THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

...
...
It's interesting to note what kind of men would form a government and write this into it. Why did they do it? I sure as hell know I could never talk like this anywhere else and I want to keep it that way.
You ask, "Why did they do it?" I like people who ask why. There are a great many books that try to explain that why. The one book I happen to like the most is "John Adams" written by David McCullough. But a close second favorite is "The Federalist Papers" edited by Clinton Rossiter.

I am not advicating a revolution or any more division in America. That would only serve our very real enemies. What I would like to see is ALL of us re-examining the last seven years. There is a pattern developing that is beyond liberal or conservative. I am a non-violent dissenter and I understand that all my ideals are second to the constitution. But I see now that others may not fell the same way. They are getting closer and closer to calling me a "domestic terrorist".

Non-violent American dissentor= Domestic terrorist
I seek to secure our liberties. I understand that it is necessary to secure everyone's liberties in order to truly secure my own, my children's, my grandchildren's, and their posterity's liberties.

I think these others you refer to are seeking to secure their status. Some seek to secure their status by corrupting the law to enable them to transfer wealth from the few to the many. Others are trying to secure their status by corrupting the law to enable them to transfer wealth from the many to the few.

Securing liberty instead of status must of necessity not free people of their responsibility for themselves, and must allow people to improve their status only by virtue of the competitive worth to society of their lawful work.

This isn't china.
Nor is this Cuba or Venezuela. or Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran. Wouldn't it be ironiic if we were to become more like China was yesteryear, while China were to become more like we were yesteryear.

Yes, but the 'war on terror,' and the AUMF that has been used by the Bushies as part of the leg of their argument for NSA wiretaps without warrants, isn't against Iraq or Afganistan. It's against an emotion, or at the very least, terrorists in general.
It's against al-Qaeda et al terrorists in particular. NSA wiretaps of conversations between suspected not proven al-Qaeda domestic and foreign is necessary to limit and hopefully prevent future 9/11s. When the war is won, these NSA wiretaps will cease just as they did after previous US wars.

All the LIEbral propaganda to the contrary, we are fighting a war for the survival of our liberties.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not being fought to make the Bush administration royalty. Nor is it being fought to re-elect a Republican majority. O yes, there are people supporting the war to help the re-election of a Republican majority. Just as there are people opposed to the war to help replace the Republican majority with a Democrat majority. To hell with both of them! May they both drown in their quests in their cesspools for status.

Does this allow the president to keep us in a 'time of war' in perpetuity, as Al Qaeda won't be defeated for many many years? What are the conditions for ending this 'time of war?'
That which will keep us "in a 'time of war' in perpetuity" is the seemingly perpetual paranoia among too many of our politicians that fosters stupid villifications, by too many of the members of each party, of members of the other party.

Bluntly speaking, this war will never end unless both parties focus their minds and talents on how best to win this war and cut the crap that encourages our enemies to persist in the hope we lack the will to persevere. The Bush administation ends in January 2009, regardless. But this war will not be won as long as too many of our politicians continue to deficate on each other.

This war will be won when the governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan become capable of defending -- without our help -- their people and their infrastructure against terrorism, and denying terrorists sanctuary within their borders. These victories will, more than anything else we do, convince the terrorist making groups that there is a better way to improve their lives.
Cycloptichorn

ican, I don't see were our differences lye. Except for your emphasis on only three words.You have to consider the whole thing. Watch the link http://911lies.2truth.com and read the Declaration again.

No, this isn't any other country. But saudi Arabia does have some 2 trillion dollars in our economy. Who is Saudi Arabias link to America?

Bush wants 75 million more in emergency cash for Iraq.

Amigo wrote:

Bush wants 75 million more in emergency cash for Iraq.

I bet Bush will soon be asking for much more. When the new Iraq government completes its formation and begins to operate, I bet it will be asking for more financial help to rebuild its infrastructure as well as train its military. The Iraqis will require considerable help getting their oil production up to capacity so that their oil revenues can cover their costs and repay our contributions.

Fixing Iraq and Afghanistan will continue to be expensive. I think that not fixing them will cost us far more.

Big item here on the national TV News, is the new Abu Graib photos and videos published in Australia.

Yes, they're out of date, but it reminds folks (those that need reminding) that the original scandal was not properly investigated and dealt with. No senior military nor civilian personnel have been accused of a crime.
And crime, at high level, there was a-plenty.

Come in, Mr Rumsfeld.

This war will be won when the governments of both Iraq and Afghanistan become capable of defending -- without our help -- their people and their infrastructure against terrorism, and denying terrorists sanctuary within their borders.

These victories will, more than anything else we do, convince the terrorist making groups that there is a better way to improve their lives.

...
Put halliburtons War profits back into the war that way they will no longer be a conflict of interest.

...

Well, that's not going to end the War on Terror, is it? It's not going to destroy Al Qaeda, is it? So you admit this war is going to go on for a long long time, if the true goal is to get those who attacked us, and not to nation build?
The victories in Iraq and Afghanistan that I described, while necessary to defeat al-Qaeda are probably not sufficient to defeat al-Qaeda. Yes, I think the worldwide war on terror will continue for a long time.

...

Remaking Iraq and Afghanistan in the West's image isn't going to convince a bunch of fanatical terrorists to give up.
I agree! But such "remaking" is necessary to ultimately get these fanatics to turn to other means than mass murdering civilians to accomplish their repeatedly stated goals: that is, the replacement of all religions and governments throughout the world by al-Qaeda-religion and by al-Qaeda-government, respectively.

If our goal is getting these fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals, then the only thing that will ultimately get these fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals, is to exterminate them. As that extermination process proceeds, it will be necessary to cease incarcerating them (i.e., providing such of these captured fanatics free food, clothing, shelter,and recreation), and instead begin executing without trial 100% of those we capture. That is also necessary for completely ending the recruiting efforts of these fanatics.

Cycloptichorn

Amigo wrote:

...
Put halliburtons War profits back into the war that way they will no longer be a conflict of interest.

Halliburton doesn't work for free any more than you do. Nor do the people who work for Halliburton work for free any more than you do.

Can you name a different company than Halliburton that you prefer for doing the work Halliburton was asked to do? If so, why do you prefer them?

McTag wrote:

Big item here on the national TV News, is the new Abu Graib photos and videos published in Australia.

Yes, they're out of date, but it reminds folks (those that need reminding) that the original scandal was not properly investigated and dealt with. No senior military nor civilian personnel have been accused of a crime.
And crime, at high level, there was a-plenty.

Come in, Mr Rumsfeld.

If those photos are "out of date," then those photos are not "new."

Do these "out of date" photos provide new evidence? If so what new evidence? Do they show prisoners being killed, maimed, disabled, or wounded? If not then what?

and instead begin executing without trial 100% of those we capture

McTag, as far as I am aware, in our so called land of the free, we haven't seen those pictures. I don't want to look at them, but are they available online?

McTag, as far as I am aware, in our so called land of the free, we haven't seen those pictures. I don't want to look at them, but are they available online?