Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 727
  1. #81  
    Careful t2gungho, you did a line-by-line retort of a BARYE post...jstpa will accuse you of attacking him because you didn't agree.
    I'm back!
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    No. Do you??
    Ok, now I am going to have to justify some great argument on why we need the U.N. (I will for the sake of debate...more to follow.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #83  
    I feel another thread coming on.....
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    That is a classic quote. I am going to use that for all sorts of arguments! I love it! .....seriously I do!
    I try to choose my words carefully (for the above mentioned reason.)

    It's all about the words. Hobbes, you can use the above quote but it only works if you frame your argument correctly. If would have first said something like..."The U.N. doesn't make any mistakes.." then my counter point wouldn't have worked.

    Now Insertion has pushed it a step further and implied that the U.N. hasn't done anything right. Just from the outside, it appears that I should be able to provide some evidence that they at least do ONE thing right. It should be easy to prove (but maybe he knows something I don't. )
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Careful t2gungho, you did a line-by-line retort of a BARYE post...jstpa will accuse you of attacking him because you didn't agree.
    I'm not worried...I don't attack someone personally, I can only judge you on the words that you use.

    Barye is rational and from most of his posts, very logical . I just had questions on what he wrote.

    We all have a tendency to take things personal when we see something we wrote challenged. When that happens to me, I just take it as a challenge to either 1) admit that I was wrong or 2) that I need to rephrase something so that it's more understandable for the other person and then hopefully we both learn something in the exchange.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Just from the outside, it appears that I should be able to provide some evidence that they at least do ONE thing right. It should be easy to prove (but maybe he knows something I don't. )
    Go on, I dare ya!!

    I was more intersted though in the Charter you quoted:
    The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are

    to maintain international peace and security;
    Does it exsist?

    to develop friendly relations among nations;


    to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;
    Has it been solved??

    and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.
    You tell me.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  7. #87  
    If anything - the UN has at least served as a forum where your voice was heard by the rest of the world, even if nothing was done. For many smaller weaker nations that itself is a big deal.
    I think nobody would disagree that as an insitution the UN needs to be fixed. But dismantling the UN altogether would not help anyone at all.
    Palm m505 -> Treo600 (GSM ATT) -> Treo650 (Cingular) -> BB8700g -> BB Pearl
    "The point of living and of being an optimist, is to be foolish enough to believe the best is yet to come."
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Go on, I dare ya!!

    I was more intersted though in the Charter you quoted:
    The purposes of the United Nations, as set forth in the Charter, are

    to maintain international peace and security;
    Does it exsist?
    Depends on how you interpret it. If you give it a broad interpretation, then yes, there is SOME international peace and security (i.e. some countries aren't at war and some have a measure of security).

    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    to develop friendly relations among nations;
    By giving nations the ability to come to a forum where (for the most part) they are equal and get a 'voice', then it would go toward the goal of developing relations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;
    Has it been solved??
    They aren't saying that they have solved them, only that they are working toward the goal of solving them (big difference...since it may never be solved.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.
    You tell me.
    Well, I think we can agree that if nations didnt have a U.N. to go to, that on their own, they may not be as successful at it. For some smaller countries, I am sure sanctions (or the threat of) have some type of legitimate effect.

    Here is some of the good you asked for:

    link

    Peace Operations Yield Major Dividends in 2002 says U.N. Report
    United Nations Releases 2002 Report
    By Anthony Kujawa
    Washington File staff writer

    Washington -- Ranging in function from disarmament to protecting human rights, United Nations peace operations yielded major dividends for a number of countries in 2002, according to the report "Year in Review: U.N. Peace Operations 2002" released by the U.N. Department for Public Information December 31.

    The report highlights the achievements and progress of U.N. Peacekeeping Operations in regions throughout the world. Noted accomplishments include: the establishment of the Interim Authority and the Transitional Administration in Afghanistan; the U.N. Transitional Administration in East Timor conducting presidential elections and facilitating the transition to East Timor's formal independence on May 20; and the completion of the U.N. Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNMIBH).

    UNMIBH was described as "most extensive police reform and restructuring operation ever undertaken by the U.N."

