0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 09:38 am
A response as cogent as any offering you ever make here.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 10:03 am
Setanta wrote:
A response as cogent as any offering you ever make here.


Thanks. It's actually yours right before you remind others to watch the door on the way out. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 10:05 am
Ah, yes, but i explain why i consider your horsie poop to be so stinky . . . you were just being lazy . . .
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 02:43 pm
APPROXIMATE GASOLINE (Gas) & PETROLEUM (Oil) PRICE HISTORIES
(ignoring effects of inflation -- 4th quarter of each year)

Gas prices per gallon
2000: $1.764
2005: $3.313
Gas price ratio 2005/2000 = 3.313/1.764 = 1.876

Oil prices per barrel and per gallon (55 gallons per barrel)
2000: $30.0/barrel = $0.545/gallon
2005: $45.0/barrel = $0.818/gallon
Oil price ratio 2005/2000 = $0.818/$0.545 = 1.501

Ratio gas price to oil price
2000: $1.764/$0.545 = 3.237
2005: $3.313/$0.818 = 4.050

Increase in Ratio gas price to oil price from 2000 to 2005
4.050/3.237 = 1.251

Inflation 2000 to 2005
1.03^5 = 1.159

Increase in Ratio gas price to oil price from 2000 to 2005
(adjusted for inflation)
1.251/1.159 = 1.079

Why those dirty price gougers! Mad
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 03:03 pm
McTag wrote:
I keep forgetting- we went to Iraq to prevent Saddam killing people. Right. Rolling Eyes

Shocked

Wrong!

The original, fundamental, and sufficient reason for invading Iraq as well as Afghanistan was stated three times by President Bush in September and October of 2001. President Bush declared that the USA shall fight a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda, that will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them, in order to eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.

From www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
September 20, 2004, final report

The night of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation (chapter 10, page 326, note 10):
Quote:
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.


Thursday, September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress (chapter 10.3, page 336, note 80):
Quote:
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger.

Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

This is civilization's fight.


On Tuesday, October 25, 2001, President Bush formally signed this new presidential directive (chapter 10.2, page 333, notes 57 & 58):
Quote:
The pre-9/11 draft presidential directive on al Qaeda evolved into a new directive, National Security Presidential Directive 9, now titled "Defeating the Terrorist Threat to the United States." The directive would now extend to a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda. It also incorporated the President's determination not to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them. It included a determination to use military force if necessary to end al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan. The new directive -- formally signed on October 25, after the fighting in Afghanistan had already begun -- included new material followed by annexes discussing each targeted terrorist group. The old draft directive on al Qaeda became, in effect, the first annex. The United States would strive to eliminate all terrorist networks, dry up their financial support, and prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The goal was the "elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life."


Twenty-three whereases (i.e., reasons) were stated in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 by Congress October 16, 2002. However, only six of Congress's reasons (shown below in boldface), reflect the one reason declared by President Bush a year earlier. That one reason was: President Bush declared that the USA shall fight a global war on terrorism, not just on al Qaeda, that will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them, in order to eliminate terrorism as a threat to our way of life.

Consequently, Congress's additional seventeen reasons constitute supplementary reasons for invading Iraq, and as such are not needed to justify the Iraq invasion regardless of whether any one or more of those seventeen have been subsequently shown to be either true or false.


Quote:
www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Public Law 107-243
107th Congress
Joint Resolution
Oct. 16, 2002
(H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq
...
(10) Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

(11) Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

...
(20) Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(21) Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

(22) Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and,

(23) Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 04:01 pm
That "civilisation" Pres Bush was referring to, that would be the people who organised Abu Graib and WP in Fallujah?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:03 pm
us and them
mctag : how can you be so cruel and bring these items into the discussion again ? as you no doubt know, punishment was handed out to the "low level" soldiers because they are the only ones to blame.
unfortunately
...GENERAL KARPINSKI...has given a somewhat different account of what happened , and she was interviewed on TV again earlier this week and repeated what she had stated earlier - but why let facts distort the spin ? hbg
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:07 pm
McTag wrote:
That "civilisation" Pres Bush was referring to, that would be the people who organised Abu Graib and WP in Fallujah?


Hearts and minds, McTag, hearts and minds....
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Nov, 2005 06:53 pm
McTag wrote:
That "civilisation" Pres Bush was referring to, that would be the people who organised Abu Graib and WP in Fallujah?

