate is not a weakness that makes us vulnerable to our enemies. It is, rather, our greatest strength and the most powerful weapon we have against the danger of becoming the enemy. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So the war was started to silence criticism? That's an interesting concept, Ron... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Yes, truth, something I've seen very little of. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: You mean be a propaganda machine? Now, think about it, you're a young reporter looking for the 'big story', the one that'll make your career, the one that gets people to watch or read. Instead you're stuck doing human interest stories. Bombs and bullets sell more papers. Funny though, I don't see the National Review or Bill O'Reilly trumpeting this stuff unless it is used to badmouth the Left. But media bias (Really, people work from a point of view, who would have guessed such a thing was actually happening.) is really a distraction to the whole point. We have a major foreign policy shift in the last two years. A shift and a goal that is both powerful and extremely ambitious. As Rumsfeldt himself said, it's like the cold war, don't think in terms of years or decades but the next fifty years. Will it go away if George loses the next election? Or is it larger than one man -- just like the doctrine of containment was maintained by both democrats and republicans. If George wins, will it last four years more and no further? Or is it a deeply moral, the kind of feeling you get in your gut kind of moral, that the basic ideas that we all seem to stand by (You know, individual freedoms and stuff like that) should be held by all people regardless. Believe it or not, I give Bush credit for pushing this big idea forward. I know if I were president I never would have put forward something like that. He did. Nevertheless, I honestly believe this guy can't see the trees for the forest. It's the conduct, the timing, the spin, the attitude that I think are obstacles to the stated goals of this administration. This is why the whole torture thing is a big deal to me. No one denies that bad things happen, the problem is that the argument, "They do it too and they do it worse" backfires. The whole point is that we don't do these things, we have a media that, while not exactly antagonistic, is at least trying to remain independent -- if you want to call that a liberal bias, so be it. Kerry won't be any less under the hot seat if he wins. Believe me, people like Chomsky and the people at the Nation will be just as nasty to him too. And the mainstream media will still try to maintain independence. I was talking to Berengar last night and asked if a Kerry victory might be seen as a retreat or a weakness, a new paper tiger of sorts. He thought so. If so, I think that would be the second biggest mistake the bad guys made. We aren't Spain. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Actually Colin Powell doesn't hate the president, but has strong feelings of distaste. You see Some one said that if you hated your boss you would quit. Yah right. Do you realize the power, reconition, and social statis that comes with that job? Also the Higher bucracy The what 13 or so departments, alot of people in there stay in there Cause they are the best (Head of FbI CIA, and extreemly knowlageable) They end up staying in there cause the president doesn't want look for any others or feals they are the best for the job. Also some areas they get replaced every so many years. (Burcraucy is messy) Also the war on terism is "defensive" so the president has been leaning on the department of defense. maybe for more then one reason. Colin powell has lost some power as result. This is why colin powell is upset. So its a matter of power. The state department and the department of defense are rivels. If the pres. backs one up, the other one will retaliate to get power back. (Sigh) Sometimes I know more then I want to know......... Juju |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I started out by calling this the 'forever war' Brad. Unfortunately with the missteps that have been made some Middle East experts I've heard making comments recently are thinking a hundred years -- or more. It's difficult to say with assymetrical warfare. But one thing is for certain -- the number of terrorists is up -- not down and recruitment is thriving. Deer -- apology accepted -- certainly! I know how it gets around here sometimes. Just to clarify a couple of things and then move on -- The may 24 speech was a speech -- not a press conference -- he didn't take any questions. And, you're right -- I was offering my own conjecture as to why they didn't broadcast the speech -- but -- it was based on my own knowledge of the industry which happened to be right http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/speech.tv.ap/ -- which also points out that Bush never asked for the airtime to begin with. Some may also want to read this one http://www.detnews.com/2000/politics/0006/22/a13-79163.htm |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Read my post again, Mike. I didn't say that. I said if the war (or any war) is used to silence criticism it will set a dangerous precedent. If we allow ANY loophole to quell the public voice there will soon be someone to take advantage of that loophole. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I see, Ron. I assumed that, in the context of this discussion, it was meant to relate to the current situation. Just to get it clear in my mind because it's a little fuzzy to me, can you give me an example of starting a war to silence criticism? Thanks... Bush, of course, did just the opposite. He basically invited criticism - from the country, the UN, and a large part of the world and even put a presidential career, which had barely begun, in major jeopardy by his actions. Like him or not, I think that's a fairly admirable trait... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Read my post again, Mike. It quoted Denise and was in response to her suggestion that open criticism of the President in time of war could be "characterized as giving aid and comfort to the enemy." As for what you see as an admirable trait, others might see it as a continuation of the same self-destructive behavior seen in college and the National Guard. Others might see it as the same kind of arrogance exhibited in Texas, the state leading all others in the execution of criminals. It's all in the interpretation, and that typically does depend on whether you "like him or not." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I read it again.. When the best way to silence all criticism is to start a war Somehow it still looks the same to me To speak of self-destruction in college and the National Guard, well, you must be way more enlightened or informed than I am. I have not heard of the self-destructive tendencies in either place you refer to. Is that comment based on fact or personal interpretation? It reads as if it is being stated as fact. Which facts support self-destruction then, in either place? As far as Denise' comment, it is not the disagreeing that is the issue, I feel it is the type of disagreeing that is the point. When a side sinks to name-calling, referring the other as a criminal, being abusive and vulgar and this is between members of the Congress, it certainly is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. When you have things said, carried by major news agencies, like.. Iraq is George Bush's VietNam. "This is the pattern and the record of the Bush administration [on] Iraq, jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue -- mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics," he said. "Again and again, we see this cynical, despicable strategy playing out." Ted Kennedy ....which prompted this (accurate) rebuke from Senate Majority Whip Mc Connell.. McConnell said Kennedy's remarks would be seen in Baghdad, "where those who are fighting Americans on the street can view them." "The only one responsible for the attack on America is al Qaeda," McConnell said. "We need to focus on rooting out global terrorism by fighting the terrorists, not each other." Was he wrong? I don't think so. Disagreement has always been a vital part of America, a good, democratic part, but mudslinging for political purposes in public over a topic where soldiers are fighting and dying is despicable. Can you honestly say you don't feel that the terrorist members don't smile with glee to see this? You don't feel that it encourages more volunteers to sign up for them but seeing this fragmented front? Let them get behind closed doors and duke it out if they want but in public it needs to be civil and show a unified country. Who is doing the slinging? Have ytou heard Bush doing any of it? He's gotten bombarded with insults by every Democrat in the Senate....have you heard him rebuke anyone in an offensive manner. Even Clinton received gratuitous comments and applause from the man. Bush has acted with a good degree of civility and dignity while Kennedy, Dashel, Boxer, Gebhardt and others have acted like dogs with rabies. If they want to potshot about the Texas death penalty, or insinuations about Bush and Enron or National Guard service (as others have done) well, that's politics but they go over the line with the comments they make about Iraq and the war on terror...they are indeed helping the terrorist cause. Speaking of the National Guard, Kerry was asked in '92 how he felt, as a Viet Nam veteran, supporting a person like Clinton for president and his comment was, "I feel the office of the President of the United States is too important to be judged by a person's military record." Ya gotta laugh... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
You're right, Ron. The expression of disagreement is a good thing. I should have said "There was a time when political adversaries did not publicly attack the commander-in-chief during a time of war for the sake of the troops, the welfare of the country, and so as not to give the enemy any possible political advantage that they could use against the commander-in-chief, which would have been characterized as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Some things are more important than power and politics." |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Even when the criticism is correct? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think the operative word is "attack", not criticize, Brad.. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
It's subjective Balladeer, many who can't accept criticism, see it as an attack instead. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough, Aenimal. Read my post here, #209, and you'll see the difference. I could wallpaper your house with comments just like that coming from he and his colleagues. Those are attacks, especially when made in public... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