    Other accomplishments mentioned were U.N. support for the disarmament and demobilization of former combatants in Sierra Leone, which led towards increased security, the dissolution of the armed rebel movement and violence-free national elections. Although highlighting progress, the report also discussed challenges facing Sierra Leone in creating a police force capable protecting the country's borders and providing opportunities for unemployed youth and nearly 24,000 ex-combatants.

    According to the report, the U.N. maintained 15 peacekeeping operations and 13 political and peace-building missions in 2002. Ninety U.N. Member States contributed uniformed personnel to operations, which ranged in size from a handful of international and local staff to thousands of military, police and civilian peacekeepers.

    The major U.S. contribution in personnel to U.N. Peace Operations in 2002 ranged from 611 to 741 Civilian Police (CIVPOL) during the year, and also included about 30 Military Observers. The U.S. ranked 18th of the 90 nations contributing military and civilian police to U.N. operations, as of November 2002. Most of the U.S. CIVPOL served as part of the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK), while 80 served at the U.N. mission in East Timor.

    In addition to law enforcement functions, the UNMIK Police also provided training and guidance to create the Kosovo Police Service, which has already trained over 5,000 officers from all ethnic groups in Kosovo.

    In 1994, only 50 U.S. police participated in U.N. CIVPOL missions. According to a U.S. Department of State fact sheet released September 2002, the "dramatic climb in U.S. participation in CIVPOL reflects the U.S. government's recognition of its [CIVPOL's] importance to peacekeeping missions in the post-cold war world."

    "CIVPOL not only can assist international military forces in the short term by addressing civilian law enforcement matters, but also help to develop the local, democratic policing institutions that ultimately will be responsible for all law and order functions once the military and CIVPOL depart," stated the fact sheet.

    It also notes that under U.S. Presidential Decision Directive 71 on Strengthening Criminal Justice Systems in Support of Peace Operations and other Complex Contingencies, signed in February 2000, the United States has developed a "ready roster" of 500 to 2,000 trained and pre-screened police eligible for rapid deployment.

    For more information on achievements of U.N. Peace Operations in 2002, see the full report.
    I know you might be saying "Yeah but thats from 2002!" You didnt put a time requirement on your 'dare' so if its too old for you...let me know and I will keep 'googling'.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  9. jstpa's Avatar
    Posts
    218 Posts
    Global Posts
    220 Global Posts
    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Do me a fav, genius. Since you seem to know more about what I said than I do, go ahead and highlight for all of us in this thread exactly where I attacked BARYE anywhere. ...
    You are correct. I ignored your first sentence. My bad, real bad. Sorry.
  10.    #90  
    The UN is illegitimate with the most important country in the world, USA. They need a complete overhaul from the top. So many times I hear Kofi state America doesn't give enough money for Aids research, Africa, etc. We give more than enough when we include our govt and what citizens donate. Instead of the UN trying to take power and money from the USA, they should stand on their own two legs.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    Instead of the UN trying to take power and money from the USA, they should stand on their own two legs.
    You're kidding right?
  12. #92  
    t2gungho -- I wasn't sure anyone had even read that post --

    But since you took the time to write a lengthy analysis, I’ll attempt to answer.

    I meant to share some of my anger through what I wrote. My feelings of impotence observing the suffering and unnecessary sacrifice. I know that the depth of how much I loathe junior and his whole bushleague minor league team was already understood here -- but what I wrote perhaps communicated the degree of visceral passion behind my often sarcastic words.

    What I wrote was not one of those posts meant for critical analysis – it was entirely gut level opinion.

    But nonetheless, you said a couple of things that I want to address:


    It's at least *arguable* that at some point, even if Kerry had won, that we may have been going into Iraq. Would it have been different, maybe, but the point is that Sadaam wasnt going to go away.
    I think you probably meant to say Gore – in which case I thoroughly disagree. Had the supremes allowed Gore to become President, I am certain that we would never have invaded Iraq. Far more educated than junior, he understood the complexity that is integral to the whole arab middle east. As junior proceeded with his plans for war (while pretending to want a diplomatic solution) Gore was one of the most outspoken mainstream politicians in his opposition to the imminent war.

