Some things that needed saying about Iraq
fredjacksonsan
01-26-2005, 09:07 AM
Sorry this is long, but the ideas are worth the read.....
~
Remarks from US Senator Robert Byrd:
Accountability has become an old-fashioned notion in some circles these days, but accountability is not a negotiable commodity when it comes to the highest circles of our nation’s government. The accountability of government officials is an obligation, not a luxury. And yet, accountability is an obligation that this President and his administration appear loath to fulfill.
Instead of being held to account for their actions, the architects of the policies that led our nation into war with Iraq, policies based on faulty intelligence and phantom weapons of mass destruction, have been rewarded by the President with accolades and promotions. Instead of admitting to mistakes in the war on Iraq and its disastrous aftermath, the President and his inner circle of advisers continue to cling to myths and misconceptions. The only notion of accountability that this President is willing to acknowledge is the November elections, which he has described as a moment of accountability and an endorsement of his policies. Unfortunately, after-the-fact validation of victory is hardly the standard of accountability that the American people have the right to expect from their elected officials. It is one thing to accept responsibility for success; it is quite another to accept accountability for failure.
Sadly, failure has tainted far too many aspects of our nation’s international policies over the past four years, culminating in the deadly insurgency that has resulted from the invasion of Iraq. With respect to this particular nomination,
(emphasis on this last paragraph)
I believe that there needs to be accountability for the mistakes and missteps that have led the United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our provocative, belligerent, bellicose, and unilateralist foreign policy.
(entire speech at:)
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=4
And from 2003:
"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, - -
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers."
Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.
But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it -- more than I would ever have believed -- right on this Senate Floor.
Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.
Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still on the loose and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.
The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one.
What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well trained troops.
Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for WMD. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission and they continue to be at grave risk. But, the Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?
What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years.
Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is scarce, and often foul, electricity is a sometime thing, food is in short supply, hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil supply.
Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and refurbish its oil industry are awarded to Administration cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the U.S. steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. government are the subject of worldwide speculation and mistrust?
And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. "Regime change" in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart.
Democracy and Freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies?
As so many warned this Administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that Al Queda is back with a vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our way.
The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic institutions.
Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit where it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.
As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.
But, I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood - - when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women, and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie - - not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipedream of a democratic domino theory.
And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.
~
I think he sums up very well what a lot of us are trying to say in numerous threads.
~
Remarks from US Senator Robert Byrd:
Accountability has become an old-fashioned notion in some circles these days, but accountability is not a negotiable commodity when it comes to the highest circles of our nation’s government. The accountability of government officials is an obligation, not a luxury. And yet, accountability is an obligation that this President and his administration appear loath to fulfill.
Instead of being held to account for their actions, the architects of the policies that led our nation into war with Iraq, policies based on faulty intelligence and phantom weapons of mass destruction, have been rewarded by the President with accolades and promotions. Instead of admitting to mistakes in the war on Iraq and its disastrous aftermath, the President and his inner circle of advisers continue to cling to myths and misconceptions. The only notion of accountability that this President is willing to acknowledge is the November elections, which he has described as a moment of accountability and an endorsement of his policies. Unfortunately, after-the-fact validation of victory is hardly the standard of accountability that the American people have the right to expect from their elected officials. It is one thing to accept responsibility for success; it is quite another to accept accountability for failure.
Sadly, failure has tainted far too many aspects of our nation’s international policies over the past four years, culminating in the deadly insurgency that has resulted from the invasion of Iraq. With respect to this particular nomination,
(emphasis on this last paragraph)
I believe that there needs to be accountability for the mistakes and missteps that have led the United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our provocative, belligerent, bellicose, and unilateralist foreign policy.
(entire speech at:)
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=4
And from 2003:
"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, - -
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers."
Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.
But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it -- more than I would ever have believed -- right on this Senate Floor.
Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.
Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still on the loose and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.
The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one.
What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well trained troops.
Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for WMD. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission and they continue to be at grave risk. But, the Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?
What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years.
Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is scarce, and often foul, electricity is a sometime thing, food is in short supply, hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil supply.
Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and refurbish its oil industry are awarded to Administration cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the U.S. steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. government are the subject of worldwide speculation and mistrust?
And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. "Regime change" in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart.
Democracy and Freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies?
As so many warned this Administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that Al Queda is back with a vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our way.
The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic institutions.
Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit where it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.
As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.
But, I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood - - when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women, and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie - - not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipedream of a democratic domino theory.
And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.
~
I think he sums up very well what a lot of us are trying to say in numerous threads.
YogsVR4
01-26-2005, 09:57 AM
US Senator Robert Byrd
- Democrat
- KKK Grand Dragon (not just a member, but a head honcho)
- Senile
The first isn't bad. The second makes him pond scum. The third should put him in a home.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
- Democrat
- KKK Grand Dragon (not just a member, but a head honcho)
- Senile
The first isn't bad. The second makes him pond scum. The third should put him in a home.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Heep
01-26-2005, 10:00 AM
US Senator Robert Byrd
- Democrat
- KKK Grand Dragon (not just a member, but a head honcho)
- Senile
The first isn't bad. The second makes him pond scum. The third should put him in a home.
He may be a disagreeable person, but what he's said still sums up quite well what many feel, and does, in fact, make sense.
- Democrat
- KKK Grand Dragon (not just a member, but a head honcho)
- Senile
The first isn't bad. The second makes him pond scum. The third should put him in a home.
He may be a disagreeable person, but what he's said still sums up quite well what many feel, and does, in fact, make sense.
fredjacksonsan
01-26-2005, 10:26 AM
Yogs, just because you don't like the messenger, don't disparage the message. Did you actually read? Please stay on topic, this wasn't "Bash Robert Byrd" but rather "things that needed to be said about Iraq"
[That said I do agree with the position that being Grand Poo-bah of the kkk is reprehensible.]
I think there were numerous valid points made; it doesn't matter who made them.
[That said I do agree with the position that being Grand Poo-bah of the kkk is reprehensible.]
I think there were numerous valid points made; it doesn't matter who made them.
YogsVR4
01-26-2005, 12:04 PM
I read the article and its hits all the points of the democrats playbook. Nothing but their same rhetoric. Nothing new. Nothing insightful. And nothing but opinions.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
fredjacksonsan
01-26-2005, 12:12 PM
Fair enough; it seemed to me that the same opinions expressed in the speeches were in sync with what I'd seen in several posts.
You can't argue that the US should get out of Iraq; and yes you must consider the power vacuum, etc etc but Iraq was invaded without direct action on their part, only the potential for action.
What's your opinion on this part:
I believe that there needs to be accountability for the mistakes and missteps that have led the United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our provocative, belligerent, bellicose, and unilateralist foreign policy.
You can't argue that the US should get out of Iraq; and yes you must consider the power vacuum, etc etc but Iraq was invaded without direct action on their part, only the potential for action.
What's your opinion on this part:
I believe that there needs to be accountability for the mistakes and missteps that have led the United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our provocative, belligerent, bellicose, and unilateralist foreign policy.
YogsVR4
01-26-2005, 12:19 PM
I believe that there needs to be accountability for the mistakes and missteps that have led the United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our provocative, belligerent, bellicose, and unilateralist foreign policy.
His conclusions are based on false premises. First of all, increasing violence in Iraq is subjective and predicted across the board now that elections are nearing. If those elections didn't mean anything, then why would it be such a thorn in their sides? Decline in world opinion? Whoop-de-freeking-do. If all he cares about is how people feel about us, he's more pathetic then I thought he was. Lets see that last part - belligerent, bellicose - nicely loaded words by a racist, anal retentive senator (see, we can all do that) and unilateralist foreign policy - odd, though I recorgnize the bulk of the burden is on the US, we were certainly not alone, not by a long shot.