L.R., Right! Paula Jones! That's the one. Didn't Clinton commit perjury in his deposition in the Paula Jones case? No, Brad, I don't want the media to be a propaganda machine for the administration or for the administration's opponents. I want them to throw in just a little of the progress made in Iraq into the mix along with the tragedies to give a more balanced view of what is actually going on. This goes a bit deeper than 'bullets sell more copy' thinking. I don't see the media as independent. I see them putting as bad a light as possible on current events in an attempt to influence people against Bush, to get those fence-sitting undecided voters to vote for the party/candidate of their choice. And there would be nothing wrong with attempting to influence others to one's way of thinking if we were talking about something other than the news media, which is supposed to be unbiased in its presentation. The 'influencing' should be restricted to the commentators, and not be engaged in by the 'reporters'. quote: Honestly, Raph, what would you call this, a criticism or an attack? And is Kennedy not 'smearing the character' of Bush in this, the very thing he is accusing Bush of doing to others? And can anyone give me an example of Bush 'smearing' anyone? I haven't personally come across any examples of this anywhere. McConnell is right. Our focus needs to be on gaining victory over the real enemy, the real threat, the terrorists. We'd stand a better chance with fewer of these political mudslinging distractions. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Well I'd call it politics, but yes, Kennedy should have used a little tact. Of course there's always been a short supply of that in Washington. However, it's clearly not a personal attack or smear George Bush's character, but his administration's tactics. He says the "Bush administration" not George Bush. But let's take a look at Kennedy's comments. "mislead,": The actual amount of WMDs and the looming threat Iraq posed is arguably misleading. Powell's 'conservative' estimate that Iraq had 'a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent' for example. "decieve..make up the needed facts":" ***I hate to retread, but it's amazing that it hasn't sunk in..so here's my last attempt at reasoning.*** “My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." These are Colin Powell's words in his presentation to the United Nations. Now Denise, you've admitted the administration shouldn't have used the shaky African uranium evidence, but that it wasn't a lie on their part. But when considering the administration has admitted they knew beforehand that the intelligence was questionable, how could Powell's declaration of 'solid evidence..facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence" NOT be a lie?? While you believe they didn't lie in using it as it hadn't been discredited yet, they obviously did lie that it was solid and irrefutable evidence. This of course, is not including their outright lie about the use of aluminum tubes which Oak Ridge and Thielmann's investigators have affirmed. "smear the character of any critics": White house officials disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA operative who argued against the administration's evidence. Maybe it's not smearing but it is endangering a critic, not to mention a federal offense I believe? As for McConnell he is right, focus should have remained on Al Qaeda and that's were Bush lost any support. Afghanistan was justified, Iraq was not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Geez, Aenimal, I have no doubt you saw in the other thread where I listed actual quote by quote from Kennedy, Boxer, Dashell, and others back in '98 stating that they knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that Iraq had wmd's and urged President Clinton to go to war, Kennedy even inserting the notion to use nuclear force, if necessary. Absolutely nobody here responded to those comments and that's ok but it doesn't make them go away. How can you see something like that and still go after Bush for lying about the threat or existence of wmd's in Iraq? That was long before Bush even made the scene. If you, or anyone, refuses to acknowledge them and still try to tie it to Bush you would be making unfair prejudice extremely obvious. Kennedy called for war in '98 over wmd's and accused Bush of lying about wmd's in 2003. The man is a complete fool.... Believe me, I would love to continue this and especially be around for Ron's answer to my last question a couple of days ago, but the golf courses of North Carolina are calling and I'll be out of touch for a few days. If I can sneak online someway, I'll check in...just didn't want you to think I'm ignoring ya |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Deer, I'm not denying WMD's have existed. The issue I presented is an overstatement on amounts and types and more importantly clear lies on the part of the Bush administration. The lies are in reference to information used to explain the need for immediate action against Iraq. How can anyone argue they're not lies when: Clearly the African Uranium was not 'solid' evidence and the aluminum tubes were discredited long before Powell's presentation as unusable for uranium enrichment? Now I don't mean to be sarcastic but honestly, let's Recap: Uranium Information knowingly questionable, used anyway and labeled irrefutable evidence in Powell'a presentation. Aluminum Tube usage discredited by investigative team as well as Oak Ridge Labs, used as evidence anyway. For good measure let's add in a definition, not because i'm being snotty with you Deer, but because I honestly can't believe how one can't see a lie for a lie. Lie: i.A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. ii. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. What are we missing? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This may make no sense in the context, but you gotta love the Koreans right now. What they've been saying in the last two days (anecdotal and newspapers) is that they will join the War on Terror wholeheartedly after the death of Kim Son il. And they still don't like Bush. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Brad, I'm still trying to figure out the Putin's recent revelations. |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Overstatement by Bush?....or, do you mean the info he received from past and present administration advisors?....Why is Bush to blame for everything?....Whether WMD's are there, were there, aren't there...whatever!...The world is better off without Saddam...Iraq is/will be better off...The world is better off without the Taliban...Iraq isn't losing it's oil to Bush, there are ties to terrorism in Iraq...and, if "war" wasn't the answer....just what IS the answer?....Saddam wouldn't negotiate.....the Iraqi people were still being tortured and starving and not the silly little things we were doing to them....I mean real "hell" type torture...Just what would the opponents of this war do instead of what Bush did?...Ignore the threat?...whether real or not...obviously the past administrations thought the threat was there?....What would Teddy Kennedy do?...Jimmy Carter?.....Aenimal?.....Ron?..Me?..It would be interesting to start a thread that asked: What Would YOU do if you were the president faced with what Bush has encountered?...It's easy sit back in the crowd and make statements like: "Damn, that guy can't sing at all...."...But then try to get on stage and do better?...Or do we even have the gonads to try?.... |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Toe, are you feeling ok? suppose you could calm down a bit... |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Hi Sud..how in the "health" are ya?...Yea, I'm calm...just figured I'd try to cause some hate and discontent early this morning....it's boring just watching it rain..... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
No Toe, Bush isn't to blame for everything, but his administration is to blame for the things I've stated. Listen, I'm not tied to either party, so I can't understand the difficulty and stubborness in accepting that yes, the administration is capable and guilty of wrongdoing. Regardless of what you think the benefits of attacking Iraq were, the ends do not justify the means, especially when the ends have yet to be realized. I also can't fathom the rabid zeal in which people sought to impeach Clinton over a lie about a sexual affair, but justify lies of Bush Co. because, war is war and you do what you must. People stop the insanity, the enslavement to Party lines and detach. Now look at the situation ethically and logically. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: The distinction is a simple one. If it can be justified in the national interest, the president is above the law. Monica was not in the national interest and therefore fair game. The divide is again the same as just after 911: WE HAVE TO DO the right thing. We have to do THE RIGHT THING. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Just a quick note, Raph, because I'm off to work: Clinton was impeached, it actually happened, it went beyond sought. And it was for perjury, not for lying about sex. Lying to his wife about it was one thing. Lying under oath before the nation is where he crossed the line. And yes, some folks were rabid about the subject. In retrospect, I should have been, but wasn't. I actually felt sorry for the guy for getting caught. But then I've always had a tendency to be a bleeding heart. And I didn't become politically involved, or really politically aware, until 9/11. Toe, I've asked that question before and am still waiting for an answer. I think the only answer would be appeasement, more attempts at diplomacy, which never worked with terrorists to begin with, but I guess some folks will just never give up the faith on that. I guess it's sometimes hard to come to grips with the fact that there are people and/or groups of people that just can't be reasoned with. And I think some people take the biblical injunction of 'turning the other cheek' beyond a personal level and expand it to a national level, which, in my opinion, is a mistake. Brad, I guess it just goes to show that you don't necessarily have to be for Bush to be for Bush's way of handling terrorism. I don't know. And they are still reeling emotionally from the recent beheading of one of their fellow countrymen. I know I am. I have to stop watching the news. It just rips me to shreds. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise I know it happened, the issue and my point is the same zealousy that went into impeaching Clinton over lying to the public about his personal life, should be aimed at an administration lying with regards to a war. Which, despite evidence, partisan shackles won't allow some to admit. On the matter of lying, let's take a look at George W. Bush's record: Bush lied to the public about his DUI conviction in 1976. In 1998 he was asked whether he'd ever been arrested to which Bush replied "after 1968? No." Pressed again he later told reporters that he'd paid a fine but never went to court. Both statements were false and were disproved when court documents were revealed. In a court hearing to get his driving suspension lifted(though documents show he hadn't completed a driver rehabilitation course) he told the hearings officer, pressumably under oath as it is a court of law, that he drank once a month and had only the 'occasional beer.' But Bush has since admitted that he had a history of alcohol abuse at the time which means he perjured himself in court. When he finally admitted the arrest he stated that he'd covered up his arrest "to be a good role model for my daughters." Bush also, much like Clinton, lied under oath regarding the SCI(funeral homes) scandal. In his July 20th 1999 affidavit,he stated he "had no conversations with [SCI] officials, agents, or represenatives." The sworn testimony of two others not only contradicts this but Bush himself later admitted to reporters that he had spoken to one of them but that it was only a 20 second conversation barely enough to say hello. And if you can laugh at Clinton for trying to squirm out of trouble with his 'meaning of is/isn't' defense, then you can nail Bush for his 'what constitutes a conversation' defense. There's more to scandal of course but hey it's not as juicy and interesting as a sex scandal is it? As the for what one would have done question? I would have found irrefutable evidence before I chose to put the lives of my countrymen in danger. And if I was actually focussing on true war on terror, I would have made sure actions in Afghanistan were more secure first, then I would have moved against known Al Queda havens like Saudi Arabia for example. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, Maybe we should go back to the 1950's and ask his mother if he ever stole cookies from the cookie jar while we're at it? Seriously though, I'm personally not interested in nailing anybody for their personal failings, I've got enough of my own.I do think, however, that there was plenty of irrefutable evidence to justify going to war. I don't think it was something concocted by Bush. Just go back and read the statements of Clinton, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, et al, back in the late 90's. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