    Conservatives regularly lampooned Clinton (and Gore) for the ineffectual ways that they dealt with Saddam. But Clinton understood the importance of Iraq as a counterweight to Iran. And he appreciated that a weakened Saddam was ultimately only a nuisance – he was never going to invade Iraq short of positive proof that it had WMD.

    The pressure that was being exerted against Saddam should not be underestimated. The much mocked oil for food program, the no fly zones, the Clinton era UN inspections, the arms embargo – all contributed to the hollowing out of Saddam’s military. He was a pathetic paper tiger and Saddam knew it – which was why he tried so hard to pretend like he wasn’t.

    Lets not forget that for more than a decade Saddam was our boy. He was the enemy of our enemy which made him our friend.

    Traditionally we have had a long (bloody) history of “special relationships” with middle eastern tyrants. The Saudi monarchy, Egypt, Iran’s Shah, and Saddam are the most obvious.

    These were (and are) regimes willing to intimidate, kill, and torture to stay on top of the fervent anger of their populations. These were bad guys – but they were our bad guys. Rumsfeld and reagan acted on this basis when they reassured Saddam of their support after he’d murdered thousands of his own Kurds in reprehensible gas attacks. We had looked the other way while our Shah tortured and killed his fundamentalists and liberal opponents.

    Ugly and despicable as it was – as much as I disagreed with it – I understood it.

    Those regimes had oil, we both wanted stability, we let them figure out how to deliver us both.

    junior in his genius decided to completely break that formula – unleashing a perfect storm of chaos and fundamentalism – while simultaneously disarming Iran’s greatest enemy and transforming it into an ally.



    Pre-ordained by God ? I don't think this leads any credibility to your argument. How do we know what the Pres. felt? What do you base this statement on? I understand that the Pres. is religious and he has stated that he prays about at least some of the decisions he makes (and this makes many people uncomfortable) but how does it show that he was (or thinks) that he is pre-ordained by God.
    This is an absolute opinion of mine – I TRULY believe that both junior and his evangelical supporters would have done ANYTHING to grab power from Clinton and Gore. I honestly believe that they would lie cheat and steal in order to have junior become president. Their fervency (founded on their hatred of abortion choice, their hatred of liberal sexual mores, their belief in biblical origins of life) was such that I think they could commit any wrong to advance what they would have felt was a righteous goal. (Again – this is my personal opinion – not one I can source. )


    Whether or not the Pres. thought the intelligence was right or not, I am still unconvinced either way. However, I do think he still could have waited at least a little while longer before invading. Not all of the senators were able to be included with all the intelligence briefings and such that the Pres., Chief of Staff, Sec of Def, etc. are privy to. They had to rely on the information given them. And there were a lot of political pressure to remain "American" during this time. Do I think it was right to make the decision to go to war due to politics...No. But, you do have to recognize it and to put it into context.

    The bushleaguers shrewdly scheduled that vote for just before the November elections. (Recall Andrew Card confiding when asked when the administration would seek approval for its war plans: “from a marketing point of view you don’t introduce new products in August”). The pressure of being portrayed as unpatriotic and not supporting the troops on the eve of the election was overwhelming. Unfortunately, I fear some senators put their careers ahead of their consciences. Some were naive and gullible, and actually believed junior’s pose of seeking a peaceful outcome.

    On the day the junior was given the presidency, I actually told an acquaintance that it meant curtains for Saddam. (Saddam was, it needn’t be said, an evil scummy *******).


    Originally Posted by BARYE
    Others genuinely bought into the “fixed” intelligence.

    I think the best you can say is that *some of the evidence is contradictory to other intel and it should have been questioned more fully.

    I believed even before the Downing Street Memo that evidence was being selectively sculpted to support the worst possible scenarios for WMD etc. They knew that anything less would make the public skeptical of making war on a country that did not supply terrorist who attacked us, while we had not yet finished AQ, the Taliban, or Bin Laden, or the most important terrorist leaders.


    Originally Posted by BARYE
    This war was invented by people blinded by an arrogant but naive ideology. This war was contrived by men unlearned in history but confident within their ignorance. Strutting around with his phoney Texas swagger, their leader knew better than all the pointed headed liberal intellectuals -– or even daddy's friends, who told him otherwise.

