1
   

Why Did America Attack Iraq?

 
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 12:14 am
You mean you can't impeach for obvious incompetence? Seriously I'm amazed. I'm not being ironic or sarcastic or any other 'ic, I am just amazed. I suppose a response is that you can wait until the end of his term and he can't stand again (whew!) but he has a long way to go. Can the US risk having this man as President? Wouldn't it be better if some of his friends told him he had to go?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 08:09 am
englishmajor wrote:
How about bribing the media, twisting facts, spindoctors to use propaganda to start a war that should never have begun? How about lies,lies, lies, from 9/11 on? I'm sure if they can come up with perjury for Clinton they could come up with something for Georgie. If the Democrats get in Congress in '07 and get a majority vote, they could definitely accomplish this.


Disturbing events indeed, but not impeachable offenses. Bill Clinton committed perjury and was impeached for it. Your list of Bushism are, unfortunately, politics as usual. I'm not sure the Dems are any more honorable than the Republicans and unless they come up with something that Bush did that was, in fact, illegal then he won't be impeached by a Democratic controlled Congress.

Lack of popularity does not validate impeachment.

Goodfielder, The only President I know of who resigned was Richard Nixon and he did so because his cronies were going to jail left and right and the investigation was turning toward him. He knew he was guilty of illegal acts associated with the cover-up of the Watergate break-in and would eventually face impeachment. He chose to resign instead. Until and unless GW's cronies start to get jail terms and it can be demonstrated that GW was himself culpable in an illegal act, there won't be an impeachment.

I do agree with englishmajor on one point. George Bush was elected President by the American people. He was a clear winner in the second election. We've gotten what we deserve. The Dems might be able to get control of Congress next year but, unless they can come up with a viable Presidential candidate, I'm afraid we're looking at 4 to 8 more years of a Republican in the White House.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Oct, 2005 08:30 am
goodfieldler wrote
Quote:

You mean you can't impeach for obvious incompetence? Seriously I'm amazed. I'm not being ironic or sarcastic or any other 'ic, I am just amazed.


If incompetance and bending the truth was the criteria for impeachment. Very few presidencies would last the full term. The majority party in congress would control the presidency.

Although the system may not be perfect, but than what system? It is far better than one that would turn the presidency into a revolving door.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 03:50 pm
englishmajor wrote:
How about bribing the media, twisting facts, spindoctors to use propaganda to start a war that should never have begun? How about lies,lies, lies, from 9/11 on? I'm sure if they can come up with perjury for Clinton they could come up with something for Georgie. If the Democrats get in Congress in '07 and get a majority vote, they could definitely accomplish this. I realize it is not a simple matter; I am just astounded that the people in America are so apathic - and basically most of them are. Look at how many turned out to vote! In a country of 300 million people! Like they say, you deserve what you accept.


Sounds like every government in every nation on earth (with the possible exeception of those without the wherewithal to actually go to war)

Your use of the paranoid "they" is predictable and telling, but it is also amusing. The "they" who came up with something on Clinton, is hardly about to try and come up with something on Bush. In any case, if there was something to come up with, you can bet the Democrats would have at least floated it. They hate Bush as much as the Republicans hated Clinton.

Believe it or not there is but a rather small minority of people in this country who believe that Bush should be impeached (just because they think he generally sucks). It was a similarly small minority of people who thought Clinton should be impeached.

This doesn't mean that everyone in America loves W. Hell, perhaps by now the majority wishes he wasn't President, but that is a far cry from supporting throwing him out of office.

[Quick civics lesson. Impeachment doesn't mean the president is thrown out of office. It is merely a step in the process of doing so. It has happened twice in our history and both times it was for, largely, political reasons]

Imagine someone castigating the Canadian people because they have not, as a group, done something which an American feels they should. My bet is that it would really frost your ample ass. Now examine what you have written.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 03:53 pm
au1929 wrote:
goodfieldler wrote
Quote:

You mean you can't impeach for obvious incompetence? Seriously I'm amazed. I'm not being ironic or sarcastic or any other 'ic, I am just amazed.


If incompetance and bending the truth was the criteria for impeachment. Very few presidencies would last the full term. The majority party in congress would control the presidency.

Although the system may not be perfect, but than what system? It is far better than one that would turn the presidency into a revolving door.


Agreed.

We are already perilously close to a republic where elected officials form judgements based on daily polling.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 07:45 pm
And I still find it fascinating that someone with American citizenship would continue to rail against America and Americans.