Byrd is a babbling idiot. You'd think he was part of the UN.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
His conclusions are based on false premises. First of all, increasing violence in Iraq is subjective and predicted across the board now that elections are nearing. If those elections didn't mean anything, then why would it be such a thorn in their sides? Decline in world opinion? Whoop-de-freeking-do. If all he cares about is how people feel about us, he's more pathetic then I thought he was. Lets see that last part - belligerent, bellicose - nicely loaded words by a racist, anal retentive senator (see, we can all do that) and unilateralist foreign policy - odd, though I recorgnize the bulk of the burden is on the US, we were certainly not alone, not by a long shot.
Byrd is a babbling idiot. You'd think he was part of the UN.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
fredjacksonsan
01-26-2005, 12:45 PM
Byrd is a babbling idiot. You'd think he was part of the UN.
:lol:
US in Iraq:
Provocative? Yes
Belligerent? Most definitely
Main Entry: bel·li·cose
Pronunciation: 'be-li-"kOs
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin bellicosus, from bellicus of war, from bellum war
: favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars
Bellicose? I'd say that is the very definition of what has happened in Iraq. (on both sides!)
His conclusions are based on false premises. First of all, increasing violence in Iraq is subjective and predicted across the board now that elections are nearing. If those elections didn't mean anything, then why would it be such a thorn in their sides?
In part correct I think, but there has been an increase in bombing attacks in the last few weeks, which objectively shows discord. Of course it's in relation to the elections. If fair elections had been initiated by Iraq without US intervention (arguably an impossibility under Saddam) then would there be as much turmoil? I don't think so. There are enough US haters in Iraq to resist anything done by the US.
Decline in world opinion? Whoop-de-freeking-do.
In general, I don't give a flying about what people think about me either. BUT you have to agree there comes a point where peoples' opinions begin to affect how you operate. (Simple example: work. If they all think you're a ________, then your job review or perhaps even your job could be in jeopardy). With a country it takes quite a bit of opinion to make a difference in that way, and the US is too lucrative a trading partner for most countries to shun for what has been (or will be) done; but enough negative worldwide opinion could eventually have a negative impact.
:lol:
US in Iraq:
Provocative? Yes
Belligerent? Most definitely
Main Entry: bel·li·cose
Pronunciation: 'be-li-"kOs
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin bellicosus, from bellicus of war, from bellum war
: favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars
Bellicose? I'd say that is the very definition of what has happened in Iraq. (on both sides!)
His conclusions are based on false premises. First of all, increasing violence in Iraq is subjective and predicted across the board now that elections are nearing. If those elections didn't mean anything, then why would it be such a thorn in their sides?
In part correct I think, but there has been an increase in bombing attacks in the last few weeks, which objectively shows discord. Of course it's in relation to the elections. If fair elections had been initiated by Iraq without US intervention (arguably an impossibility under Saddam) then would there be as much turmoil? I don't think so. There are enough US haters in Iraq to resist anything done by the US.
Decline in world opinion? Whoop-de-freeking-do.
In general, I don't give a flying about what people think about me either. BUT you have to agree there comes a point where peoples' opinions begin to affect how you operate. (Simple example: work. If they all think you're a ________, then your job review or perhaps even your job could be in jeopardy). With a country it takes quite a bit of opinion to make a difference in that way, and the US is too lucrative a trading partner for most countries to shun for what has been (or will be) done; but enough negative worldwide opinion could eventually have a negative impact.
ponchonutty
01-26-2005, 10:02 PM
Byrd is a babbling idiot. You'd think he was part of the UN.
Actually all Democrats want the UN here. Look at all the facts. When they are in office they always try to sugar coat things to the point that people like them but behind the scenes they push for the UN and tear apart our armed forces by disbanning things they say we don't need.
Actually all Democrats want the UN here. Look at all the facts. When they are in office they always try to sugar coat things to the point that people like them but behind the scenes they push for the UN and tear apart our armed forces by disbanning things they say we don't need.
twospirits
01-26-2005, 10:53 PM
.
Decline in world opinion? Whoop-de-freeking-do.
hmmm while not in those same words isn't that the attitude Hitler took when he went on his little world domination tour. Not given a hoot what the world thinks of his actions. sure sounds like history is repeating itself.