    Barye: this seems to be 100% your opinion. If it is...fine. If it is not...then how do you 'know' these things.
    Yes – absolutely my opinion.



    Originally Posted by BARYE
    That's why trusting patriotic young people are being wheeled around my local supermarket.

    I actually think it is because these men put their country before themselves and deserve the very best that we can give them for their sacrifice.

    I completely agree – We are OBLIGED to ensure that they are enabled to have as full of a life, and as much happiness as can be achieved.

    Many returning soldiers, reservists, and Nat. Guard have become unemployed and homeless – this is unforgivable.



    Originally Posted by BARYE
    That's why that poor woman mourns outside the ranch of our vacationing POTUS.

    She grieves and arguably she doesn’t understand why her son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country. I am not sure that the Pres. can give her an answer to her question that will satisfy her. I mean what is her question? "Why did my son have to die in a war in Iraq?" Maybe it's because wars have casualties, he volunteered knowing those circumstances and (arguably) Sadaam was supporting terrorism and removing him goes toward the goal of fighting terrorism and supporting Democracy.

    Perhaps she has come to believe – as have a majority of other americans – that we should not have gone to war there, that we are less safe for having gone – and that we were lied to as to why we were going.

    How could anyone who lost their son under such circumstances, who has this knowledge – how could she ever come to accept his sacrifice as worthwhile ??
    Last edited by BARYE; 08/09/2005 at 10:29 PM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    t2gungho -- I wasn't sure anyone had even read that post --
    I try to have an open mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    What I wrote was not one of those posts meant for critical analysis – it was entirely gut level opinion.
    That's fine. That's all you had to say. When I couldnt tell if you were just throwing out your opinion, I thought I should respond (I actually couldn't resist).

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I think you probably meant to say Gore
    Why? I did actually mean Kerry. Kerry was a combat veteran...I think if he had to as a 'last resort' then he would take us to war if he could justify it. He knows the price of war, he has seen it first hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    – in which case I thoroughly disagree. Had the supremes allowed Gore to become President, I am certain that we would never have invaded Iraq. Far more educated than junior, he understood the complexity that is integral to the whole arab middle east. As junior proceeded with his plans for war (while pretending to want a diplomatic solution) Gore was one of the most outspoken mainstream politicians in his opposition to the imminent war.
    That may be true. But if push came to shove, I don't know how a President (Dem or Rep) could stand by (and I mean when PUSH came to SHOVE).

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Conservatives regularly lampooned Clinton (and Gore) for the ineffectual ways that they dealt with Saddam. But Clinton understood the importance of Iraq as a counterweight to Iran. And he appreciated that a weakened Saddam was ultimately only a nuisance – he was never going to invade Iraq short of positive proof that it had WMD.
    This all may be true...but like I said above, Clinton could have pulled the trigger if push came to shove.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    The pressure that was being exerted against Saddam should not be underestimated. The much mocked oil for food program, the no fly zones, the Clinton era UN inspections, the arms embargo – all contributed to the hollowing out of Saddam’s military. He was a pathetic paper tiger and Saddam knew it – which was why he tried so hard to pretend like he wasn’t.
    I can agree with this BUT if he was actively supporting terrorism (by turning a blind eye or a much more active role) then all those things keeping him down would not stop him from being helpful to AQ.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Lets not forget that for more than a decade Saddam was our boy. He was the enemy of our enemy which made him our friend. These were (and are) regimes willing to intimidate, kill, and torture to stay on top of the fervent anger of their populations. These were bad guys – but they were our bad guys. Rumsfeld and reagan acted on this basis when they reassured Saddam of their support after he’d murdered thousands of his own Kurds in reprehensible gas attacks. We had looked the other way while our Shah tortured and killed his fundamentalists and liberal opponents.
    I think that is what is truly ironic and tragic.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    This is an absolute opinion of mine – I TRULY believe that both junior and his evangelical supporters would have done ANYTHING to grab power from Clinton and Gore. I honestly believe that they would lie cheat and steal in order to have junior become president. Their fervency (founded on their hatred of abortion choice, their hatred of liberal sexual mores, their belief in biblical origins of life) was such that I think they could commit any wrong to advance what they would have felt was a righteous goal. (Again – this is my personal opinion – not one I can source. )
    That's fine...just keep in mind there are people like ME who are Christians and are conservative on many issues that do not like the politics being played.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I believed even before the Downing Street Memo that evidence was being selectively sculpted to support the worst possible scenarios for WMD etc. They knew that anything less would make the public skeptical of making war on a country that did not supply terrorist who attacked us, while we had not yet finished AQ, the Taliban, or Bin Laden, or the most important terrorist leaders.
    In some ways, I think they did this. But I think it's also possible that while they were viewing the evidence in the light most positive to their goal, they also thought they were doing the right thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Perhaps she has come to believe – as have a majority of other americans – that we should not have gone to war there, that we are less safe for having gone – and that we were lied to as to why we were going.
    I think the longer this war goes on and the longer that Americans don't see results, that more and more will question it (I think that is human nature). I don't think it is wrong either...if the policy is off, then we need to change course. It would be stupid to do the same thing day after day, getting the same result and think 'tomorrow will be different'.

