1
   

IRAQ: no WMD's - nothing, zero, nada, zip, f#ck-all

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 10:04 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Let me just see if I have this right: it's okay with the USA if in the very near future, let's say, two years, there is no US presence in Iraq. (Assuming a Sistani backed government asked us to leave.) That means no US military bases, no US ships docking for maintenance at Iraqi ports, no US fly zones over any portion of the country.

In place is a Shi'a majority government with strong relations with Iran, Syria and Yemen, but no clear connection to radical groups, al Qeada or otherwise.

As other nations, European, Asian and even African, enjoy new opportunities for influence in the Middle East, America remains on the outside looking in, the result of hard feelings about the length and level of violence of the effort to make the country free.

That's not exactly what we wanted but would it be an acceptable result?

Joe(thinking about unintended consequences) Nation

Democracy means democracy. It is none of our busines who they elect, even a government that hates us and loves our enemies. However, that is not to say that that government might not take actions which would force us to react, such as, for example, exporting terrorism. They must be allowed to have any government they want to elect, but they don't cease to exist after that.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 10:12 am
Quote:
Democracy means democracy. It is none of our busines who they elect, even a government that hates us and loves our enemies.


You think that would be acceptable to Wolfowitz and others who have pushed the new US influence in the ME scenarios from the very beginning?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 10:14 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Quote:
Democracy means democracy. It is none of our busines who they elect, even a government that hates us and loves our enemies.


You think that would be acceptable to Wolfowitz and others who have pushed the new US influence in the ME scenarios from the very beginning?

These people tend to say things that I believe and act in ways I wish them to, so I tend to believe so. At least for most conservatives I've talked to personally, we say we want to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, for the simple reason that that is what we do want.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 10:30 am
So, looking towards the future of the Middle East, (and BTW I am bored to death discussing the reasons, bogus or otherwise, for the invasion,) you believe that the conservatives who were the architects of the current effort, which was to cement a full, firm and active US presence in Iraq, will now content themselves with the idea that a democratic Iraq is enough of a reward for our efforts.

I've heard some say that they believe a new kind of domino theory is in place, that once there is a democratic government in Iraq, others will follow, do you think that is true?

I would remind you that Iran has a democratically elected government and Iraq's other neighbor Turkey has recently elected an Islamic Party to head it's government but so far they don't seem to have created any movement elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 10:39 am
Bush Says Iraqi Leaders Will Want U.S. Forces to Stay to Help
By ELISABETH BUMILLER, DAVID E. SANGER and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 - President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.

"I've, you know, heard the voices of the people that presumably will be in a position of responsibility after these elections, although you never know," Mr. Bush said. "But it seems like most of the leadership there understands that there will be a need for coalition troops at least until Iraqis are able to fight."

He did not say who he expected would emerge victorious. But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."

Some members of the administration had made similar pledges, but this was the first time Mr. Bush did so.

In a 40-minute conversation in the Oval Office with correspondents from The New York Times, Mr. Bush, seated in front of a crackling fire, ranged across a number of issues that he is expected to discuss in his State of the Union address next week.

Yet Iraq was clearly foremost in his mind, and he said that with the coming election, "We're watching history being made, history that will change the world." That has been Mr. Bush's message in a series of interviews he has given in the days before and since his Inaugural Address on Jan. 20.

He later drew Iraq into a broader plan for democracy in the Middle East.

"I think two of the great ironies of history will be that there will be a Palestinian state and a democratic Iraq showing the way forward for people who desperately want to be free," the president said. He particularly praised Mahmoud Abbas, the new Palestinian leader, as a man who has "the will of the people with him, and that inspires leaders."

On domestic policy, Mr. Bush sidestepped a question on whether he agreed with a Florida law barring gay men and women from adopting children, saying he was not aware of it. But he said that while "children can receive love from gay couples," he believed that "studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."

He said that his plan to overhaul Social Security would be a centerpiece of his State of the Union address and acknowledged that his approach would demand politically difficult decisions of Congress.

He also suggested, three days after telling a March for Life rally that he could see the "glimmerings" of a nation in which every child is "welcomed in life and protected in law," that he was resigned for now to the continued availability of abortion and that his role would be to show moral leadership rather than advance specific anti-abortion initiatives.

"I think the goal ought to be to convince people to value life," Mr. Bush said. "But I fully understand our society is divided on the issue and that there will be abortions. That's reality. It seems like to me my job is to convince people to make right choices in life, to understand there are alternatives to abortion, like adoption, and I will continue to do so."

He brushed aside questions about his relationship with the Congressional Black Caucus, which he met with on Wednesday and invited to the White House once in his first term. Asked why the group, now composed of 43 Democratic African-American members of Congress, had received only the single first-term invitation, he responded, "That's just the way it worked out."