Actually all Democrats want the UN here. Look at all the facts. When they are in office they always try to sugar coat things to the point that people like them but behind the scenes they push for the UN and tear apart our armed forces by disbanning things they say we don't need.Funny but there is alot of UN hating and kick the Un out of the US and that its Democrats that want the UN here, but in all reality wasn't it a republican (Nelson Rockafeller) that persuaded his brother John Jr to purchase the land in NYC to donate to the UN to keep it here in the states. This after a failed plan to offer the UN a tract of land from their Pocantico Estate. resource-1946 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/timeline/timeline3.html). I guess its not in the Republicans best interest anymore. Strange this thing you call politics.
TS out
Decline in world opinion? Whoop-de-freeking-do.
hmmm while not in those same words isn't that the attitude Hitler took when he went on his little world domination tour. Not given a hoot what the world thinks of his actions. sure sounds like history is repeating itself.
Actually all Democrats want the UN here. Look at all the facts. When they are in office they always try to sugar coat things to the point that people like them but behind the scenes they push for the UN and tear apart our armed forces by disbanning things they say we don't need.Funny but there is alot of UN hating and kick the Un out of the US and that its Democrats that want the UN here, but in all reality wasn't it a republican (Nelson Rockafeller) that persuaded his brother John Jr to purchase the land in NYC to donate to the UN to keep it here in the states. This after a failed plan to offer the UN a tract of land from their Pocantico Estate. resource-1946 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/timeline/timeline3.html). I guess its not in the Republicans best interest anymore. Strange this thing you call politics.
TS out
MagicRat
01-26-2005, 11:03 PM
I agree with Byrds opinion. It is valid and needs to be read by all Americans.
As for facts, Congress wants another $80 billion in short term financing to continue the occupation of Iraq. This is on top of a US debt load of $300 trillion (correct me if I am wrong) which is 300% of the total annual gross domestic product of the nation. This debt load requires $80 million PER HOUR just to service (pay interest on the borrowed money)
Bush has increased the government spending deficit faster than any other president since Rooseveldt. We see the effects of this in the recent and rapid devaluation of the US currency. If international money markets devalue the currency it will effectively reduce the real cost of servicing the debt. This unprecidented in recent times and is only made worse by the money market response to the massive outflow of US dollars from the US economy (an annual $621 billion trade deficit as of Sept/04)
So, IMHO in addition to Byrds opinion, the current occupation in Iraq is not affordable and not sustainable....unless the US confiscates much of the Iraq oil reserves.........something many people in the world feel is inevitable, given the fiscal realities of the situation.
As for facts, Congress wants another $80 billion in short term financing to continue the occupation of Iraq. This is on top of a US debt load of $300 trillion (correct me if I am wrong) which is 300% of the total annual gross domestic product of the nation. This debt load requires $80 million PER HOUR just to service (pay interest on the borrowed money)
Bush has increased the government spending deficit faster than any other president since Rooseveldt. We see the effects of this in the recent and rapid devaluation of the US currency. If international money markets devalue the currency it will effectively reduce the real cost of servicing the debt. This unprecidented in recent times and is only made worse by the money market response to the massive outflow of US dollars from the US economy (an annual $621 billion trade deficit as of Sept/04)
So, IMHO in addition to Byrds opinion, the current occupation in Iraq is not affordable and not sustainable....unless the US confiscates much of the Iraq oil reserves.........something many people in the world feel is inevitable, given the fiscal realities of the situation.
codycool
01-26-2005, 11:12 PM
.
hmmm while not in those same words isn't that the attitude Hitler took when he went on his little world domination tour. Not given a hoot what the world thinks of his actions. sure sounds like history is repeating itself.
While Iraq killed thousands of its own people(obvious that they did not care what others thought) invaded its neigboring countries, again did not care what the world thought. Disobeyed over 18 un resolutions, true fact that they did not care. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, obvious that they dont care what the world thinks, along with North Korea. But you are quick to label the u.s. for a reich that is responsible for over 2 million deaths because they did not like them. :2cents:
hmmm while not in those same words isn't that the attitude Hitler took when he went on his little world domination tour. Not given a hoot what the world thinks of his actions. sure sounds like history is repeating itself.