    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    How could anyone who lost their son under such circumstances, who has this knowledge – how could she ever come to accept his sacrifice as worthwhile ??
    Well, one perspective is that her son put his life on the line for something (whether that was flawed or not). Being able to do that, that is the mark of a true hero.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  14. #94  
    wassup wit the civilized discussion?


  15. #95  
    Hey joe...did you ever get all that warming lotion off your hands??
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16.    #96  
    daT
    on the rd w/treo so can't quote your response. no not kidding. most recent example is the UN recommends the sanctioning body of the Internet (discovered here in US) to be disbanded and distributed to other countries. can you imagine if a restrictive country such as China is selected? as a card carrying aclu member I think u would agree this is a terrible idea.

    Here's a link to UN BS that certainly explains it better than me.
    Last edited by Advance The Man; 08/10/2005 at 08:19 AM.
  17.    #97  
    Not new thread worthy, but this guy with Newsweek is consistently funny. Here's his latest post. By the way he would be terrific here in OT.

    Newsweek article


    MSNBC.com
    ‘They’d Use It on Us’
    Our columnist imagines how human rights groups might react if ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ was deployed as an interrogation tool at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
    By Andy Borowitz
    Newsweek
    Updated: 1:33 p.m. ET Aug. 9, 2005


    Aug. 9, 2005 - Human rights groups around the world cried foul today amid reports that the movie version of "The Dukes of Hazzard" is being used by interrogators at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    According to reports, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld arranged for a private screening of the film at the Pentagon in mid-July and determined that it could be a powerful tool for extracting information from enemy combatants.

    Over the weekend, when "Dukes" appeared on nearly 4,000 screens nationwide, it also appeared in at least 12 interrogation rooms at Guantanamo, playing on a nonstop loop.

    "We have never seen anything like it," said one Guantanamo interrogator, speaking on condition of anonymity. "About 10 minutes into the film, the prisoners are already willing to talk."

    But even as interrogators praised "Dukes" as a welcome addition to their tactical arsenal, human rights groups such as Amnesty International blasted the U.S. government for using the film, arguing that the practice could be in violation of the Geneva Conventions against torture. "We see the use of 'The Dukes of Hazzard' as part of a larger pattern of abuse," said Amnesty International spokesperson Jean-Claude Guinod, noting that the United States had used the film "Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed" at Guantanamo in 2004.

    At the Pentagon, Secretary Rumsfeld categorically defended the use of the "Dukes" film, telling reporters, "Don't think for a moment that if the enemy had 'The Dukes of Hazzard' they wouldn't use it on us."

    Elsewhere, NASA pronounced the just-completed space shuttle mission a success, saying that the Discovery astronauts had made important scientific discoveries about foam debris, missing tiles and weather delays.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by Advance The Man
    ...human rights groups such as Amnesty International blasted the U.S. government for using the film, arguing that the practice could be in violation of the Geneva Conventions against torture. "We see the use of 'The Dukes of Hazzard' as part of a larger pattern of abuse," said Amnesty International spokesperson Jean-Claude Guinod, noting that the United States had used the film "Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed" at Guantanamo in 2004.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    I know that the depth of how much I loathe junior and his whole bushleague minor league team was already understood here --
    So....I take it you voted for Bush?