unbelievable..shakes head and walks out of conversation |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Geeze, Raph, was it something that I said? What's the problem? Is it wrong for me not to "go for the throat" over people's personal failings? We can all find fault with someone else. That's not hard to do. No one is perfect. I didn't condone the way folks went after Clinton (although in retrospect I think I should have been a bit more outraged at the time that the sitting President committed perjury), and I don't condone the way folks are going after Bush (and I don't believe that his case for war was based on lies just because one piece of intelligence that was cited was considered questionable at the time and later deemed false...there was plenty of other intelligence that was irrefutable.) I think we have more important things to be concerned about, like our survival against the terrorists. The only reason I brought up Clinton at all was to show how differently the media treated Nixon and Clinton in similar situations. And the Democratic politicians I noted are singing quite a different tune today about Iraq than they were in the late 90's. Back then they sounded an awful lot like Bush. Check it out. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You should probably look up the word irrefutable, Denise, because you've misused it in this and several earlier posts. You may not want to see people refuting the evidence, but that alone won't make it so. quote: You continue to go down this road, but I don't think you've looked far enough ahead yet to see the inevitable destination. All you're really saying is that Clinton and others had the same ambiguous evidence Bush had, but refused to act upon it because it WAS ambiguous. Instead of suggesting Bush was right, you're just characterizing him as more rash than his predecessors. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: How many times throughout this thread was there a mention or joke about Clinton's disgrace by you or others? Yet, offered the same from the other side of the line it's 'going for the throat' quote: Yet, given cases where Bush has perjured himself and there's no outrage, just a snide remark about going back into his past, of course, completely ignoring the more recent funeral homes scandal. I'm leaving because I think it's unbelievable(not my first choice of words) that you can consistently ignore and/or justify any wrongdoing by Bush and his administration. I don't see the point in continuing when you're so firmly entrenched in party propaganda, that you're completely unable to admit or conceed anything that challenges it. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But isn't that a good reason to continue? We just have to remain calm and keep plugging away (Not always the easiest thing for me to do). The easiest way to end this partisanship round is that Bush and company should resign. Then we can go to the next one. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Brad I'm trying,I've tried, and it's the reason I've stayed this long. But it's simply impossible to get even ONE concession, one admission that damns the administration regardless of what information you throw out. It's beyond frustration, it's mortal terror that's driven me thusfar. Terror that people can be so enslaved by propaganda and doctrine that it overwhelms their capacity for reason. History has taught us nothing. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Is it perjury if you whole heartedly believe your saying the truth? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Ron, To my knowledge the vast majority of the evidence has not been refuted. quote: That would be true if it were conceded that the evidence was ambiguous. It hasn't been proven to me that it was ambiguous. I know the frustration, Raph. I feel the same way when trying to talk to folks who hold an opposing view. But I never said that Bush was perfect. It just hasn't been proven to me that he led us into war based on lies. And I'm not easily outraged. I wasn't really outraged over Clinton, though I said in retrospect I probably should have been, given that he was the President at the time (similar to what Brad said about Americans being held to higher standards than what the terrorists are held to, perhaps Presidents are usually held, or should be held, to a higher standard than the average citizen?) quote: My "go for the throat" was in reference to your above comment. No, if I believe that the Republicans were overzealous in their treatment of Clinton (and I do), I wouldn't advocate that the Democrats respond in kind, even if it were proven to me that Bush lied (which it hasn't been). Two wrongs don't make a right? And since I love you guys, I'll just leave it at that and agree that we just disagree.  Juju, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Aenimal, We don't do this to win. We do this because it is right. Bush is a bad president. Someday, they will understand that. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Maybe, Bush is a bad precedent? |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Brad I'm not out to win, and the real reason I've stayed with it this long is to offer an alternate view in the event some young and impressionable voters read the forums. Still, at least one admission, one concession in the face of proof would be nice. It's incredibly disheartening that normally rational, intelligent people could be so easily swayed by this administration's manipulations. So much so that their arguments are rife with hypocrisy. My last few additions have been arguing everything they've attack the former government, with examples of Bush Co. doing the same. Still nothing, not one glimpse of rationality to offer me any hope that people are capable of independent thought. One would think that history has repeatedly taught us the dangers of blindly submitting to ideals and 'ism's.' But the current administration has clearly revealed, and exploited, the fact that too many haven't. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/archive.asp?more=true Just found this site, of course 'liberal' media and left wing 'extremist' arguments will be bandied about, but all articles are corroborated by direct quotes, documents and links. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Geez!! Look at all I missed! (and the nice thing is I didn't miss it at all ). Still gone...just peeking in. Good to see you there, Ron. I was afraid those self-destructive tendencies kept you away Peace to all from the mountains |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Aenimal, Just got a hold of "Dude, Where's My Country" So far, not that great. Curious, have you read it? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: My comment on self-destruction, Mike, was interpretive, not observational. I described how "others" might see what you saw only as admirable. I often find it useful to explore alternative viewpoints. Pretty much everyone, of course, is prone to self-destructive actions, some just more so than others. Personally, I think drinking and driving qualifies as both self-destructive and potentially other-destructive, as well. Raph, "Love is blind" seems to take on a whole new meaning, I think, when applied to politics and hero-worship. People inevitably use a different yardstick when measuring their neighbor's mom than when measuring their own. While that often leads to questionable results, it's pretty normal behavior for all of us. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Brad, No I haven't yet. As i mentioned in another forum while I agree with many of Moore's beliefs I'm wary of his style in presenting them. He's too much of a showman, rather then present his case objectively or tastefully, he resorts to sensationalism making it propaganda, the very thing he's arguing against. It's not entirely his fault, how else would a documentary, however explosive, enter the radar of a generally vapid and complacent mainstream, but by being as outrageous as possible? To be taken seriously Moore should find a better balance between entertainment and fact. It's sad because the important things he has to say often get lost in a circus of his own making. And that's why I hope people reading and viewing his works will pick through noise and get the message we've been trying to drive home here. quote: Good point Ron, however, with age and maturity we must also see the faults of our parents. Take cases of abuse, which is what Bush Co. is guilty of. In a position of authority, a position of trust, they've abused their power and betrayed the American public when they needed leadership most |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Michael Moore is a lot like a clock I have hanging in my living room. The ticking annoyed me, so one day I removed the batteries. That clock now provides me with the correct time twice a day, but lacking verification, I never know when I can trust it. And, of course, with the verification, I don't really need it. Being credible and being pregnant are both binary states, as far as I'm concerned. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
lol Well that's why I shy away from quoting Moore and deliver direct quotes. For example I've been on the White House press release site enough times that i'm probably marked and under survellaince. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Well, If I'm correct he's the one that made that movie. I am not going to put money his pocket to wach that movie. There is more then one thing wrong with that movie. It's like the Sen. Wellstone Funeral/Waking thingy. It broke my heart he used a movie which is supposedly dedicated to 9/11 as a Bush bash. It disgusts me. On T.V. he ammitted to changing stuff, saying he was being nice to Bush. What a jerk. At that point I decided not to watch that movie. Just a random opinion sorry... Juju |
||
|
Toerag Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622Ala bam a |
Your description of Mike Moore is wonderful Ron..couldn't agree more... |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: quote: Certainly some of his policies are flawed, but yours is a mere position like any other. From my perspective, seen through the lens of my interests, I have great admiration for some of his policies - particularly in regard to education and special education. I think it is too early to characterize his international efforts as failures, since few good things are ever achieved without sacrifice. I'm not saying that the ends necessarily justify his means - but I think you'd acknowledge that sometimes there are no perfect means. If Bush did nothing in response to 9/11, would you then criticize his not acting? I personnally admire his willingness to take risks. Who wants a wet noodle as a president? Jim |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Can we stop confusing the attack on Iraq with 9/11? And/or using them in the same sentence? This bit of administration propaganda falls off the tongue of far too many people. All supposed links between Iraq and Al Queda have been dismissed by US and foreign intelligence, the 9/11 commission and a myriad of analysts. The 'Czech connection' dangled by the administration as evidence has long since been discredited. Bush 'acted' when he attacked terrorist cells in Afghanistan. But rather than continue with a true war on terror, shifted focus and lulled a vulnerable American public into believing their agenda in Iraq was justified. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jim, How much money was spent on the position you support? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: How much money has been wasted on ineffective programming delivered without any accountability system for results? At The Vista School, we do far more with fewer dollars than our public counterparts. We're essentially delivering twice the product for the same price. This tells me there are far better ways to spend the money that has already been appropriated. So if a bunch of "ignorant" parents can figure out how to build a better, cheaper widget, why should we expect any less from the education experts? And, actually, spending on education is up. My problem is not so much with the Administration as it is with the Republican controlled House. Those guys are in serious need of a clue. Jim |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