While Iraq killed thousands of its own people(obvious that they did not care what others thought) invaded its neigboring countries, again did not care what the world thought. Disobeyed over 18 un resolutions, true fact that they did not care. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, obvious that they dont care what the world thinks, along with North Korea. But you are quick to label the u.s. for a reich that is responsible for over 2 million deaths because they did not like them. :2cents:
carrrnuttt
01-26-2005, 11:37 PM
While Iraq killed thousands of its own people(obvious that they did not care what others thought) invaded its neigboring countries, again did not care what the world thought. Disobeyed over 18 un resolutions, true fact that they did not care. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, obvious that they dont care what the world thinks, along with North Korea. But you are quick to label the u.s. for a reich that is responsible for over 2 million deaths because they did not like them. :2cents:
Yogs, what was that about rhetoric again?
Yogs, what was that about rhetoric again?
taranaki
01-27-2005, 12:17 AM
There you go adding a lot of substance again!!
Being lectured by gladhatter on the subject of substance is like being lectured by Saddam on democracy.....:lol2:
Bush lovers delight in telling us that "Saddam had to go because he was ignoring UN resolutions"
The US doesn't ignore resolutions, it vetos them..
Especially for her buddy Israel, who not only gets to ignore resolutions with impunity, but also gets huge injections of cash and WMD courtesy of America.
If you are going to claim to be playing by the rules, at least pretend to be consistent.
Being lectured by gladhatter on the subject of substance is like being lectured by Saddam on democracy.....:lol2:
Bush lovers delight in telling us that "Saddam had to go because he was ignoring UN resolutions"
The US doesn't ignore resolutions, it vetos them..
Especially for her buddy Israel, who not only gets to ignore resolutions with impunity, but also gets huge injections of cash and WMD courtesy of America.
If you are going to claim to be playing by the rules, at least pretend to be consistent.
carrrnuttt
01-27-2005, 12:33 AM
Being lectured by gladhatter on the subject of substance is like being lectured by Saddam on democracy.....:lol2:
That's why I ignore him. Not worth the font-character I just deleted.
Edit: Notice he just deleted his useless post? Maybe I should restore it, to show-off his scholastic wit...ah well.
That's why I ignore him. Not worth the font-character I just deleted.
Edit: Notice he just deleted his useless post? Maybe I should restore it, to show-off his scholastic wit...ah well.
Kurtdg19
01-27-2005, 03:13 AM
I think its closer to 1 trillion. Bush has a plan to cut it in half within 4 years or so.
Well, he better start now.
Well, he better start now.
TRD2000
01-27-2005, 03:26 AM
I read the article and its hits all the points of the democrats playbook. Nothing but their same rhetoric. Nothing new. Nothing insightful. And nothing but opinions.
when did that stop you?
when did that stop you?
TRD2000
01-27-2005, 03:34 AM
While Iraq killed thousands of its own people(obvious that they did not care what others thought) invaded its neigboring countries, again did not care what the world thought. Disobeyed over 18 un resolutions, true fact that they did not care. Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, obvious that they dont care what the world thinks, along with North Korea. But you are quick to label the u.s. for a reich that is responsible for over 2 million deaths because they did not like them. :2cents:
jesus cody get your facts straight...
Vs Iran they received US support
Vs Kuwait they asked the US first and were told that they had no intertest in the area.
seems to me they paid a little more attn than you'd like to portray.
also without being hypocritical, how do you explain why the US is allowed WMD and NK or Iran aren't?
provided i wasn't in south korea with all those US troops i'd feel ok about NK having nukes... well i'd feel just as ok as i do about the US having them!
jesus cody get your facts straight...