    I think you probably meant to say Gore – in which case I thoroughly disagree. Had the supremes allowed Gore to become President, I am certain that we would never have invaded Iraq.
    Every single independent recount of the Florida votes showed that Bush won in Florida. There is no doubt that Florida recount will be on the dying lips of several hard line far left Libs.
    I can see them having nightmares 20 years from now like this:
    Far more educated than junior, he understood the complexity that is integral to the whole arab middle east.
    Since he helped invent the internet, he would have to be smarter now wouldn't he?

    As junior proceeded with his plans for war (while pretending to want a diplomatic solution) Gore was one of the most outspoken mainstream politicians in his opposition to the imminent war.
    He was outspoken simply because it was dealing with Bush. Even some of the left media started to question Gore as he literally was yelling his rants about losing the election years afterwards.

    As far as your Bush conspiracy theory, I answered that here:
    CLICKY......CLICKY
    And another CLICKY.....CLICKY

    The pressure that was being exerted against Saddam should not be underestimated. The much mocked oil for food program, the no fly zones, the Clinton era UN inspections, the arms embargo – all contributed to the hollowing out of Saddam’s military. He was a pathetic paper tiger and Saddam knew it – which was why he tried so hard to pretend like he wasn’t.
    Good points, but Saddam was not dumb. He was sneaky.

    OIL FOR FOOD: As we have been finding out, this actually became an asset for Saddam personally. He was able to launder money for weapon programs, he was able to pay off UN, French, and Germany officials during the time that they were all voting to go to War against him or not.

    FLY ZONE: That one I think got under Saddam's skin as he made it point to constantly ignore it.

    CLINTON ERA UN INSPECTORS: They got the biggest round around of all. The inspections under Clinton came with horrible conditions to benefit Saddam, like giving him a days notice of a "surprise" inspection. Being caught walking out the back door with materials as the inspectors walked in the front. Having to have Iraqi Gov chaperones to watch who they talked to and where they were going, which they then radioed in to give a heads up. And not to mention that Clinton let Saddam kick them out for the last 4 years of his presidency.

    ARMS EMBARGO: You mean the same one that let Saddam develop and test a new long range missile with their system? And the same one that Saddam was able to develop a drone to fly unmanned to attack with any weapon that could be strapped to it?

    Lets not forget that for more than a decade Saddam was our boy. He was the enemy of our enemy which made him our friend.

    Traditionally we have had a long (bloody) history of “special relationships” with middle eastern tyrants. The Saudi monarchy, Egypt, Iran’s Shah, and Saddam are the most obvious.

    These were (and are) regimes willing to intimidate, kill, and torture to stay on top of the fervent anger of their populations. These were bad guys – but they were our bad guys. Rumsfeld and reagan acted on this basis when they reassured Saddam of their support after he’d murdered thousands of his own Kurds in reprehensible gas attacks. We had looked the other way while our Shah tortured and killed his fundamentalists and liberal opponents.

    Ugly and despicable as it was – as much as I disagreed with it – I understood it.
    For better or worse, this is absolutely true


    Those regimes had oil, we both wanted stability, we let them figure out how to deliver us both.

    junior in his genius decided to completely break that formula – unleashing a perfect storm of chaos and fundamentalism – while simultaneously disarming Iran’s greatest enemy and transforming it into an ally.
    I answered that when you brought up that point in another thread:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...6&postcount=50

    This is an absolute opinion of mine – I TRULY believe that both junior and his evangelical supporters would have done ANYTHING to grab power from Clinton and Gore. I honestly believe that they would lie cheat and steal in order to have junior become president. Their fervency (founded on their hatred of abortion choice, their hatred of liberal sexual mores, their belief in biblical origins of life) was such that I think they could commit any wrong to advance what they would have felt was a righteous goal. (Again – this is my personal opinion – not one I can source. )
    A statement like this could easily be flipped from a conservative point of view against Gore if you say their belief in gay rights, the firm belief in the right to choose, the decay of American society due to the religious onslaught being forced in every aspect of America, etc... drove them to do anything to try to win.

