The US, The UN and Iraq

"Don't you mean to say, "For those who like to read the opinions of others and don't want to go to the trouble of thinking for oneself"?"

If I don't read I wonder if I can start thinking for myself.
Which option do I have if I want to find facts on which I can decide?

I found a lot of information here- different sources, different views- it is up to me what I will do with it.
My links are just information for those who wants them.

I guess it would be okay if maybe he was snorting cocaine and finding another way out of Viet Nam duty and oh so many other things. Of course, it only works for one side and not the other and well gee, I'll be damned, we're into unmitigated sex again. Guess it depends on the what the meaning of is, is - not truth!

Besides, requesting reliable sources, this is the first I've heard of this. Is there a conviction?

[deleted

My understanding, Max, is that the Ritter charges are very doubtful, though I haven't been following the matter. Here's what I do know, however, Ritter's credibility when it comes to arms inspection has virtually nothing to do with his sex life. I smell a Ken Starr shaped rat in this. What do you know at this point about Ritter and a "post pubescent" woman. Love that "post pubescent"! Presumably most of us are post-pubescent here? Well, maybe not all...

By the way, Max, I posted this as soon as I saw your post. So you're welcome for the clarification!

Tartarin,

I didn't "remix" anything. I merely quoted sections of your earlier post (using that feature of A2K) EXACTLY as you had written them. Neither did I alter the meaning of your words - at least as I was able to understand them.

Does the definition of your novel term "deep corruption", as you have subsequently added to it, also include the revolving door between the Federal department of Education and Teachers Unions, the NEA, and text book publishers?

Your recitation of the facts of President Eisenhower's life is incorrect. He was President of Columbia University BEFORE he became President, not afterwards as you stated. It isn't at all clear just what are the bad examples in subsequent Republican Administrations to which you refer. If you are suggesting we consider Administration officials other than the President, I submit you will find a good deal more that is unsavory in this regard in the Democrat (Clinton) administrations of the last four decades.

Tartar wrote:
"Gee whizzikers, Perception. Guess I'm just one of those women who hold the door for you when you're feelin' poorly, and who are able to punch you out when you're not -- but don't. I'm almost certainly older fashioned than you are but hey, I don't even recognize age in your posts".

Glad to see you've lightened up---try to have some fun---we don't have any rule that says we must be confrontational.

BTW----I'm sixty-nine and you can hold the door for me any day.

"Would the definition of your term, "deep corruption" as you have subsequently added to it also include the revolving door between Teachers Unions, the NEA, & school book publishers and the Department of Education? Certainly the parallel between that and what you described in the Defense Establishment appears to be complete. How then can Defense spending be "unpatriotic" (as you said) or less patriotic than spending on education?"

Because we were talking about the military, George. I listed education, not the government departments who leak money away from it. Believe me, I'd can be just as uppity in a school board meeting. We could both go on (and I'd agree with you) about the corruption attending highway repair contracts, corruption (oh boy) in the financing of healthcare and the marketing of pharmaceuticals (phew). But we were focusing on the military.

We should continue to wonder why we accept the fact that the US has the largest military in the world while ranking so low in education -- not to mention our scandalous healthcare, our treatment of children, and on and on. Money doesn't cure everything, but in a society as money-driven as we are, it sure shows what our values are.

You may well be right about Eisenhower's stint at Columbia antedating his presidency-- but the guy had some integrity, wouldn't you agree? We might want to take a look at his aides and appointees -- see if they stayed clean. Anyone know?

Funny that we can spout so easily any details we know about the sex lives of politicians and other public figures, but we have our heads in the sand about the pay-offs they take... hmmm, just can't quite remember... BUT I REMEMBER THAT BLUE DRESS...

Tartar wrote:

"you may well be right about Eisenhowers stint at Columbia antedating his presidency".

Gee--Tartar just one tiny little mistake----of course your credibility is not at stake here----just everyone else you want to aim your loose cannon at.

c.i. : of course, i should worry about the stabilitiy of the whole world not just the middle-east - but i can handle only so much at a time! to justify my pre-occupation with the middle-east, i state in my defence that i have been re-reading two old books about the middle-east(but the books also deal with parts of europe...); the older of the two was published in 1914/1915 by a journalist who had lived for many years in the middle-east; i believe it's called "a new map of europe" -or similar -i stashed it away or lent it to someone and now i can't find it. the other book was written by a german travelwriter in 1930(a. t. wegner "am kreuzweg der welten" - "crossroads of the world"). i've read those books over and over again and can only conclude that the western world(and many of its governments) haven't been very interested in learning what the middle-east is all about. but i better admit that i have never lived or even travelled there, so perhaps i'm the one who doesn't understand a thing about the middle-east; i guess that's the great thing about living in a democracy, one can still have an opinion about it! hbg

Well, haven't we all been having fun today. Reading back five pages or so, I have to say that the most exemplary post was Walter's sword-waving infantryman.

hbg, My post was not an attempt to attack you or your idea, but to 'expand' on it. We all learn by reading, although first hand knowledge from travel can compliment what we learn from books. Sometimes, traveling to countries we have read about can change our perspectives of what we learned from reading. I always try to read about the history and current information of countries I plan to visit. Since I'll be traveling to Peru and Ecuador in April, I've started to read about those countries. Often times, the tour guide will say something that I have learned from my readings, and that helps to reinforce information about the destination. It's a fun way to learn history and geography. c.i.

deleted

"...we don't have any rule that says we must be confrontational..." You knew that all along, Perception, and I'd never have guessed it. Congratulations. Stick to it!!

Oh darn, I see you've broken your rule again.

Walter, GWBush does a pretty good job of winning the Hispanic vote in Texas. His brother Jeb probably does pretty good in Florida too! c.i.

I've heard about that, c.i. - but actually I didn't want to post that here!

WE STAND PASSIVE AND MUTE:
A lone voice on Capitol Hill, Senator Robert Byrd remarks on the silence of the U.S. Senate in a time of crisis:".

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.
Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.
And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the U.N. Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list.
High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after 9/11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. ..this administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see…
In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden… This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer-found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland that would severely damage our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
--Senator Robert Byrd, TomPaine.com Feb. 14, 2003

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/

DEAR C.I.(note the capital letters!); i can assure you that i certainly did not feel attacked! while i've been a member of this site for only a short while; i think that generally opinions expressed are respected(but we may DISAGREE with the opinion stated and that certainly seems to be the whole idea of the interchanges taking place). i agree that preparing for a trip by reading about countries, people and customs helps us to understand other people better and it's also more fun to have some understanding of the overall picture. just as an aside, when we stopped over in london last year before going on a cruise to russia and scandinavia, our london tourbus made a brief stop near the tower of london to allow us to stretch our legs and have a cuppa. the only place for a cuppa was a little working-men'(or should it be PEOPLE?) caf. some tourists insisted in wanting to pay in dollars for their refreshments; they were quite put off when they were asked to pay in LOCAL currency - "well, they don't seem to be interested in our business - certainly won't visit here again!". my good wife and i thought it was rather funny and had a good chuckle.

just an afterthought: i probably should have posted my previous reply in the travel forum. hope nobody minds my going off topic. hbg

hbg, That IS funny! To think that I've seen travelers from the UK use American $ to pay for goods in other countries. I'll add my chuckle to that one too! c.i.

Ul

Thanks for the Byrd quote. I'm a fan of the old fellow and this speech would have got a cheer from me, had I been there with a page boy haircut.

My sense, from here in Canada, is that the Democrats have been both out-maneuvered and cowardly (in the main). My respect for governance in the US is not going up.