Vs Iran they received US support
Vs Kuwait they asked the US first and were told that they had no intertest in the area.
seems to me they paid a little more attn than you'd like to portray.
also without being hypocritical, how do you explain why the US is allowed WMD and NK or Iran aren't?
provided i wasn't in south korea with all those US troops i'd feel ok about NK having nukes... well i'd feel just as ok as i do about the US having them!
YogsVR4
01-27-2005, 10:23 AM
when did that stop you?
Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
carrrnuttt
01-27-2005, 10:51 AM
Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle.
More rhetoric, Yogs?
I thought Republicans were above that?
More rhetoric, Yogs?
I thought Republicans were above that?
YogsVR4
01-27-2005, 01:02 PM
More rhetoric, Yogs?
I thought Republicans were above that?
They're above it in the same way you're conservative.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
I thought Republicans were above that?
They're above it in the same way you're conservative.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
carrrnuttt
02-03-2005, 12:33 PM
They're above it in the same way you're conservative.
That's funny, since you're one of the biggest supporters of one the most liberal-spending governments we've had, war or not.
That's funny, since you're one of the biggest supporters of one the most liberal-spending governments we've had, war or not.
YogsVR4
02-03-2005, 01:10 PM
That's funny, since you're one of the biggest supporters of one the most liberal-spending governments we've had, war or not.
You're mistaken. I'm a big supporter of causes. I've complained very often about the spending and taxing habits of government.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
You're mistaken. I'm a big supporter of causes. I've complained very often about the spending and taxing habits of government.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
codycool
02-03-2005, 01:14 PM
jesus cody get your facts straight...
I know that I am great and very goodlooking, but you dont have to call me Jesus!!
Vs Iran they received US support
Perhaps you should do a little reading on the Iraq Iran war...If you have then you would surely know that the United States secretly supplied weapons to the Iranians until an Iran official leaked information about the weapons. Then the Reagan administration fearing that other arab countries would feel that Iran was more favorable to the united states had to tilt its support towards Iraq. Even then the United States gave Iraq mostly false intelligence. Still that does not justify the fact that sadaam invaded them, and then the united states got involved.
Vs Kuwait they asked the US first and were told that they had no intertest in the area.
Even if this is true, which i highly doubt. Does that mean the United States gave permission to invade Kuwait????? :eek7:
seems to me they paid a little more attn than you'd like to portray.Seems to me you dont know what you are talking about!!!!
also without being hypocritical, how do you explain why the US is allowed WMD and NK or Iran aren't?
Because the U.S. does not harbor terrorist, nor does it provide terrorist with aide.
I know that I am great and very goodlooking, but you dont have to call me Jesus!!
Vs Iran they received US support
Perhaps you should do a little reading on the Iraq Iran war...If you have then you would surely know that the United States secretly supplied weapons to the Iranians until an Iran official leaked information about the weapons. Then the Reagan administration fearing that other arab countries would feel that Iran was more favorable to the united states had to tilt its support towards Iraq. Even then the United States gave Iraq mostly false intelligence. Still that does not justify the fact that sadaam invaded them, and then the united states got involved.
Vs Kuwait they asked the US first and were told that they had no intertest in the area.
Even if this is true, which i highly doubt. Does that mean the United States gave permission to invade Kuwait????? :eek7:
seems to me they paid a little more attn than you'd like to portray.Seems to me you dont know what you are talking about!!!!
also without being hypocritical, how do you explain why the US is allowed WMD and NK or Iran aren't?
Because the U.S. does not harbor terrorist, nor does it provide terrorist with aide.
TRD2000
02-03-2005, 03:38 PM
not bothering to respond to the first drivel.
Because the U.S. does not harbor terrorist, nor does it provide terrorist with aide.
that really depends if you look at it with an american viewpoint or not, cause it seems to me that bush is more of a terrorist than bin laden! he's killed and threatened to kill more innocent people! (sorry i'll fix that, if he was prepared to actually fight for himself he may have killed, as it is he sends other people to do his dirty work) "does not provide terrorists with aid? please! didn't the US provide bin laden with aid? or wasn't he a terrorist then cause he was killing russians?!