He said he was working "to put out policies that I think are beneficial to all people, including African-Americans, and will continue to do so."

But even while acknowledging that Iraq is at a pivotal point in its history, Mr. Bush appeared far more relaxed than he was in August, when he was last interviewed by The Times, in a changing area off a men's room, during a campaign stop in New Mexico.

He laughed when asked about his admission on Wednesday, during a news conference, that he had not read the article in the periodical Foreign Affairs written in 2000 by Condoleezza Rice, his new secretary of state, laying out his foreign policy.

"I don't know what you think the world is like, but a lot of people don't just sit around reading Foreign Affairs," he said, chuckling. "I know this is shocking to you."

The president acknowledged that many Iraqis still viewed the United States as an occupying force, though he stopped short of endorsing the view of a growing number of Republicans that the sheer size of the American presence in Iraq was worsening the violence by presenting insurgents with a large target.

"A fundamental question also that I think a lot of Iraqis understand - and I do, too - is how do we make sure the Iraqi citizens view U.S. troops as helpers, not as occupiers," he said. "And to the extent that a coalition presence is viewed as an occupying force, it enables the insurgents, the radicals, to continue to impress people that the government really is not their government, and that the government is complicit in having their country occupied.

"I view that as reasonable," he said. "I also view that as pretty hopeful that there's kind of a nationalistic sentiment that says, 'This is my country.' I mean, to me that's a positive sign."

But Mr. Bush also noted "a certain realism amongst the leadership - at least the ones I've talked to - that says, 'Look, there's much more work to do before we're ready to move out on our own.' "

He said that a recent proposal by Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain to put calmer parts of the country entirely in the hands of Iraqi troops was "certainly one option," but added that he had not yet discussed it with Mr. Blair, his close ally.

Mr. Bush was accompanied in the interview, which occurred shortly after his return from a trip earlier in the day to Ohio, by top aides who remained silent throughout. They included Dan Bartlett, the counselor to the president; Nicolle Devenish, the White House communications director; and Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary.

The president declined to talk in any detail about his plans for Social Security, but was expansive on his plans for the Middle East. About 35 minutes into the interview, when he appeared to be coming to the end of his comments about the future of the Israelis and Palestinians, Mr. McClellan jumped in and said, "Thanks," indicating the interview was over.

But Mr. Bush said firmly, "I'm not through yet," and continued to describe how the Iraqi elections would be part of an initial wave of democratization in the Middle East.

The president, who is scheduled to travel to Europe next month, rejected the suggestion that relations with Europe, particularly with Germany and France, are badly frayed after the split over the Iraq war. "I think we're working well in places like Afghanistan," he said. "We worked well together in Haiti."

He added that "obviously, we had a disagreement over Iraq," but that the relationships were good and had the potential of being better. "I look forward to working with them," he said.

In a discussion about the powers of the presidency, Mr. Bush differed from comments recently by Vice President Dick Cheney that one of the administration's goals was to restore power to the executive branch.

He said he had not heard Mr. Cheney's comments and did not know what he was referring to, but said he thought the powers of the presidency were "adequate" when he came into office in 2001.

"I can't think of any examples where I said, 'Gosh, I wish I had more power,' " Mr. Bush said. "I felt like I had plenty to do the job."

Asked if at the end of eight years he wanted to leave the presidency more powerful than the way he found it, he replied, "I don't think you want to weaken the presidency."

On whether the administration had looser standards for interrogating terrorist suspects outside the United States, he said, "Torture is never acceptable," adding, "nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture."

On his position limiting embryonic stem cell research to a handful of existing colonies, or lines, the president said he was satisfied with the way his policy was working, even as states like California promote private research that could increase the demand for additional lines.

He said that "destroying life to create life is not ethical" and that "whether it happens in the private sector or the public sector, it doesn't change the ethics."

He reflected on last week's inaugural ceremonies, saying he was "deeply moved by Chief Justice Rehnquist on the podium," at a time when he is battling a severe form of thyroid cancer.

"It was, I thought, a very powerful moment when he struggled up and read that oath with real conviction in his voice," Mr. Bush said. "I was very touched that he would even bother to do so. I also thought it was a very important signal, in terms of continuity of government."

Later he acknowledged that there was some danger whenever the president of the United States urges people to rise up against tyranny, because Americans may be unwilling or unable to step in and help an uprising against a repressive government.

"I also appreciate the fact that if people rise up in a totalitarian society, they can be killed," he said. "And so it's with that in mind that I speak. I'm aware of exactly the dangers inherent of the democracy movement testing the will of tyrants who were never held to account. And that's why it sometimes takes a while to erode the power and the tyranny."