You shoudn't generalize the republican party. There is a split among the conservatives. As a Conservative republican I kinda know this. But hey, When I look at all of the democratic politians that swing so far to the left it makes europeans look conservative it makes me shake my head. I don't think President bush is a bad president. When I look at his accomplishments it makes me want to vote for him again. Any ways There are several connections Between saddams regeme and terrorist organizations. There has been books written about it. about the CIA ...... It, along with many of the buerocracies, need to be more organized. Right now they are carefull to confirm on any thing. I also want to mention we dissimated al qeuda, many of the top guys are captured. The terrists now are independent ones that are loosly connected to higher up poeple. Just my opinion... |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: I haven't, I've been pretty clear the problems lie within the Bush administration. quote: I strongly urge you to reconsider, read the facts concerning his 'accomplishments' at http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/archive.asp?more=true quote: Juju, terrorist organizations yes, a link between Saddam, Al Qaida and 9/11? No. To lure support, the administration used the allegation that Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden and the possibility that Iraq might supply Al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction. These have proved false according to the 9/11 commission, US and foreign intelligence. Firstly, Mohammed Atta(ringleader of the 9/11 hijakings), was supposed to have met with an Iraqi intelligence official in the Czech Republic. But Czech intelligence later recanted, and U.S. intelligence officials believe that Atta was in the US at the time of the supposed meeting. Secondly, al-Zakawi, whose name the administration keeps throwing about as the ultimate, is not a member of al-Quida but a rival terrorist group with different ambitions. Absolutely no links have been determined between al-Zakawi and Saddam either. The main 'evidence' cited by the administration was that al-Zakawi made a call from Iraq but as one official stated "When we found out there was an al-Qaida cell operating in Germany, we didn't say 'we have to invade Germany, because the German government supports al-Qaida." There too many administration myths that have been discounted but are unfortunately confused as solid evidence by the public. It's absolute madness. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Fair enough. I tend to conflate the two believing that Bush is running a tight ship. This is not a unique strategy. When Carter recognized China, Congress passed a resolution continuing to support Taiwan -- this is not a contradiction but a proper response to a complex situation. So, I see the two in tacit agreement on Education. Bush is allowed exuberant rhetoric, but the real republican strategy is to ignore it. Off topic (again): the key to any successful education strategy is involved parents. I think we discussed this before. Parents shouldn't protest what is being taught, but spend the time and get involved in the process of how it is being taught. It's a win/win situation. But that's another thread. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Bush already re-elected? http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd09262003.html admittedly a little leftist and conspiracy minded........still |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
to post links intentionally leading to pages you acknowledge are slanted and biased makes little sense, in my opinion, Raph. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Deer, as a Non-partisan reader I'm able to detect and acknowledge that the tone of the article is leftist. I'm also able to recognize there are important facts contained in the article, and so I've offered the article, with disclaimer, so that others might do the same: read through the slant and get the relevant information. What makes less sense, in my opinion Deer, is the Right's inability, in this thread, to allow even the slightest concession against the administration. After outright ignoring all damning evidence (including direct administration quotes, US/Foreign intelligence and 9/11 commission findings) I don't apologize for a slightly leftist view, especially when i've acknowledged it as such. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. As opposed to posting links you refuse to acknowledge as slanted and biased, Mike? Face it. The only thing available are opinions that are slanted and biased, opinions that are more slanted and biased, and opinions that are ridiculously slanted and biased. And that's okay as long as all slanted and biased voices have a chance to be heard. The only real danger is when people refuse to think for themselves. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Right, Ron....and are people thinking for themselves when they simply post opinions of others? Your LOL's are always prompt, Ron, but responses to questions I ask seem to take a lot longer, if at all. In any case, it's always good to see you....Happy 4th!! |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: I sincerely hope you're not alluding to me Deer, because the article is simply a starting point. I've never hidden my own opinion, and if i've offered any articles, it's because the facts contained within should spur people to learn more about it, whether to confirm or discredit them. Glass Houses. While you're chastising my choice of links, or Ron's tardiness(alluding that he is deflecting), you may want to consider your own delays and failures to acknowledge topics I've brought forward in this thread. This includes evidence that clearly shows the administration, through Powell, lying with regards to information on Iraq or that while you've criticized me for joking about Bush, you failed to do the same for those making fun of Clinton. [This message has been edited by Aenimal (07-04-2004 11:02 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
What questions haven't I answered, Mike? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Not having seen the information that Powell and the administration had, I am not qualified to state as fact whether he lied or not. I feel pretty sure you don't have access either. You would be more credible if you qualified such rash statements and accusations as "your personal opinion." Pete |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, I was referring, for example, to the direct question I asked you about the "self-destructive" tendencies on the 22nd. After a little prod, you answered on the 29th. I opined what would you do to a criminal who had your daughter in a situation where she would die if you didn't get information to save her life from him - with regards to your beliefs in his 8th amendment rights - this was a comparison to the soldier who only scared a prisoner to get the same kind of info and was castigated for it. No response... There were others in other threads but it would sound like nitpicking looking them up and listing them and I don't mean it as a personal attack, of course. Just strikes me as a little curious the number of times I've made a comment to someone and found your response appear almost immediately with an adverse remarks. Oh, well, as grandma used to say "I wouldn't be paranoid if everybody didn't hate me." As far as your last comments here, in another thread you said "I hardly think a self-serving blurb on a web site, even one reported by Reuters, is going to convince anyone of anything. Except, of course, those who are already convinced and just want an illusion of vindication." My comment that warranted the LOL was exactly about those same self-serving blurbs.. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
admittedly a little leftist and conspiracy minded Aenimal, I didn't chastize your choice of links..you did. As far as what I say directly to Ron, I'm saying it to Ron, not you.. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't think education spending is a genuine vulnerability to the Bush camp Brad. The real numbers are that it is up 58%. http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=162 Where there may be a point of contention is that the Congress hasn't actually funded 'No Child Left Behind'. So if someone is a single issue voter -- they might go with Bush on this one. Unless of course Kerry is planning even larger increases. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: I didn't chastize the link, not surprisingly you've again missed and/or ignored the explanation. I merely pointed out it's flaws while still allowing for 'rational' and intelligent readers to pick up on the valid and frightening information contained within. quote: LOL fine, it still doesn't change that you've ignored the examples I've given where I've directly questioned you. Ah, classic D. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Hey Not A Poet? quote: Regarding Powell it wasn't a matter of opinion but of fact. Powell himself has since apologized for it and the information I offered to support my claim included direct quoting from the administration and information from their presentation to the UN. It's all quite frankly public knowledge now it's just a matter of getting partisans to recognize it. /pip/Forum6/HTML/000963-8.html#180 quote: Likewise. Had you read the evidence I'd offered in my numerous replies to the thread before you declared your personal opinion concerning my 'rashness' and credibility? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: I actually would have continued to ignore your self-destructive tendencies question, Mike, had you not prodded me. I will often do that when (a) the question presupposes I said something I didn't say, or (b) I take the question as a rhetorical one because any answer is going to be an obvious answer. The self-destructive tendencies question falls under the first circumstance. You asked me to support or clarify opinions that I didn't express. When someone asks me if I stopped beating my wife yet, I assume they don't really want an answer. Your question about my daughter falls under rhetoric because, obviously, I would slowly cut off his testicles to get the necessary information to save someone I love. Due process be damned. I will NOT, however, grant that same privilege to anyone else lest some paranoid and possibly deranged parent started looked suspiciously at my crotch and muttering "Ve have vays to make you talk!" Indeed, your question can be just as easily phrased, "What would you do if I thought you were a criminal with information that would save my daughter?" The only reason Law exists at all, Mike, is because we can't always trust each other to do what is right when situations become too personal. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Actually alot of terrorest groups are rival. But He suppossedly had connections with people who had connections, but on another point. It's the war on terrism, not the war on Bin Ladin or al Kada, like the media clames. Bush declared it on all terrism. Juju |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Juju quote: Not making fun of you but this comment reminded me of an appropriate scene from Mel Brook's Spaceballs: Dark Helmet: Before you die, there is something you should know about us, Lone Starr. Lone Starr: What? Dark Helmet: I am your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former room-mate. Lone Starr: What's that make us? Dark Helmet: Absolutely nothing Supposedly is the correct choice of words. Those 'connections', as i mentioned earlier, have already been discredited by US intelligence, foreign Intelligence, analysts and the 9/11 commission. Not to mention there are agenda and religious differences between the groups. It's absolutely alarming that, despite the fact that ties brought forward as evidence by the administration have been discredited, a large percentage of the population are still clinging to this belief. And once again, if it were a true war on terrorism there are far more credible targets. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