If you do not like America, Englishmajor, or Americans, then why don't you renounce your citizenship? If you are going to slam Americans, do you include yourself? You are, afterall, an American also.

Instead of complaining about everything, why can't you offer any solutions. But, I suppose impeachment would be a solution for you? But, as it was pointed out, he has not committed an impeachable offense.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 08:42 pm
That's a pretty thorough ad hominem there Momma Angel.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 08:55 pm
It may be goodfielder, but I don't understand how anyone would want to claim to be an American and then slam Americans. Seems to me if someone felt that way they wouldn't want to be an American.

Englishmajor does not care for me at all. It's not that I don't care for her, it's just I don't understand her obvious disgust for America.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 09:07 pm
I sound very censorious at times. Actually I sound like a prig.

What I meant was that rather than reflect on someone's patriotism it's more useful to concentrate on the argument....There I go again. Anyone got a shovel, I can dig myself in deeper here no problem.

Okay let me try again. I think it's possible to criticise policy without being either unpatriotic or un-(insert the name of the nation here). I'm very much opposed to Bush's foreign policy but I'm not anti-American. I'm opposed to my own federal government's policies on many things (but not all) but that doesn't make me un-Australian.

Now do I need that shovel or did I finally get myself out?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 09:13 pm
Laughing You dug yourself out just fine! I have no problem with anyone that has problems with America or things Americans do. We all have the right to voice our opinions. I just find it very offensive when someone does it in a manner that is very demeaning to others.

I think anyone can get their views across without demeaning or ridiculing anyone. I just don't think that is the right thing for anyone to do.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 11:50 pm
And we Americans have the right to voice our opionions at least!!!!! I think one can disagree with the leaders but still love their country.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 11:56 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Laughing You dug yourself out just fine! I have no problem with anyone that has problems with America or things Americans do. We all have the right to voice our opinions. I just find it very offensive when someone does it in a manner that is very demeaning to others.

I think anyone can get their views across without demeaning or ridiculing anyone. I just don't think that is the right thing for anyone to do.
Momma Angel,

I have read through all the posts here. Who are you saying is demeaning? Finn D'Buzz? He certainly seems to be ridiculing the post from english major. I thought english major had some good posts and I did not see that there posts were demeaning, if that is who you meant? I am new here and maybe should say nothing yet. I just thought what Finn D'Buzz said at the end of his post was unnecessary and mean spirited.
0 Replies
 
Anonymouse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 01:42 am
Re: Why Did America Attack Iraq?
englishmajor wrote:
Because Iraq was not responsible for the Towers going down. The attackers were Saudis. Did the Bush Adm. 'let' the attacks happen in New York? Would they do that to get the Americans pissed off enough to go to war? How else would they have gotten enough people willing to die in Iraq? Now Bush admits the 'war' is for oil and had nothing to do with WMD's. Of course, most people know by now that the Carlyle Group is composed of the Bush and bin Laden families. See a connection here? I'm not 'left' or 'right' -don't even live in America, and because of that I hear news reports that the U.S. censors. I think the whole 'war' has been a travesty. It's sad that only now Americans want the war to end because they cannot afford the hurricane disasters and also a war that's costing billions per week. Bush's popularity polls went lower because of the hurricane mismanagement than because of a war that should not have ever happened. Americans need to get their priorities straight. And sign onto the Kyoto Accord ASAP.


America, it seems, is suffering from hubris.

America invaded a country that possessed no WMDs, and according to Scott Ritter had been pretty much all dismantled. The administration needed to create a pretext for invasion, thus the WMD canard had to do.

The lack of substance behind these allegations were so pervasive that the administrations claims could not be verified. In fact, the Bush neo-con hawks parroted this nonsense of "WMD"s for so long even they began to full heartedly believe their own lies.

But when the administration was asked to actually verify their claims in terms of substance, it fell short. This happened when Collin Powell went in front of the security council and it turned out all the intelligence they had was pretty much horsepucky.

Of course, the invasion of Iraq is in line with larger geopolitical aims of the neoconservatives and other Washington hawks. The plans for invading Iraq did not begin right before the invasion and right after 9-11 (since supposedly there was that mythical link which turned out to be another bogus claim like the WMDs).