But as president, he said, he "oftentimes doesn't get to set the timer" on democratic revolutions. What he can do, he said, is "speak clearly and be mindful that certain activities can prop up tyrants and cause tyrants to have legitimacy that they don't deserve."

Source
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 10:51 am
For christ's sake, we're planning on building permanent military bases over in Iraq as we speak. Even if the Iraqis asked us to leave, there's now way in hell that we would. Look at the businesses making money over there. Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. They can't do their work without U.S. protection.

This whole election is a joke. We should have never invaded Iraq; we shouldn't be there at all. Bush isn't spreading democracy. He's spreading an empire across the globle, attempting to firmly establish America's "footprint" on the world.

This is all a big ruse, not only on the Iraqi people, but on the American people as well.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 11:04 am
What's next? A Ted Rall article?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 11:09 am
Why not? He's one of my favorite cartoonists. And he makes Bush look just so damned stupid and ugly (both of which he is).

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050127.gif
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 11:19 am
Of course he is.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 11:32 am
Quote:
Kennedy: U.S. Troops Restrict Al Qaeda Civil Rights
by Scott Ott

(2005-01-28) -- The U.S. occupation force in Iraq is placing unconstitutional restrictions on the free speech rights of Al Qaeda and former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, according to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, who today introduced a resolution expressing "solidarity with our repressed brethren in the Iraq insurgency."

"Just as in our country, flag burning and pornography distribution are the most sacred of forms of protected speech, so in Iraq legitimate car-bombings and beheadings must be protected as political expression," said Mr. Kennedy. "The Bush administration is clearly trying to deny these Iraqis, and their foreign guests, their basic civil rights. This is the most insidious brand of cultural and religious discrimination."

The Senator said he's hopeful that "after the Iraqi people exercise civil disobedience by boycotting this week's national election sham, U.S. forces will immediately pull out so that this sovereign nation can restore the free marketplace of ideas in political discourse -- no matter how incendiary the ideas, no matter how sharp the discourse."

In a direct address to Iraqi insurgents, the Massachusetts Senator added, "Speak truth to power, my brothers."





* This is satire. (The Dookie rule is back in effect.)
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 12:08 pm
How does it feel to quote from someone who is so utterly full of ****?

Good?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 12:17 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Why not? He's one of my favorite cartoonists. And he makes Bush look just so damned stupid and ugly (both of which he is).



http://www.dvdtherapy.com/review_images/clips/americanwerwolf_clip.jpghttp://www.gop.com/images/boxer_newface.jpg

http://www.wakeolda.com/images/election2000/failure.jpg

http://img167.exs.cx/img167/7885/tsunami7fd.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v409/ThaSickness/bushtshirt.jpg
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 12:21 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
So, looking towards the future of the Middle East, (and BTW I am bored to death discussing the reasons, bogus or otherwise, for the invasion,) you believe that the conservatives who were the architects of the current effort, which was to cement a full, firm and active US presence in Iraq, will now content themselves with the idea that a democratic Iraq is enough of a reward for our efforts.

I've heard some say that they believe a new kind of domino theory is in place, that once there is a democratic government in Iraq, others will follow, do you think that is true?

I would remind you that Iran has a democratically elected government and Iraq's other neighbor Turkey has recently elected an Islamic Party to head it's government but so far they don't seem to have created any movement elsewhere.

Here is what I think. I think that we live in an era of weapons of such a nature that we have to be extraordinarily concerned with even one single use of one within our borders or the borders of an ally. We cannot take a whole lot of chances if we want to survive. Regardless of whatever reasons anyone else has, I wanted the invasion for reasons of self-preservation. Having destroyed the previous government, it is our responsibility to leave one in its place, and I believe that no government which is not a democracy is legitimate, so I am glad we are setting up a democracy. I believe that any American who attempted to subvert the Iraqi elections would be acting in an egregiously immoral manner, and ought to be stopped and punished severely. However, as I mentioned, after the Iraqi people choose their government, they do not cease to exist, and we must deal with the new Iraq "as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends."
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 12:42 pm
Like I said, I really don't care what anyone believes was the reason or motive for the invasion, the point is can we still achieve what the conservatives started out to achieve which was a permanent active influence in the center of the Middle East or have we shot ourselves in the foot because of the mismanagement of this war?

Joe("I don't know what you think the world is like, but a lot of people don't just sit around reading Foreign Affairs," he said, chuckling. "I know this is shocking to you." George W. Bush) Nation
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 12:48 pm
We'll have influence, allright... just not the kind we want.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 12:57 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Like I said, I really don't care what anyone believes was the reason or motive for the invasion, the point is can we still achieve what the conservatives started out to achieve which was a permanent active influence in the center of the Middle East or have we shot ourselves in the foot because of the mismanagement of this war?