Because the U.S. does not harbor terrorist, nor does it provide terrorist with aide.
that really depends if you look at it with an american viewpoint or not, cause it seems to me that bush is more of a terrorist than bin laden! he's killed and threatened to kill more innocent people! (sorry i'll fix that, if he was prepared to actually fight for himself he may have killed, as it is he sends other people to do his dirty work) "does not provide terrorists with aid? please! didn't the US provide bin laden with aid? or wasn't he a terrorist then cause he was killing russians?!
codycool
02-03-2005, 07:42 PM
not bothering to respond to the first drivel.
that really depends if you look at it with an american viewpoint or not, cause it seems to me that bush is more of a terrorist than bin laden! he's killed and threatened to kill more innocent people! (sorry i'll fix that, if he was prepared to actually fight for himself he may have killed, as it is he sends other people to do his dirty work) "does not provide terrorists with aid? please! didn't the US provide bin laden with aid? or wasn't he a terrorist then cause he was killing russians?!
Perhaps another history lesson is in order....The united States supplied Bin Laden with money and weapons to fight The u.s.s.r which had invaded afganistan..I highly doubt that anyone can consider the U.S. giving aide to Afganistan to fight an enemy of the U.S. aiding terrorist.
And dont bother responding to this "drivel", because you obvisouly have no idea what you are talking about!
that really depends if you look at it with an american viewpoint or not, cause it seems to me that bush is more of a terrorist than bin laden! he's killed and threatened to kill more innocent people! (sorry i'll fix that, if he was prepared to actually fight for himself he may have killed, as it is he sends other people to do his dirty work) "does not provide terrorists with aid? please! didn't the US provide bin laden with aid? or wasn't he a terrorist then cause he was killing russians?!
Perhaps another history lesson is in order....The united States supplied Bin Laden with money and weapons to fight The u.s.s.r which had invaded afganistan..I highly doubt that anyone can consider the U.S. giving aide to Afganistan to fight an enemy of the U.S. aiding terrorist.
And dont bother responding to this "drivel", because you obvisouly have no idea what you are talking about!
TRD2000
02-03-2005, 07:55 PM
but "syria is the largest state sponsor of terror"???
sure thing buddy, does that mean that it's fine for NK to give bin laden weapons and cash to fight their enemies now? stop being such a hypocrit.
sure thing buddy, does that mean that it's fine for NK to give bin laden weapons and cash to fight their enemies now? stop being such a hypocrit.
M3FordBoy
02-03-2005, 07:55 PM
US Senator Robert Byrd
- Democrat
- KKK Grand Dragon (not just a member, but a head honcho)
- Senile
The first isn't bad. The second makes him pond scum. The third should put him in a home.
After I read the original post the first time this summed it up for me. And I didn't see the need to go on.:dunno:
- Democrat
- KKK Grand Dragon (not just a member, but a head honcho)
- Senile
The first isn't bad. The second makes him pond scum. The third should put him in a home.
After I read the original post the first time this summed it up for me. And I didn't see the need to go on.:dunno:
taranaki
02-03-2005, 10:09 PM
I know that I am great and very goodlooking, but you dont have to call me Jesus!!.....pull your head in ,you buffoon.
Even if this is true, which i highly doubt. Does that mean the United States gave permission to invade Kuwait????? :eek7:
Seems to me you dont know what you are talking about!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
If you read occasionally, Cody ,you might be a better debater.Both sides of that argument are covered here.
Because the U.S. does not harbor terrorist, nor does it provide terrorist with aide.
That would be funny,bar for the fact that Bush is the ultimate terrorist.He invaded Iraq on the pretext of looking for weapons that the UN told him weren't there.He also claimed to be hunting for terrorists, but because most of the suspects were executed on sight, no-one will ever know if he got his information wrong on those, either.
The US has a long history of supporting terrorists who fight against Uncle Sam's enemies.Until the WTC attacks,t he US turned a blind eye to terrorist support groups such as Noraid[the US fundraising operation for the IRA], even though that money was being used to wage war on the civilian population of Americas allies.
