timberlandko wrote:I'm sorry, but I just can't subscribe to the "Thousands of Dead Innocent Civilians" argument. Given current technology and tactics, civilians in the vicinity of a war have never been safer since at least the invention of strategic airpower. Unless of course those civilians happen to suffer the consequences of their own goverrnment's atrocity ... a prospect of chilling possibility.
Timber - You're acting like facts or reality matter to these people. Have you been paying any attention at all?
Now, you remember c.i.
It is called Bush, Inc.
save family fortune at all costs
especially if we can use the ANTS MONEY!!!
Bush is like HOPPER, in the movie
A BUG'S LIFE!!!
if you haven't seen it,
definetely rent it and
check it out!!!!
along with Gore,Inc.
whose former employer
company just happened to
win the bid - to be the ones
who get to go over there 1st
to put out the fires in the oilfields,
need I say that said company is
still paying our VP megabucks
per year, I see a conflict of
interest, but apparently no one
else does.
Tartarin wrote:Ah, September 11. The great "tragedy" of such dubious origins... I'm pretty sure there is a link between Iraq and 9/11 -- but not the one the Bush administration is flogging so persistently...
Ah, September 11th, when Bush has enemies like bin Laden, who needs friends?
Whether Bush's war is justified or not is no longer the question. IMO it is inevitable. I do believe that when and if it starts the US should not fight it with one hand tied behind it's back. Collateral damage should not be a limiting factor. It is and always has been a fact of war. What would have been the result if the allies during WW2 had chosen not to bomb the German factories because of fear of collateral damage?
I should also add the enemy does not worry about collateral damage. They do not need to since that is their aim. To target civilians
January 21, 1998
JIM LEHRER: Now, Ambassador Richardson at the U.N. and others in the administration have said the military option, just to continue your sentence, the military option remains on the table. The ambassador from Iraq to the U.N. was on our program and he pretty much acknowledged that Iraq is banking on that not being real, that the U.S. alone is not going to go in and take out some suspected anthrax facilities, particularly if it's in the palace where Saddam Hussein lives, et cetera, et cetera.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, the United States does not relish moving alone, because we live in a world that is increasingly interdependent. We would like to be partners with other people. But sometimes we have to be prepared to move alone. You used the anthrax example. Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy. Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action. I far prefer the United Nations, I far prefer the inspectors, I have been far from trigger-happy on this thing, but if they really believe that there are no circumstances under which we would act alone, they are sadly mistaken. That is not a threat. I have shown I do not relish this thing. Every time it's discussed around here, I say one of the great luxuries of being the world's only superpower for a while -- and it won't last forever probably, but for a while -- is that there is always time enough to kill. And therefore we have a moral responsibility to show restraint and to seek partnerships and alliances, and I've done that. But I don't have to explain to my grandchildren why we took a powder on what we think is a very serious biological and chemical weapons programs potentially by a country that has already used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds, their own people.
JIM LEHRER: So you would order an air strike or whatever it would take to take out some facility if you couldn't get away from it any other way.
PRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, I'm going to stay with my tried and true formulation -- I'm not ruling out or in any option. I was responding to what you said that the Iraqi official thought that we were just talking because we wouldn't want to discomfort anyone or make them mad. That's not true. This is a serious thing with me, this is a very serious thing. You imagine the capacity of these tiny amounts of biological agents to cause great harm; it's something we need to get after. And I don't understand why they are not for getting after it. What can they possibly get out of it? If he really cares about his people. He is always talking about how bad his people have been hurt by sanctions. If he cared he would open all these sites and let people go in and look at them. If he's telling the truth, and there's really nothing there, and what benefit does the United States have now for stopping the United Nations from lifting the sanctions? I have done everything I've been asked to do. Even though we have got reservations about it, we would have a hard time answering that question.
Bill Clinton, via ferrous wrote:we would have a hard time answering that question
A concise summation of Clinton's Presidency, in my mind.
timber
HUH?
-A concise summation of Bush's presidency thus far, in my mind.
I suppose it would fit most administrations, snood. Maybe that's why they call it "Politics"
timber
Leading the forces and flying the flag would be easier, if I believed that Saddam really had working W.M.Ds today, there were not so many hidden agendas and all politicians were as honest as George Washington.
most likely the last time a president actually addressed the people was Harry S when he had the guts to say "the buck stops here" would be quite amazing for a modern politican to accept any responsibilty for anything unless it made him look good.
Are we being too tough on George Bush? After all, the White House says that he has massive support all over the world from many who recognise his greatness.
Only days ago, I hear he attended a seance, in which they made contact with a famous world leader, who gave George his wholehearted support and sang numerous praises of his invasion policies and so did his buddy ..... Dr. Goebbels.
For those of us not familiar with Dr Goebbels, here's a link on his biography.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb62.htm
c.i.
John, Speaking of seances, if you get a chance, pop over to
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4798&start=440 and read some excerpts from a Harpers article I posted 3/16 around 10 am and tell me what you think?
Dr. Goebbels (Adolph Hitler's right hand man) is the patron saint of all modern politicians. The one who is reputed to have said "If you repeat a lie often enough, everyone will believe it". Evidence is unnecessary.
With the advent of world-wide TV, it is even more successful today at distributing pure fictional propaganda than it was then.
Which is why all fairy tales no longer begin "Once upon a time" and many start with "After I am elected ... " or even "After the Supreme Court makes me President ...".
John, Very good! "After I am elected....." Fun---ny. LOL c.i.
Just something that occurred to me as I posted something about living in various European countries in another thread: In not one of those countries can I imagine a political leader surviving for as long as Bush has (and is likely to) with the same amount of vocal opposition against him Bush is getting. There are lots of reasons for that and maybe we should address them...
Tartar, Unfortunately, we are stuck with any president for four years unless they are impeached or they die. Neither are likely to happen with GWBush. c.i.
John Webb wrote:all politicians were as honest as George Washington.

Transparency from politicians is not to be expected. A tidbit about America's George The First: Washington turned down a Congressional offer of a salary for his service as Commander of The Revolutionary Forces, opting instead to accept only reimbursement for expenses incurred in discharge of his duties. His expense report totalled a multiple of what would have been his salary. Still, he is about as close to Cincinatus as can be found in our history.
timber