To my knowledge the terrorist connections have not been discredited, Raph. Or do you mean only as far as Saddam being linked with the terrorists in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks? Because that's the only issue that the 9/11 Commission addressed. As far as the varying terrorist organizations having different agendas and religions, etc., they still do have something in common, a hatred of Western civilization in general, and Israel and the U.S. in particular. All terrorists and terrorist harboring countries are credible targets in a war on terrorism. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well that's where the problem gets a little bit sticky for the left and the right. Way back in -- let's see -- no time for research right now -- but let's just say it was 98. Clinton lobs a few Tomahawks at an 'asprin' factory. Intel said it was producing chemical weapons. (Which it just so happens it was.) This was a confirmed joint operation between Iraq and OBL. If the conservatives bring this up though they have to recant on all the accusations they made about Clinton just trying to throw the headlines off the Grand Jury testimony that was occuring the same day. If liberals bring this up they have to ceed that Saddam was actually pursuing WMD's. The rest of the intel shows that in general there was no collaberative relationship between the two -- apparently for this one particular operation they could set ideological differences aside for joint profit. As 'anonymous' as pointed out though -- Iraq is the biggest magnet for terrorists NOW in the Middle East. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise yes, the 9/11 terror links to Saddam the administration used have been discredited by the 9/11 commission. But also, the linking of Al-Zakawi/to Saddam and/or Al Quada has been dismissed by both American and foreign intelligence. quote: Don't get me wrong Denise, that's a valid point and strong motive, but doesn't mean they will, or have joined. quote: No, it's simply a convenient excuse used to deflect concerns that the obvious and viable target of Saudi Arabia is being ignored. And why it is. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Raph, my comment regarding the link you posted referred to your choice of link with no personal comment aimed at you. In return I get "glass houses", "classic D", "again you've missed or ignored the point". etc. Apparently you can't control the urge to mix personal insults into your replies..is it that hard for you to keep them out? |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
aenimal........ You even said earlier that saddam had connections to terrism, Just not 9/11.. My point is it's the "war on terrism." As for Iraq being the center of terrism. Yes it is. The great majority of terrist are coming from other contries than Iraq though. There has always been terrism in the middle east. It's a long and complicated story, but basically all of the terrist groups have many similliar bieliefs and roots like: Anti-jew, Arab unity, any people who die from holy war go to heaven........ and most are anti-foriegn influence. So because of this, many have gone to Iraq. Juju |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, the administration did not link Saddam with the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What the administration did say was that because of the 9/11 attacks we can no longer afford to look the other way and be appeasers of terrorists, and we must act to root out terrorism and destroy it, or it will destroy us. Zakawi and Al Qaida are not the only terrorists, but apparently Iraq was in cahoots with bin Laden previously. Isn't he the head of Al Qaida? And Saddam was also paying sizable checks to the relatives of the Palestinian suicide bombers. I'd certainly consider that aiding and abetting terrorism. Despite their differing agendas they joined forces and I have no doubt that all the terrorists organizations would do the same against their common enemies, just as we are witnessing now in Iraq. I don't think we are ignoring Saudi Arabia either. To my knowledge they are currently helping us out with intelligence and in clamping down and arresting known terrorists, and have supposedly stopped sending aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Could they be doing more, and is what they are doing just a smoke screen to keep us at bay? Possibly. Time will tell. As Juju said, we are not at war with a country. We are at war with all terrorists, and Afghanistan and Iraq are just two battlefields in that war. There may have to be more in the future, depending, of course, on whose will is broken first, ours or the terrorists. I'm rooting for us. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: No personal comments there right? My digression from intelligent conversation to crude sarcasm wasn't personal at all. And of course, it totally ignored comments on Clinton by those who share your views. quote: Deer, questioning my logic in posting the article by saying it makes 'little sense', and then completely ignoring the explanation is a slight. Followed by a comment that while directed at Ron: quote: is in reference to my choice in posting the article which Ron discussed. Always the innocent. Some good came out of this, I actually had money riding on your response. That again, rather than respond to my accusations you'd ignore them and/or deflect them by blaming me. We have a history and it's played out the same each time |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Denise: quote: Denise the commission's findings did more then discredit a Saddam/BinLaden link to 9/11 but any partnership at all. The report says that while Bin Laden 'explored' a 'possible cooperation with Iraq', Iraq never responded and: "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Not to mention that bin Laden "at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan." And to say the administration did nothing to link Iraq with the 9/11 attacks is false. Cheney for one, repeatedly touted the Czech intelligence of a meeting between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi official as 'overwhelming' evidence. He also stated "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Raph, the Commission only referenced any collusion specifically regarding the 9/11 attacks. That is what they were talking about, not terrorist connections other than that. L.R. offered the below regarding Iraq and OBL. I added the point that Saddam supported financially the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Those are terrorist connections. quote: Has the Czech intelligence been discredited? Has it been discredited that the Al Qaida terrorist camps existed in Iraq? It seems to me Cheyney was referring to Al Qaida, not Saddam. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Raph, I can assure you that I have responded to everything you have said I considered worthy of a response....glad you won your bet. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Incorrect Denise, the commission quote I included was in reference to cooperative efforts between Iraq and Al Quada at all, not simply 9/11. The possibility was explored in 1996 but Iraq did not respond. Yes the Czech intelligence has been dismissed by US and Foreign intelligence. First of all Czech officials recanted, and now US intelligence has stated it believes that Atta was in the US at the time of the supposed meeting. Did Al Quada camps exist withing Iraq, undoubtedly but that doesn't link them to the government. Terrorist groups and militias exist within the US, do you link them with your government? Also, as I mentioned before Bin Laden sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. As for Cheney's quote, it seems to me he had no hesitations linking Iraq to the Al Quada attacks especially when he'd already pointed out that the Czech intel was 'overwhlming' evidence of a 9/11 link in another appearance. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Deer, I can assure you that I have always treated you in a manner worthy of your responses. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Okay, Raph, bottom line, so what if some of the intelligence turned out later to be flawed? Even if Saddam had no provable links to Al Qaida, per se, he still had links to other terrorists. He was a terrorist himself. He was still in violation of the cease fire agreement for 12 years. He was still not showing evidence that he had destroyed all his known WMDs, and he had plenty of opportunity to do so. And now we are finding evidence of some of those WMDs because he didn't destroy them. He wasn't in compliance. He was still financing Palestinian suicide bombers through support to their families. And now he's not in power any longer. And that's a good thing, one victory in the war on terrorism. And maybe after folks get tired of attemtping to squeeze a lie or corrupt motivation out of everything the administration has said or done over the past two years, they may just pause and say 'thank you' someday to those responsible for ridding the world of one of its most heinous dictators. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Shakes head. ..........No one is listening to me I don't want to repeat every thing I said earlier. I am saying saddam Hussien had connections to terrists and even though Many poeple argue he didn't with al quida, He still promoted terror and supported terrist organizations, wouldn't comply with un weopon inspectors, un was way to corrupt to pursue, months pass and saddam ships it all off, because he knows The Us will hold him accountable for his actions. There has been proof of this senario too. But Basically we cant let terrorist let us stop this war. Besides the fact that saddam Huissian Violated Un Rules several times, Responcible for the deaths of countless people, Caused terror to his neighbors, supported many terorist organizations, had terrorist training camps in his country, organized assasination attempts on several leaders (including 2 for george bush senior, for an example), wanted to take over a good portion of the world........ People still say taking him out of power was wrong. . . . uhg I have a head ache. -Juju- |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: You know, what I find it appalling, is your clear disdain for Clinton's action(deservedly so), while totally ignoring an entire administration's actions leading to full scale war. There's no need to 'squeeze' lies that are evident to anybody who looks at them rationally. I have absolutely NO doubt, that were the parties switched, you'd be equally opposed to the manner in which the administration has dealt with the public. The bottom line is that, in true Orwellian fashion, a fragile American public was told exactly what it needed to hear in order to sell an uneccessary war. Should Saddam have been dealt with? Undoubtedly, was there an immediate threat, an ABSOLUTE need for immediate action, at the cost of public trust, international respect and most importantly young lives? A resounding no. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Juju, I've read what you had to say and am not ignoring you or denying the danger of Saddam's regime. The world would be better off with a few people out of power, that doesn't justify the administrations actions. My threads have dealt with the administration's handling of this war. To swallow information without question is madness. In questioning their evidence there are holes and worse there are lies.(though Denise will call Powell's foreknowledge of fals information 'squeezing' a lie) That's the issue you're missing in all this Juju. Not whether Saddam was a tyrant. Nobody's questioning he was, what we're questioning is that there was no immediate need, or imminent threat to justify a full war at the cost of truth, respect and lives as this fiasco has. The ends do NOT justify the means. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't believe that the administration has dealt with the public in a manner deserving of disdain or distrust. That is a conclusion that you have come to. Equally rational people have looked at the same evidences and have drawn a different conclusion. Shame on Powell if he lied. The fact remains we had a case for war even without that one piece of tainted intelligence that shouldn't have been used. And that one instance is not the basis for my comment about folks squeezing a lie out of everything that the administration has said. I'm talking about the sickening endless muckracking, the half-truths, the spin, the innuendo, the denunciations for things supposedly said that were never said. Twelve years is not immediate action, Raph. How much longer would you have given it and why? And if you deemed it unnecessary, does that really mean that it was unnecessary? When would you have deemed it necessary? Under what circumstances do you believe that war is necessary? International respect? What's that? Respect from the folks who were lining their pockets with Saddam's money while mouthing empty threats at him for show? How many lives are they responsible for? How many bodies did they find in that one mass grave, 30,000? I'll forego their respect, thank you. And as the author of this article, I'll wear their hatred as a badge of honor. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20040622.shtml |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
When did 'international' come to mean the Taliban, Hamas, and Al Quaida? Curious though, what has the government asked you to do to shoulder all this hatred? Oh, that's right, you gotta tax cut. quote: So we all agree that the coalition was a farce? Perhaps, that badge of honor should go to the fallen British soldiers rather than American civilians. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Unbelievable, always pointing fingers elsewhere, whether it's other nations or other parties! How about a look inward for once? Considering that Reagan's Republicans are directly responsible for Saddam's rise in power, it's hypocritical to cast stones at the international community. Reagan had FULL knowledge of Saddam's use of gas and yet the State Department still dropped Iraq from its list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1982. Internal documents and memos, show that his administration knew full well, but said little, about the gas attacks and continued trade even after until after a UN study on Iraq's gas attacks was released. At least then the US was forced to publicly denounce Iraq. It didn't stop them from trading with them of course. Trade before and after the public statement included: US military intelligence on Iran The approved sale of $200 million worth of UH-1H and MD-500 Defender helicopters to Iraq. Sold under the guise of 'civilian' aircraft, no objections were made as they were easily converted to military use including further gassing of Iranians and Kurds. Export permits for high tech equipment for weapons programs and advanced weaponry was purchased from other countries with full US knowledge and consent. Also a memo discovered by the NSA, shows that US policy for the sale of equipment to Iraq's nuclear program also was reviewed and stated "results favor expanding such trade to include Iraqi nuclear entities." What this 'war' is, and the 'evil' members of the international community understood, was another 'cleanup' war. Another State supported and/or installed regime gone sour. Absolutely nothing has been learned from history. I know I've said I'm leaving this conversation before, but I really wash my hands of it. Christ, it's an administration's dream come true, exactly what Orwell warned against, blind, unquestioning devotion to the Party. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Eurasia, Oceania Eastasia/Saddam Hussein or Emmanuel Goldstein doesn't matter. Just serve it steaming and swallow it whole. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
But Aenimal thats not what I am saying............ Saddam did not comply with un regulations, Supported terrism and had conections to terrests and promoted it. he was a terrorist him self. Don't get me wrong, many people hate him because of this. this was not just he is a bad person lets invade his contry he violated un laws, human rights ........ juju |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
One last one for juju quote: Exactly, and it was up to the UN to decide what to do, that's the way it works. The coalition moved against UN ruling, based on 'evidence' that Iraq was an looming threat. But that evidence has been discredited, and/or grossly exaggerated. There was no immediate threat which means that there was nothing to justify the complete underming of the UN commitee. Should Saddam have been ousted? Yes. But the manner and speed in which it took place is inexcusable. Stop focusing on Saddam's regime for a moment, and focus on the Bush Administration's tactics which has become the issue of this thread. If you want a government that lies in order to push it's agendas through by all means. But don't think this ruthlessness won't serve them well back home pushing questionable bills and legislature. Their business ties alone are enough to question the administration's ethics. |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
yeah as I have been saying The Un was too corrupt to do something about Iraq. There are five countries: Russia, USA, England, France, and every two years alternating country. The group of five are the leaders or over lookers of the un. Because of the corruption (Russia, France and other guy) the desision on doing something on Iraq was stoped. Inraged and Very confused USA and UK were out raged. USA (George Bush) couldn't figure out why they would do that. So our president assumed they were very corrupt. Action had to be taken. Usa gave Iraq a month to let Un inspectors in. Iraq didn't. Bush declared war based on knowlage given to him by the FBI, CIA And other foriegn contries. Information was that He supported terrism (i AM NOT TALKING ABOUT GIVING MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF SUICIDE BOMBERS) and had weopons of mass destruction. The main opposing argument was that the Un should take care of it. If the manjority of the top Un council was being bribed how could they carry out there mission. I am curios to see what will happen. Juju |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
No Brad, the terrorists are not the same as the international community, whose 'respect' we are supposed to strive after, according to some, but their bias against America is similar. We were hated and attacked long before the Bush administration and the tax cuts. Largely alone doesn't mean completely alone, so no, the coalition is not a farce. I think everyone who is killed or hated for standing against terrorism and oppression have nothing to be ashamed about. So, yeah, I'd give them a medal. Raph, I think motivation should be taken into account when considering the actions of a country. We helped Iraq in the past because Iran was the major threat at the time. I guess two people can look at the same set of circumstances and see them differently, in a negative light or a positive light, depending on their perspective. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
ok, so i admit there's no way i can leave this convo now..grins quote: So essentially you're justifying the administration's military trade, support and, most disturbingly, their blind eye to gas attacks when Saddam was an 'ally.' If that's the positive light, I completely abandon any faith in human ethics. Perhaps it would do you well to look into your history of foreign interference to gain an understanding of why a bias against US exists in many countries. Since WWII the installment, support and coups of regimes; the creation, use and abandonment of guerrillas have created the enemies you've faced. Should we go into the Viet Minh(Viet Cong), Afghanis or quite frankly some of the insurgents in Iraq? I'm not defending their actions, but at the same time, I can't fathom how anybody looking at thier history can't understand the foreign bias against American policy. Before simply crying victim, one should take a look at their involvement in the vicious cycle of war and hatred that exists today. And this isn't Anti-American sentiment, it's a look at cause and effect. The British, Soviet, and French empires were guilty of the same. Let's not be naive, rather then find reasons to justify these wars let's focus on ending them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Before simply crying victim, one should take a look at their involvement in the vicious cycle of war and hatred that exists today I wasn't going to respond anymore in this thread but for you to make such an incredibly spiteful comment requires a response. Be careful, Raph. Your anti-American (despite you denials) views are becoming so obvious they are becoming harder to disguise. Let me offer these thoughts... The foreign and defense policies of Ronald Reagan resulted in the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the freeing of approximately 122 million people in Eastern Europe. The state of Israel would cease to exist if not for American protection, and about 5.5 million Jews would be faced with extermination. Nearly 23 million Taiwanese would be denied freedom if not for American protection. More than 48 million South Koreans would be living under a dictatorship if not for American protection. USA action led to the removal of the Serbian dictator Milosevic, who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Balkans. The USA and allies have removed Hussein, who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East - and we have also removed the terrorist Taliban government in Afghanistan. America is sending $15 billion to Africa to help victims of AIDS. American action in Central America, Grenada , and Haiti has kept millions of people out of totalitarian regimes. Of course, all of this has cost every American taxpayer big and thousands of American service people have lost their lives protecting people overseas. By all means, shake your finger at this war-mongering country that deserves the hatred of such upstanding countries like France, Germany, Russia and others. There are others who appreciate our audacious involvement in international affairs, I assure you. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Had such an incredibly inane comment come from any other source I'd be offended at this personal attack. It's also not the first time you've accused me of this. It's especially silly considering I included the British and French Empires are guilty of similar behaviour. I suppose I'm Anti-British/French as well? It is not Anti-American to point out instances where policy has caused disharmony. I wonder if this would be even be an issue were I American? Would it make you feel better to hear things I find contemptable in Canadian politics and history? Because there are more than a few with the current Liberal government alone. I've never denied the good the US has done the world so listing what you have doesn't diminish the point that they've also done wrong. It's those policies that have cost respect and problems abroad. I'm not Anti-American I'm Anti-Policy. More than anything I'm Anti-Ignorance and Anti-Hypocrisy which there seems to be an abundance of. There's more truth saying you're xenophobic to opinions outside the US and outside your own views. quote: Both of which have roots and ties to American support and assistance. quote: What you're missing is instances where they aren't, and why they aren't. There are many declassified Military, CIA and FBI missions available for you to read about. Freedom of Information, use it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Raph, if those policies we have done wrong have created the distrust and disharmony abroad, then why haven't the policies we have done right brought a certain degree of trust and harmony? Does anyone ever discuss the positives...apparently not. The US is not a country who attacks another for its own personal gain by conquest. You know that. You should know that our intentions are honorable...and yet you speak as if we are the criminals at times. Are there things I wish we would have done differently? Oh, yes. Do I think Viet-Nam was a mistake? Yes - not that we were there but the way we fought the war. Your words drip disgust, whether you realize it or not....and if you were an American, I would be saying exactly the same thing. You can believe me when I tell you there are few countries, if any, I respect more than the people of Canada and I'm not being condescending when I say that. I served with the old RCAF for 3 years and got to know Canadians the way one gets to know another only by living with them. I will say, however, that I have lost a degree of respect for the government. From what I've seen of their newspapers, their view has turned much more liberal recently. The simple fact they they will not broadcast conservative stations, like Fox, is a clear indication of that. They do not want any opposing views exposed to the public and no wonder so many more Canadians have turned anti-American. That is such a shame because I don't think there are any two peoples more alike than Americans and Canadians....and yet a rift is being created. Hopefully it will not grow so wide it cannot be repaired.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
If I didn't strongly believe that the U.S. has a moral obligation in helping those who need it, I'd advocate our immediate withdrawal from 'interfering', with our troops and our financial aid. I sometimes wonder if our critics ever consider what the world might be like without our 'interference'. We've made mistakes in the past, and we'll make them in the future. But I believe our intentions are good. That's what I mean by seeing things in a positive light. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Why not? Maybe it is time to relook at the Clinton administration with slightly more knee-jerk reaction than, "Clintion did it, it was wrong." quote: Again, why not? Who ever actually denied that Hussein didn't want WMD's? By the way: the five permanent members of the UN Security council are the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China -- these countries all have veto power, the rest of the group changes over time. The current UN corruption scandal has nothing to do with the governments of these five countries. They have to do with the administration of the UN (Kofi Annan etc.) |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
Sometimes helping is a double edged sword. You can help and help, give and lose blood. Die, just to make the world a beter place. Because of the differences poeple want to find reasons to hate. when ever my friends who are more libral than me always bring up handing it over to the UN. I always bring up Sudan. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: This thread has been, for the most part, devoted to questionable US administration policies. I've never denied there are postives, and if you'd like to begin a thread and list the good I could add to it. I've simply kept on topic, stating that there have been questionable choices made by administrations, past and present, that have lead to some of the problems in foreign relations. Denise also mentioned "the folks who were lining their pockets with Saddam's money" and I offered evidence to show that, while not presently, the US should be included under that heading. quote: The disgust is directed not at American's, whatever you choose to believe, but at ignorance and blind devotion. Patriotism and ideals are a beautiful thing, but in some cases extremely dangerous and negative. Questioning a governments actions and ethics is essential in a democracy, otherwise we're simply puppets to their policies. There are vast resources available to us and it's important we use them and in using them one finds some disturbing actions. The examples I've used are not to undermine but educate Mike. I've never asserted that the ALL US policies are dishonourable, but that instances are highly questionable and ethically unsound. For example, in 1954 Jacobo Arbenz, a well liked and democratically elected leader of Guatemala was ousted from power in a coup by Col. Carlos C. Armas. Declassified documents reveal the coup was staged by the CIA, under Truman's orders, to protect business interests including the United Fruit Company(chiquita banana). The UFC, was upset with land reforms, which expropriated unused land and given back to the poor of Guatemala to farm. UFC would not accept the compensation offered and pressured the government to act. The CIA trained and armed mercenaries to carry out a coup under US air support. Col. Armas, who was trained at Fort Leavenworth, was installed and immediately eliminated all taxes on interest and dividends to foreign investors giving US businesses, incredible profit and control over the entire region. I'm hard pressed to find any justifiable or honourable intention there. AGAIN, I'm not saying ALL US policy but giving an example of US interference and how it can lead to resentment. Earlier I used the example of trade with a gas weilding Saddam because I found it hypocritcal that under the heading of 'US ally' his actions are justifiable, but as an enemy a name compared with the evil of Hitler. Other policies have led to unrest and ultimately war, for example the Viet Minh, once US allies, were turned on and became the enemy leading to the Vietnam War. quote: We do have FOX stations, as well as CNN( who offer many conservative views) and other news outlets. There are also local conservative stations so I'm not sure what you mean. quote: Canadians haven't turned Anti-American but admittedly relations have cooled since Bush took over. The link between Americans and Canadians was never greater than on 9/11. We were quick to offer assistance, take detoured americans into our homes/communities until flights were re-established, and we sent our best troops and elite snipers to the campaign in Afghanistan. But things took a turn for the worse and many Canadians felt slighted when suddenly our borders were blamed, every nation but ours was thanked in that key Bush speech after the attacks, and our refusal to join the coalition led to the lable of cowards and pacifists in political forums and articles. You know, we were even blamed without hesitation for the Great Blackout until it was revealed otherwise. Is it Anti-American sentiment? NO. Is there some resentment? Yes, this happens with siblings. Now if I were truly Anti-American why would I bother convincing people to vote against Bush? What would the election matter to me if I thought all American administrations and people were the same? And why would I do this in a predominately American forum amongst American friends? I've simply tried to educate, offer historical background and expose hypocrisies and for this I'm unfairly labeled Anti-American. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I think this is important to remember. What happened? Do you cultivate good will or do you slap it in the face? If it's the latter, can someone please explain why? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Brad.. obviously I agree to both 'why not's' or I wouldn't have brought it up.. I'm always ready to analyze. The reason why the C's and L's won't is because this election year is about appealing to base. The Republicans don't want to offend the conservative base that claimed everything from Clinton was a murderer (Vince Foster, all political enemies et al via Arkansas mysterious death list) to a traitor (Sandia National Laboratories). And of course the Democrats don't want to loose the Moore vote. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
F, oops sorry, we don't need the Moore vote. Not anymore. I apologize to those who believe I have plaigarized Dick Cheney. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Raph, for your info... "Fox News Channel is banned in Canada by the left-wing zealots and Liberal government appointees who regulate what Canadians are allowed to watch using one of their favorite political tools, the state-run "CRTC" (which stands for the very typically Liberal government bureaucratic-sounding "Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission"). The CRTC is stacked with liberals. Duh. Most of the Canadian political institutions that control Canadian lives -- what they see, how they think, how they're taught -- are stacked by liberals. It may come as a surprise to Canadians that the TV they watch is only what the CRTC decides they will watch. It is not a free market. It is a fully state-regulated market. Unelected Canadian government bureaucrats decide what the people will see on TV, and what they will not be allowed to see. In response to their customers' demands, cable operators in Canada have tried unsuccessfully to be "allowed" to offer Fox News Channel to subscribers for a fee. But they have been refused. Cable companies cannot satisfy their customers' demand even by offering it to them for a fee. Again this week, as they have done unsuccessfully before, Canadian cable TV companies have filed an application with the CRTC to carry Fox News Channel, citing a growing demand from customers. Again the liberals will forbid it. Fox News Channel is seen by the left-wing liberals in the CRTC as "right-wing", and therefore a threat to the hitherto successful Liberal Party commercial otherwise known as the state-run taxpayer-funded media giant CBC, which regularly churns out pro-liberal, anti-American rhetoric, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. The hacks and Liberal Party supporters in the CRTC and the CBC feel threatened by conservative-thinking Canadians because they feel their jobs would be on the line if Canadians voted with common sense for a party that didn't believe quite so much in social engineering. CNN, the Cable News Network founded by Ted Turner who was formerly married to Jane Fonda the militant feminist and extreme left-wing liberal heroine, is decidedly not right-wing but is perfectly acceptable, as is BBC news, which is decidedly not right-wing to put it mildly. The CBC is left-wing to put it even more mildly. To put it less mildly, it is a left-wing joke. But because Fox News Channel is right-wing to their way of thinking (to my way of thinking it's just "normal"), Fox News Channel is banned in Canada." This is an article printed on the "Proud to be a Canadian" written by Joel Johannesen, born in West Vancouver, raised in Vancouver in British Columbia, Canada. Went to Langara College and University of Victoria (economics). Worked as a stockbroker and in other areas of the financial industry until a few years ago, then for a tourism/transportation business. So, if you're watching Fox news in Canada, you must be the only one |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