A few more brilliant statements like that one, and you will surely join our ex-president Jimmy Carter with your own Nobel peace prize.
0 Replies
 
WhoodaThunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 03:50 am
ican711nm wrote:
McTag wrote:
That "civilisation" Pres Bush was referring to, that would be the people who organised Abu Graib and WP in Fallujah?

A few more brilliant statements like that one, and you will surely join our ex-president Jimmy Carter with your own Nobel peace prize.


The same Jimmy Carter whose own presidency was so very effective, is forever symbolized by those smoldering copters in the Iranian desert, and still pontificates on Iraq wherever two or more are gathered?

A2K apologists may be Nobel hopefuls, but they face stiff competition as long as the likes of freedom fighters bin laden & al-Zarqawi are still in the running, too.

<<Jesse Jackson may be a dark horse candidate for his efforts in New Orleans & the NFL. I have my fingers crossed!!>>
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 06:16 am
Quote:

In the background of today's entries, Bob Dylan's "blowing in the wind" is playing.

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?

In response to the call for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by a retired marine colonel, decorated Vietnam War veteran and Democratic Congressman, John Murtha, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan implied that Murtha was advocating a "surrender to the terrorists." McClellan is not a veteran of any war, and nor are his bosses, George W. Bush and Richard Bruce Cheney (the latter actively sought 5 deferrals from serving in Vietnam).

Yes, 'n' how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?

Peace activist and mother of a GI killed in action in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, was fined $75 for demonstrating without a permit outside the White House.

Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they're forever banned?

The US military is puzzled about the outcry over the use of white phosphorus at Fallujah. After all, a 500-pound bomb is also destructive. My guess? You can't go to war against Saddam on the grounds that he has stockpiles of chemical weapons, and then turn around and use incendiary bombs of a sort that much of the world regards as a form of chemical weapon. It is the hypocrisy factor. Not to mention that the international community is trying to get such weapons banned.

. . . Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?

Over two hundred years after the Founding Fathers banned "cruel and unusual punishment," the Congress is considering banning the use of torture on detainees of the US. A no-brainer? Sure. But George W. Bush is threatening to veto the measure.

Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?


Source and continuation
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 06:22 am
Big surprise for Bush:

just literally some minutes after he posed smiling for this photo

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41032000/jpg/_41032384_ap_roh203.jpg

it was announced that

S Korea is going to table Iraq troops cut .

Looks nearly like a diplomatic affront.

But obviously South Korea with the third but biggest troop cintingent in Iraq doesn't want to stuck in the deep mud of an endless war there.

And while South Korea gave the official reason "better savety situation in Iraq", series of suicide bombings killed dozens and dozens in the Iraqi capital Baghdad and at two mosques near the Iranian border today.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 06:24 am
For those of us who wish to see a greater nod to reality from pro-war supporters around the Republican Party and the Pentagon, the increasing problems with military recruitment is probably a very good thing.

It's not irrelevant to point towards the reality that the people who critically pushed for this war were themselves not prepared to face any personal danger in combat themselves (from brave and selfless lover of country John Bolton, "I didn't fancy the idea of dying in a rice paddy", etc etc). But that is the reality.

It's not irrelevant to point to the 2000-plus caskets and all the missing arms and legs and eyes.

It's not irrelevant to understand and face how incompetently the war was strategized and run and how dismal the situation is for the project and for the troops there or on their way there.

Quote:
Vital Military Jobs Go Unfilled, Study Says


By DAMIEN CAVE
Published: November 18, 2005
The military is falling far behind in its effort to recruit and re-enlist soldiers for some of the most vital combat positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new government report.

The report, completed by the Government Accountability Office, shows that the Army, National Guard and Marines signed up as few as a third of the Special Forces soldiers, intelligence specialists and translators that they had aimed for over the last year.

Both the Army and the Marines, for instance, fell short of their goals for hiring roadside bomb defusers by about 20 percent in each of the last two years. The Army Reserve, meanwhile, failed to fill about a third of its more than 1,500 intelligence analysts jobs. And in the National Guard, there have been consistent shortages filling positions involving tanks, field artillery and intelligence.

The report found that, in all, the military, which is engaged in the most demanding wartime recruitment effort since the 1970's, had failed to fully staff 41 percent of its array of combat and noncombat specialties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/18/national/18recruit.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 06:50 am
Of all the elements which contribute to making this war a strategic, economic and moral disaster, the one that might prove to be the most damaging to America's hope to make the world a better place is the manner in which this administration has thrown so many fundamental American values into the garbage.