Even if this is true, which i highly doubt. Does that mean the United States gave permission to invade Kuwait????? :eek7:
Seems to me you dont know what you are talking about!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
If you read occasionally, Cody ,you might be a better debater.Both sides of that argument are covered here.
Because the U.S. does not harbor terrorist, nor does it provide terrorist with aide.
That would be funny,bar for the fact that Bush is the ultimate terrorist.He invaded Iraq on the pretext of looking for weapons that the UN told him weren't there.He also claimed to be hunting for terrorists, but because most of the suspects were executed on sight, no-one will ever know if he got his information wrong on those, either.
The US has a long history of supporting terrorists who fight against Uncle Sam's enemies.Until the WTC attacks,t he US turned a blind eye to terrorist support groups such as Noraid[the US fundraising operation for the IRA], even though that money was being used to wage war on the civilian population of Americas allies.
Muscletang
02-04-2005, 12:59 AM
That would be funny,bar for the fact that Bush is the ultimate terrorist.He invaded Iraq on the pretext of looking for weapons that the UN told him weren't there.He also claimed to be hunting for terrorists, but because most of the suspects were executed on sight, no-one will ever know if he got his information wrong on those, either.
Terrorist use terror to help spread their political views. Terrorist do things like: slam planes into buildings, blow themselves up, plant dirty bombs in high civilian areas, ect. I don't really see Bush doing any of this. Yes he invaded a country and leaped before he looked and really shot himself in the foot but I don't see him as an evil person like Bin Ladin.
The US has a long history of supporting terrorists who fight against Uncle Sam's enemies.Until the WTC attacks,t he US turned a blind eye to terrorist support groups such as Noraid[the US fundraising operation for the IRA], even though that money was being used to wage war on the civilian population of Americas allies.
Like the time Sudan was going to hand Bin Ladin to us on a silver platter but Clinton turned them down because he felt "it wasn't right."
Terrorist use terror to help spread their political views. Terrorist do things like: slam planes into buildings, blow themselves up, plant dirty bombs in high civilian areas, ect. I don't really see Bush doing any of this. Yes he invaded a country and leaped before he looked and really shot himself in the foot but I don't see him as an evil person like Bin Ladin.
The US has a long history of supporting terrorists who fight against Uncle Sam's enemies.Until the WTC attacks,t he US turned a blind eye to terrorist support groups such as Noraid[the US fundraising operation for the IRA], even though that money was being used to wage war on the civilian population of Americas allies.
Like the time Sudan was going to hand Bin Ladin to us on a silver platter but Clinton turned them down because he felt "it wasn't right."
sivic02
02-04-2005, 01:11 AM
[QUOTE=Muscletang]Terrorist use terror to help spread their political views. QUOTE]
Like say...Invade another country and force them into "democracy"? Even though we live in a republic but if you ask any person on the streets they will say we live in a democracy.
Like say...Invade another country and force them into "democracy"? Even though we live in a republic but if you ask any person on the streets they will say we live in a democracy.
taranaki
02-04-2005, 02:32 AM
Like the time Sudan was going to hand Bin Ladin to us on a silver platter but Clinton turned them down because he felt "it wasn't right."
Among others...it's not a party political issue, the spooks at the Pentagon don't care who's in charge.
Among others...it's not a party political issue, the spooks at the Pentagon don't care who's in charge.
DVS LT1
02-04-2005, 12:58 PM
Bush lovers delight in telling us that "Saddam had to go because he was ignoring UN resolutions" The US doesn't ignore resolutions, it vetos them..Especially for her buddy Israel, who not only gets to ignore resolutions with impunity, but also gets huge injections of cash and WMD courtesy of America.
Well said - If it means nothing to disobay a resolution or not participate then its all the same equally meaningless if you happen to have support. This is why the UN is a joke, and it directly results from the disparity of contribution and participation between member nations.
Well said - If it means nothing to disobay a resolution or not participate then its all the same equally meaningless if you happen to have support. This is why the UN is a joke, and it directly results from the disparity of contribution and participation between member nations.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025