The plans for invading Iraq had been on the minds of the key hawks within Washington for a long time. Ultraconservative think tanks and groups such as the AEI or the Project for a New American Century (PNAC which is located at the 5th floor of the AEI) of which Dick Cheney was a part of, brewed up these grand visions even before 9-11. Names such as Rumself, Cheney, Irving Kristol and his Weekly Standard gang. Of course the chief architects for this war were Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz.

The war was fought for primarily three reasons. First, it was fought to demonstrate that it was possible to free the U.S. from subordination to international law and the constraints of the U.N. and other allies. 9-11 provided a key opportunity for this, and the neoconservative intellectual policy makers that came to dominate after that event, saw this as their golden opportunity and Iraq was the lab rat used in this experiment.

Second, it was fought to establish long term American bases in the Middle East, and you can hear such names as "fourteen enduring bases" come up. This has largely come about since there is no guarantee in Saudi Arabia due to its volatile situation and America being the empire that it is, has to have bases somewhere in the Middle East.

Third, it was fat to remove Saddam, one of the few remaining of the third world dictators, and a dictator who has at many times defied the United States, and has threatened America's "special ally" Israel. So this war was in effect fought primarily for Israel and it is no wonder that many of the neoconservative architects and their policies had alot in common with Israels. The neo-con policy is perhaps most apparent in the 1996 report prepared for Benjamin Netenyahu by an Israeli think tank called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Do you know who the chief author of that report was? It was Richard Perle of the AEI.
0 Replies
 
englishmajor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 02:08 am
Thank you for such a great post, anonymouse. It is what I've thought too. Do you think 9/11 was 'made possible' to get America into the war in Iraq? That the Christians for the most part (the fearless leader is one) back such atrocities makes it even more evil.

Did you read it, Momma Angel? I would guess not, as it goes against your 'getting into politics'.

Which begs the question: I thought you 'did not get into the politics'. What you said. Then why are you on this site? Were you lying when you said that? How very un-Christian of you. If I didn't know better I'd think you were following me around on the different threads just to be annoying. For shame. You better say 10 Hail Mary's. But perhaps you will learn something-- so maybe it's to your advantage to see what threads I'm on.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 02:22 am
A lot of the deeper thinking of the right-leaning Americans on these threads have gone missing lately. The war-supporters, the Bush-supporters, the Democracy-to-the-ME-bringers.

The truth is beginning to penetrate even their dark minds, apparently.

Good post, Anonymouse, encapsulating many of the points made here over two years or so.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 06:29 am
I also think it was a good summation by annonymouse. But it doesnt really answer the question, why does America act in such a high-handed manner? Only yesterday I read that before the Iraq invasion, Bush was talking to Blair about far reaching changes including Saudi Arabia Pakistan and Iran.

My answer is that America is both dominant and vulnerable at the same time. There is no one around anymore to stand up to American imperialism, so the US does what it wants. And what it wants and needs to do is to secure oil supplies. It really is that simple. To me, absolutely nothing makes sense about whats going on in the world unless you put it in context of oil and American and western dependency on it.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:27 am
Bush once used the word 'crusade' and then backed away from it after the backlash. He might have backed away from using the word in public but I have no doubt he hasn't backed away from it in concept or plan.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:42 am
englishmajor wrote:
Thank you for such a great post, anonymouse. It is what I've thought too. Do you think 9/11 was 'made possible' to get America into the war in Iraq? That the Christians for the most part (the fearless leader is one) back such atrocities makes it even more evil.

Did you read it, Momma Angel? I would guess not, as it goes against your 'getting into politics'.

Which begs the question: I thought you 'did not get into the politics'. What you said. Then why are you on this site? Were you lying when you said that? How very un-Christian of you. If I didn't know better I'd think you were following me around on the different threads just to be annoying. For shame. You better say 10 Hail Mary's. But perhaps you will learn something-- so maybe it's to your advantage to see what threads I'm on.


"Made possible"??? By whom?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:44 am
Good question, JustWonders. I was wondering too.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 09:43 am
pachelbel Wrote:

Quote:
Momma Angel,

I have read through all the posts here. Who are you saying is demeaning? Finn D'Buzz? He certainly seems to be ridiculing the post from english major. I thought english major had some good posts and I did not see that there posts were demeaning, if that is who you meant? I am new here and maybe should say nothing yet. I just thought what Finn D'Buzz said at the end of his post was unnecessary and mean spirited.


Actually, my problem is with Englishmajor and I should not have brought it into the conversation. I am very pro-American and I do get upset when anyone starts demeaning America or Americans.

I do apologize for my getting off track, everyone.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 07:52:13