The US, UN & Iraq III

I lost my previous post. I took a sabbatical from these boards - far too depressing. I come back, with hindsight.

Saddam's what? Still have not seen any proof for that.



If this would be a justification you could attack every country you don't like. How about liberating the Saudi Arabian people, the Chinese people or the Russian people?


I could attack any country with this justification. e.g: Prevention of an attack by Germany on Poland and other European countries.



I could attack any country with this justification.e.g: Pervez Musharraf could have sold WMD to terrorists.




or the war sent a message to dictatorial regimes and terrorists throughout the world: You better arm and create WMD or you could be attacked.

WMD? You mean those 'Went Missing Devices'?

With this criteria you give every country in the world the Causa Belli to invade every other coutry in the universe.

The liberation of the Iraqi people? Was this man lobbying for the liberation of the Iraqi people back in the '80's?
And dont deserve the people of Liberia, Sundan, Yemen, Chechnya, Solomon Islands, North Korea, China,.... the same treatement?

Prevention of an attack by Iraq on Israel and other Middle Eastern countries? What insane dictator would attack a coutry with a stockpile of WMD and the backening of a coutry with the ability to destroy the entire world several times over. Saddam was a sickening evil dictator but he was no lunatic.

Saddam could have sold WMD to terrorists. Innocent until proven guilty. There was, is and never will be a connection with international terrorism. In fact, Iraq was perhaps one of the sole countries in the region not supporting terrorism. Saudi-Arabia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon,... Those are the coutries you can invade with this criterium.

The war sent a message to dictatorial regimes and terrorists throughout the world: if you create WMD, mistreat your people, and threaten the US, we will destroy you. The message sent was: Better get those WMD quick. Because without them US troops could land on your shores any minute. Pakistan or North-Korea are a much higher threat to the US but are treated with much more caution because they for sure have WMD and are developing the devices to deliver them.

We are in the War on Terror, and we need to be diligent about it.
Most of the hijackers were Saudis. Al Qaeda itself has strong
connections to Saudi Arabia. Why Iraq? Like i said there isn't even a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It just wont work. Bin Laden is (was?) a religious extremist, Saddam a calculating secularist. They are unlikely partners. And besides, the war against Iraq was a great Commercial for the Islamic extremists to gain more support and funds.

I'm really glad, I know some more US-Americans than eugeneIIIm.

the initial quest for a tax cut by bush was started during the campaign of 2000. the premise then, when the economy was still growing was that so much revenue was coming into federal coffers that a tax cut could be enacted and still fund government adequately. this was the rhetoric used by the GOP all thru 2000 and the spring of 2001.

however, by the time the debate began in congress in 2001, the economy had shifted and then the tax cut was called for because it would allegedly stimulate the economy.

which reason for the tax cut was true? certainly one of those reasons was based upon faulty logic.

the tax cuts themselves could have been enacted to help the economy IF those cuts were directed such that they would actually stimulate the economy by increased consumer spending, instead the cuts went to a portion of the citizenry that would not spend the money, but invest it. which in itself is not a bad thing, but when one considers that since the economy is operating at below the capacities of the manufacturing capabilities, there is no real purpose to have more money invested all so even more dormant manufacturing capacities can be created.

the people who got the major portions of the tax cut did not need it. a working definition of the wealthy is that they are spending at such levels that they already desire, not need to, like the rest of us just to survive. an additonal $80,000 to a millionaire who is already spending as much as he/she wants would not result in additonal consumer spending. the money returned to this individual would be either invested (see the problems above this causes), or the person would spend the money in the most efficient manner, and it is hard to imagine that such spending would necessarily result in all that money be spent in the US or on US manufactured goods. on the contrary, the goods on which the money was spent would most likely NOT be spent in or on these things.

as to the bizarre suggestion that the money is "theirs" i have little respect for such an idea that ignores that we are a nation and not merely a collection of tax payers. in fact, the term "tax payer" is a rhetorical device to blur the fact that we citizens have obligations to the society and each other as well.

the attempt to arouse the selfishness of people in taxation matters while at the same time calling upon the nation to sacrifice for a war on terrorism is a disconnection of reality for ideological reasons.

tom the bugman delay has called for the reduction in taxes at precisely the same time we are being asked to sacrifice our civil liberties in the war on terrorism.

so, the bargin that the busheviks offer us is to sacrifice our freedoms, but not ask the rich to sacrifice money they would not spend anyway to ensure the health of a society which they already dominate.

as to terrorism on US soil: i suggest that had bush not destroyed the structure clinton had built vis a vis attacking al quida, 9/11 would not have happened.

Bush dismantled the programs Clinton had in place for getting bin laden whenever he popped his head up, and Bush did it the very first week he came into office. That cancelled program included cruise missile launches, bomber missions, and 24/7 stand by Special Forces on-ship in the Persian Gulf to kill bin laden. Bush canceled this. WHY? Because anything Clinton did was tainted by sperm?