Joe("I don't know what you think the world is like, but a lot of people don't just sit around reading Foreign Affairs," he said, chuckling. "I know this is shocking to you." George W. Bush) Bush

Neither I nor anyone who agrees with me invaded in order to "achieve a permanent, active influence in the Mideast" - just to be sure about the weapons. On the other hand, yes, sure, I would like us to have such an influence.

Although I agree that certain elements of the war could have been handled better, I do not see that it has been handled particularly worse than wars of the past. I am sure that most wars we have fought before have contained errors galore. Furthermore, this war is rather difficult to prosecute, because we are fighting an enemny who does not observe the fundamental rules of decent behavior that are usually observed, at least officially, in war, e.g. no deliberate targetting of non-combatants as the primary, intended target.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Jan, 2005 01:17 pm
This is why the "Dookie Rule" is needed ....

Dookiestix wrote:
How does it feel to quote from someone who is so utterly full of ****?

Good?


How does it feel to call a satirist, "utterly full of sh*t"?

Sensible?
0 Replies
 
cavolina
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 07:43 am
Let's clear the air. First there was no real justification for this war. Tenet, who is said to have said that finding wmd was a "slam dunk" also said at Georgetown Univ that there were no wmd. Which Tenet do we believe.

Second this bullsh#t about bringing democracy to Iran is starting to get so deep that it stinks. conservatives are too naive on this point. one only needs to pay attention to the actions of the neo-cons here in the USA to see that the rhetoric of democracy is empty. they are trying to take away freedoms at nearly every turn.

Third to any student of history, the root cause of war has always been economics not altruism. so please stop p#ssing on my leg and telling me it's raining with your theories about the democratization of the middle east.

Last the middle east. a sheet of sand that would be nothing more than a place for camel jockeys and religious fanatics except that it has oil. it doesn't need saying but we have no reason to be there except for oil.

One further thought, in the physical world there is an axiom that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In the world of international affairs, every action has the potential to cause a chain reaction. the invasion of iraq has begun what might prove to be a chain reaction of events so dire and negative that we as a nation might never fully recover from its effects
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 07:57 am
cavolina wrote:
Let's clear the air. First there was no real justification for this war. ..



I'll say it again for the benefit of anybody who missed it previously: Poisoning the US senate office building with anthrax was a major-league act of war which fully justified the operation in Iraq.

Moreover, if you want to talk about a war for which no justification whatsoever existed, you don't need the world's biggest or heaviest history book in order to do so. The Kosovo operation four years ago fully qualifies. That and Vietnam are your two archetypal democrat wars after WW-II.

I keep hearing this pinko mantra about there being no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; somehow or other it rings totally hollow.

In the case of nuclear weaponry there appears to have been a three-way deal between Saddam Hussein, North Korea, and Libya in which raw materials from NK ended up in Libya to be transmogrified into missiles pointed at Europe and America by Saddam Hussein's technical people and with Iraqi financial backing (your oil-for-terrorism dollars at work), while Kofi Annan and his highly intelligent and efficient staff kept the west believing that their interests were being protected:

http://homepage.mac.com/macint0sh/1/pict/amos/amos.jpg

Muammar Khadaffi has since given the **** up and renounced the whole business. That sort of thing is one of the benefits of having our government back under adult supervision since 2001. The NK government in all likelihood will not survive this year.

Then there's the case of 9-11. The Czech government is sticking with its story of Mohammed Atta having met with one of Saddam Hussein's top spies prior to 9-11 and there are even pictures of the two together on the internet now:

http://thexreport.com/atta_and_al-ani_photo_and_analysis.htm

http://thexreport.com/alani14.jpg

Then there's the question of the anthrax attack which followed 9-11. Saddam Hussein's the only person on this planet who ever had that kind of weaponized anthraxs powder.

http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html

Thus it should surprise nobody that the first cases of anthrax turned up in neighborhoods where the 9-11 hijackers lived. The odds against that if there were no connection to the 9-11 hijackers are astronomical.

Moreover it does not take hundreds of tons of anthrax powder to create havoc.

The sum total which was used was a few teaspoons full. In other words, a lifetime supply of that sort of thing for a guy like Saddam Hussein could easily amount to a hundred pounds worth, and I guarantee that I could hide that in a country the size of Iraq so that it would not be found.

The question of whether or not Hussein had 1000 tons of anthrax powder is simply the wrong question. The right questions are, did the guy have the motive, the technical resources, the financial wherewithal, the facilities, and the intel apparatus to play that sort of game, and the answers to all of those questions are obvious.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jan, 2005 08:30 am
The same stupid-ass post cut-and-pasted how many times now?

Nobody's buying, freak.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/26/2024 at 08:37:06