Quote:
UN rejects restrictive Guantánamo visit

David Fickling
Friday November 18, 2005

The UN's special rapporteur on torture has turned down an offer to visit Guantánamo Bay after the US refused to grant the UN's experts unfettered access to the prison.
The UN's panel of experts said that restrictions imposed by the US would make it impossible to judge the conditions under which around 500 detainees from the war on terror are being held at the camp.

"We deeply regret that the United States government did not accept the standard terms of reference for a credible, objective and fair assessment of the situation of the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility," they said in a statement. "These terms include the ability to conduct private interviews with detainees." Special rapporteur Martin Nowak said that the US's stance compared poorly with that of China, which had allowed unrestricted access to its jails.
link
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 11:04 am
I posted this hopeful news on another thread:

Clinton: The big mistake of the Iraq war
Ex-President leads the critics
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 18 November 2005

The dam has burst. Former president Bill Clinton's verdict that the war in Iraq was "a big mistake" is echoing around the world.
The unease, the misgivings, and downright opposition can be contained no longer. From Senate Republicans, to one of the most influential Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill yesterday, the message has been the same. The Iraq war has been a disaster, and the sooner American troops leave the better. The alarm was sounded on Capitol Hill on Tuesday when Senate Republicans and Democrats joined forces to demand the White House explain every three months how it intends to "complete the mission" in Iraq.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article327773.ece
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 11:15 am
McT

The more people speaking out, the better.

But it does not matter to this administration who speaks out against it...not what they've done or contributed in the past (Max Cleland, a decorated war hero), they will simply try to cover them with shitt. It is so repugnant and devoid of any value except for power-seeking that 'hate' ain't that hard to arrive at.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 12:39 pm
As soon as someone speaks out about the war in a non-political manner, maybe they will be listened to closer. Politicians speaking out against the war they voted for is nothing more than a grasping at straws to keep themselves in office and bowing to the pressures of polls. They are preparing themselves to run in 2006. Even Billy is speaking out qagainst the war to further the careers of both himself and his carpet-bagging wench.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 12:40 pm
So, who exactly is allowed to speak out about the war, and not be considered political?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 02:17 pm
Quote:
carpet-bagging wench.
Smile I get the feeling someone sneaks their wife's paperbacks.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Nov, 2005 02:51 pm
Quote:
Al-Zarqawi Threatens to Kill Jordan's King
Nov 18 12:38 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

AMMAN, Jordan

An audiotape purportedly from the head of al-Qaida in Iraq said Friday the group's suicide bombers did not intend to bomb a Jordanian wedding party at an Amman hotel last week, killing about 30 people. The speaker on the tape, identified as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, also threatened to kill Jordan's King Abdullah II and bomb more hotels and tourist sites.

"Your star is fading. You will not escape your fate, you descendant of traitors. We will be able to reach your head and chop it off," al- Zarqawi said, referring to the king.

Al-Zarqawi told Jordanians to stay away from bases used by U.S. forces in Jordan; hotels and tourist sites in Amman, the Dead Sea and the southern resort of Aqaba; and embassies of governments participating in the war in Iraq _ saying those areas would be targeted.

Al-Zarqawi said the bomber who detonated his explosives in the Radisson SAS hotel on Nov. 9 was targeting a hall where he claimed Israeli and American intelligence officials were meeting.

That bomb caused part of the roof to fall in the wedding hall.

"We didn't target them. Our target was halls being used by Zionist intelligence who were meeting there at the time," he said. "Our brothers knew their targets with great precision."

Al-Zarqawi accused the Jordanian government of hiding casualties among Israeli and American intelligence agents, and he insisted al-Qaida in Iraq was not targeting fellow Muslims.

"We want to assure you that ... you are more beloved to us than ourselves," al-Zarqawi said, addressing Jordanians.

At least 59 people were killed in the near simultaneous bombings at three Amman hotels _ around 30 of them in the wedding party taking place at the Radisson. Witnesses told Jordanian security officials that the Radisson bomber talked his way into the wedding hall, watched it for a while, then jumped on a table in the hall to detonate his explosives.

Al-Zarqawi accused the Jordanian government of hiding casualties among Israeli agents. "I defy the renegade government to show us the losses among the Jews," he said.

The authenticity of the audiotape, posted on an Islamic militant Web forum, could not be verified, but the voice resembled that of al- Zarqawi on previous tapes.


Source
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/18/2025 at 04:21:08