So, Bush proposed to congress on september 10, 2001 to reduce funding to fight terrorism by SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS, (so he could help his tax cut for the rich), removed 44 of the 46 agents in the US intelligence community assigned to capture or kill bin laden, refused to take any action strongly recommended by a BI-PARTISAN government study to reduce the risk of terrorist attack on US soil, and yet you consider him to have done a good job? UNBELIEVABLE!

Your further ignorance of the facts is that when Clinton sent cruise missiles after bin laden and missed him by minutes in 1998, all the Republicans did was shout about Clinton wagging the dog instead of supporting Clinton's attempt to kill bin laden. Look it up, its right here.

Bush Warned of Bin Laden - Did Less Than Clinton
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/repubnews/bushwarned.htm
Republicans Watered Down 1996 Clinton
Anti-Terrorism Bill, Thanks to Lott & Hatch
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/clintonbill.html
Bill O'Reilly Blames Clinton For Terrorist Attacks
Read This For The Truth
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/oreillylies.htm
US Agents Told: Back Off The Bin Ladens After Bush Became President
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/bushreport.html
Bush Waited 10 Months to Freeze Terrorist Assets
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/freeze.html
Conservatives Sound Refrain: It's Clinton's Fault
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/clintonfault.html
Clinton Had Plans For Getting Bin Laden
Also Trained Commandos For Ground Action
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/clinton1.html
George Bush Sr. Ignored 1990 Report on Terrorism
George Bush Jr. Ignored 2001 Report on Terrorism
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/ignored.html
Bush Administration & The Media Ignored
1-31-01 Hart/Rudman Report on Terrorism
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/rhreport.html
Terrorist Attack Wake-Up Call For The
Media And The Bush Administration
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/attack.html

So I guess it's ok to do this to our guys .....



http://nata2.info/?path=war%2FPOW

This is just a guess, but I suspect we'll see a lot more Eugenes trying out their justifications on liberals, hoping to find someone who will listen. I don't think EugeneIIIm is seriously stupid; he almost certainly sees the handwriting on the wall.

We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9-11? A broad statement, indeed. I wonder what that was in Saudi Arabia (the country the adminstration blacked out in the report on 9-11) where Americans lost their lives. I guess because they were on foreign soil, they can be discounted and forgotten. Absurd.

Sidebar -- I watched the final ten minutes of the Bill Maher show last night and really enjoyed a writer named Adam Magruder who looks about 14 (does anyone know who he is? he's delicious!) and above all Maher's riff on Bush, Grey Davis, etc. etc. Did anyone here catch that?

Yes, I saw the show in its entirety and his Maher's arrows all hit the target except his wanting to discount the State of the Union misstatement (I think there's enough background information now to actually call it a lie but perhaps it is best to let it fester along with all the other lies we're being told). The war's over, it's not over, the economy is turning around, it's not turning around. What a quagmire this poor excuse for a President has got us in. He's hesitating with Liberia? Lincoln began the mechanism to create that country. But they have nothing in our national interest...
like oil.

(But, of course, Pat Robertson's gold mines. I guess Pat give poor head).

Then there's the theory of "trickle-down economy" which I've described before as the filthy rich opening their flies and pissing on the rest of us.

eugene

You see, this pack of running dog liberals here actually go to the trouble of reading widely and deeply in order to understand events, believing that an educated citizen is of more valuable within the community than another whom, for example, happily accepts the statements exiting the mouth of a vice president. Your posts above contain pretty much every cliched simplicity that limps across Limbaugh's cortex (such as it is).

By all means, continue to engage and speak your mind on these matters, but be advised that you are going to have to raise your standards of reasoning and the sophistication of your arguments in order to have a conversation which even some few of us might consider fruitful.

WASHINGTON - The military has charged four U.S. soldiers with abusing prisoners of war in Iraq (news - web sites). The soldiers and their families deny the accusations.
The four military police from a Pennsylvania-based Army Reserve unit are accused of punching, kicking and breaking bones of prisoners at Camp Bucca, the largest U.S.-run POW camp in Iraq.
The soldiers, charged this month, are the first U.S. troops known to face charges of abusing prisoners during the Iraq conflict.
The military's investigation continues, said Lt. Cmdr. Nick Balice, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. Balice confirmed four soldiers had been charged as part of that investigation but said he could not release their names.

Impossible! They had grandmas who made great apple pie! They wear the most honorable uniform in the history of everything! Impossible!

These people blindly supporting this administration are in abject denial. There needs to be a Twelve Step program for those who are Bushaholics. Step One: Admit that one is powerless over the drunkeness of power.

blatham

That's really impossible, althought reports say nothing about their granma's apple pies!

But Linda Edmondson, mother of accused Sgt. Shawna Edmondson:
"All they did was go help transport prisoners, and they are charged with this."


And Spec. Tim Canjar's father James:
"I wasn't there, but I know my son. He's not a bully. He would act in self-defense, and that's it."

k

Whereja get that, hey, Gelis?

And I know he's in denial that it stinks up there!