LOL Proud to be Canadian!? You know, for someone who's quick to point out the bias in some of the articles I've produced you couldn have picked a better source. The Proud To Be Canadian site is ultra right propaganda. Who like conservatives in the States, believe ALL media outlets are too liberal and out to get conservatives. Sample article: http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/threads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=751 jeeezusBut you're right, while we have FOX channels we don't carry FOX NEWS, but many of us have satellites in Toronto so I honestly forget which channels are featured on regular cable. I've watched FOX NEWS and quite frankly can't stomach most of it, particularly blowhard Bill O'Reilly, shivers..But I can't defend the CRTC's decision not to allow the channel through, nor can I defend the obvious liberal, or rather Socialist leaning of the CBC. (I just watch it for Hockey Night In Canada and the occasional documentary for the most part) It's false, however, to assume that there are no conservative voices in Canada, on TV or in print. The National Post and especially the Regional SUN papers are ridiculously right. And while there are no 'strictly' conservative stations, conservative, socialist and liberal voices are all heard on a variety of news forums and discussion programs. You should also consider that while the Federal government is Liberal, Conservatives have done well regionally. You'll be surprised to know that I was upset with the ousting of the Conservative government here in Ontario. in fact the bumbling Liberal government here seriously threatened Paul Martin's bid in the Federal election. As for CNN being liberal? I doubt it. Oh I know Fonda's leaning's but to assume ultra capitalist Turner's channel is left is absurd. Robert Novak or Tucker Carlson's ring a bell? My god, Carlson's has caused a permanent phobia of bowties. *If we could go back to my last response though, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the Guatemala affair, I'm not focusing on negatives but I'd honestly like to hear your take on that coup. Was there honourable intent there? (I'd ask for an retraction or apology for calling me Anti-American but despite what I've said I'm sure you still believe me to be so what's the point right? And you wonder why I respond to you the way I do) |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
(rolls eyes) Aenimal I asumed you were playing the devils advicate. I was just providing arguments. Actually Aenimal As a conservative i don't believe that. Cnn- actually depends they are pretty good at showing both sides of argument. Wcco- Librel Fox-conservative....depending on the station. the cabel one is conservative. channel 9/ 29 for me are in the midlebut still lean libril Kare 11 way libral Editors of news papers.... depends on the news paper, but in news papers like the star they are slightly conservative, wile reporters lean left. I think that it evens out if you read a range of stuff. For some reason some have a distaste for bush, but I read stuff thats bothe libril and conservative. Lots of love Juju |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: Sorry you don't believe what? And what are you rolling your eyes at I'm confused? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
but to assume ultra capitalist Turner's channel is left is absurd That one I have to smile at. One could say the same for millionaire Michael Moore. He stood up and said "I've always considered capitalism the most despicable form of government". - and Hollywood multi-millionaires applauded! Perhaps the applause would stop if the Socialist government he advocates took a few Rolls-Royces out of their mansion's garages. Incredibly, being rich does not make one conservative and, for the life of me, I can't tell you why.... Ok, as far as Guatemala is concerned, I will concede my ignorance to you. It was not something I was acutely aware of, having been 9 years old at the time. I am certainly aware, however, that there have been many such things in American history I would not feel proud of as an American. We can go all the way back to the Indians, if you wish. I'm not proud of the Bay of Pigs, nor am I proud of the way we deserted the Kurds, after assuring them our support and then watching them get slaughtered. Can I make any excuses for my government's actions concerning these examples? Nope. Politics, especially world politics, seem to me to be a much murkier world than I can visualize. It seemd to be at time aligning oneself with "strange bedfellows", indeed. You can look at the upper echelon of the UN to know that, where countries run by dictators, thieves, and murderers occupy high positions in an organization dedicated, supposedly, to peace and world good. If world politics were straight-forward there would not be millions dying in the Sudan by Moslem genocide tactics, there would have been no Hussein or Milosovic, or North Korea. Ok, I'm rambling and you may think I'm trying to change the subject or make excuses. I'm not. I acknowledge that there ae many things in American's past that would wilt under scrutiny. My complaint with you is this - you claim that the world looks down with disdain on the US due to its past actions. You obviously looked up or studied the Guatemala situation, unless you were an adult going through it at the time. How many people around this world that looks down have done that? If I stop people on the street in France, Canada, Germany, Russia, or any number of countries and ask them their opinion of the US actions in Guatemala in 1954, how many of them do you think would be able to answer me? Yet these are the people you state have come to distrust the United States. No, Raph, it's not our past actions that have caused this disdain you claim exists (and certainly does to a degree). It is what they are being force-fed by their governments, France, Germany and Russia for reasons that are becoming more visible and a UN that has been shown to be obsolete and innefectual. Canada? Well, fortunately a large majority of Canadians are very intelligent people who have great knowledge of the US and our integrity. Why so much anti-American rhetoric? I don't know if it's a Quebec - and therefore French - influence or what but it's sad to see. I'll apologize for calling you anti-American, if you like. It's just that comments you make do not stop with the current administration. You go back to, well, Guatemala, Viet Nam and who knows where else to come up with examples of why the US is so despised, which, by inference, indicates you are one of the despisers. You list policies and examples that go way back and you speak of how the world views us in such a bad light and how we probably deserve it. If you don't understand how someone reading your past comments could consider you anti-American and not only anti- Bush then I guess there's not much more than I can say. Peace |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
quote: And I'd agree, I said earlier that Moore is in danger of becoming the very things he hates. And the more one reads about him the more evident this becomes. I've also said his style of reporting is propaganda, but an intelligent person should be able to sift through and find the important information. quote: NO, what I said was that parts of the world look down on some of their Foreign POLICIES, not on America itself. quote: You've missing the point. Ask a Guatemalan about the Guatemalan coup. Or ask the Vietnamese about involvement in Vietnam. My point was that certain countries have been affected by American policies and interference and it's that this has caused problems in THOSE countries. I simply used Guatemala as an example to prove a point. Not all intentions are honourable. quote: Russia is a horrible example considering the the propaganda we were fed about the USSR during the Cold War. But it's silly to say 'the whole world is against us', rivalries and sterotypes will always exist. The English take potshots at the French and vice versa. Many Russians still harbour ill will towards the Germans. This is nothing new and don't tell me it doesn't work both ways. Freedom Fries? You know, my company lost business the first year of the war, want to know why? One of our distributors in the US said he didn't want to by Canadian product because they refused to help in Iraq. lol quote: That inference is false. It all begins with Denise's statement "International respect? What's that? Respect from the folks who were lining their pockets with Saddam's money while mouthing empty threats at him for show? How many lives are they responsible for? How many bodies did they find in that one mass grave, 30,000?" which is hypocritical considering American involvement in Iraq, which is why I offered a history lesson on the former administration's relationship with Saddam and why we're where we're at. And the reason I mentioned Vietnam and Afghanistan is because they were similarly allies who became enemies. quote: I simply used examples to show why the US has had problems in certain regions. The average person doesn't look into history and rather than simply swallow what the government tells them in wartime, members of a true democracy have to work to question and hold accountable their governments. Now, I don't see you calling me Anti-British or Anti-French though I've repeated that French and British empires are guilty of the same. I also stated that there are instances where Canadian policies at home and abroad have disgusted me(especially actions in Somalia) so lets add the label Anti-Canadian as well. I've also stated that not ALL US history campaigns dishonourable. You don't realize that I'm a history buff and I know full well and thank heaven for Americans entering the war against Fascism. The points I've made were counter-points to battle ignorance of the past and how it effects the present. And to show that without questioning and rethinking policies past and present, the same mistakes will happen again and again. Here's the main point and it's as Pro-American as one could offer: Don't vote Bush! Why? Because rather than furthering American/Foreign relationships, he's jeopardized them. Because rather than creating new strategies in diplomacy he's chosen, and profited from, the war machine (with Iraq). If you want to call be anti-administration or anti-war machine by all means. You could even call me anti-establishment as i can find a billion faults in all governments. But NOT Anti-American. If i was Anti-American I wouldn't care, but I do and I hate to see people and friends in here being misled and dying for a questionable cause and questionable tactics. Yours sincerely, Auntie Ig Norance Vote Kerry! STEM CELL RESEARCH!! |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
sorry I thought I quoted it. I was taking about you saying that all conservatives say that broadcasting was too libril. bye |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