    I believe the truth of the matter is both sides have blood on their hands. For example Gore tried to have all of the absentee ballots removed and not counted in Florida, because a HUGE vast majority of them were from our military serving overseas and they are historically strong Rep voters. He literally tried to throw out the vote of our men and women serving for our country. He refused to recount the whole state when offered by the GOP, and demanded to ONLY recount the Florida counties that have a strong Dem voting base.

    He in my state this last election the Dems got caught with dead people voting for them...and only the Dems.


    I am not a rep and I am not a Dem. But you have to recognize the reality of the world of politics and see the evil that both sides have done.

    The bushleaguers shrewdly scheduled that vote for just before the November elections. (Recall Andrew Card confiding when asked when the administration would seek approval for its war plans: “from a marketing point of view you don’t introduce new products in August”). The pressure of being portrayed as unpatriotic and not supporting the troops on the eve of the election was overwhelming. Unfortunately, I fear some senators put their careers ahead of their consciences. Some were naive and gullible, and actually believed junior’s pose of seeking a peaceful outcome.
    Are you saying that the Dems are dimwhitted and gullible? Many of them had the same Intel that the Admin had. I can quote a huge list of Dems supporting the move at that time.

    Plus, as I linked to above, the plans to outs Saddam started in 1992 and the Dems and the Rep had already unanimously approved Regime change of Saddam in Iraq in 1988 under Bill Clinton: http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=290

    I believed even before the Downing Street Memo that evidence was being selectively sculpted to support the worst possible scenarios for WMD etc. They knew that anything less would make the public skeptical of making war on a country that did not supply terrorist who attacked us, while we had not yet finished AQ, the Taliban, or Bin Laden, or the most important terrorist leaders.
    It is funny that the Libs are still not yelling "Downing Street Memo!...Downing Street Memo!" as it was shown that this was just scenario of the possibilities that they may have had to face.

    how could she ever come to accept his sacrifice as worthwhile ??
    No one knows how they will reactive while grieving, not only for a loved one, but a child of yours at that.

    As far as me, You have mentioned before that you would have supported going into Iran, but not Iraq. I answered that argument here:
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...6&postcount=50

    So, in light of the strong probability that we would be the same, but more than likely worse, situation in Iran as we are now in Iraq.....would it have been worthwhile then? Saddam would have to be taken care of at one time or another. There is no doubt that we would be in Iraq, the only real question would be what should we have gone after Iran, Syria, etc.. first instead.

    Here is my point of view if soldiers time serving in Iraq is worthwhile:

    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...0&postcount=26

    .
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 08/10/2005 at 03:08 PM.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #100  
    Yes I feel the for the womans pain, however she needs to direct her anger/pain/energy into a useful manner. This mother lives 5 miles from a major military installation (I live in the same town). Yes her story has changed as she has let her anger run her life and make her miserable, effect her family members that are trying to cope with the loss (yes I know some of them). Maybe she could volunteer at the major medical center on that installation and use her energy to cheer up sick children, or provide support to indiviudals injured by drunk drivers, sit and talk to family members of terroist attacks. The President did not kill her son, should we be in Iraq, YES. Does anyone remember 9-11? I know, I know there has been no direct link to Saddam flying the plane, but I bet he helped fianance, train, recruit, hide, encourage those that did. Ask the Kurds if they want Saddam and his regime back in power. For all those bashing the president, senate, etc how many days have you spent in the military and/or in combat zone? Been there done that for over 24 years (yes during Desert Storm and Iraq). If you are not willing to step up to the plate and serve your country DO NOT CRITIZE OR JUDGE those that do, to include the leadership. When you criticize the leadership you also criticize those that are faithful to carry out the orders that come down. None of us have had to make that decision unless one of you are a former POTUS. We are all entitled to our opinon and have the freedom (thanks to the leaders of our country and the men and women that died to give us that freedom) to express our opinon. As a retired military member I feel we are safer in America today than we were prior to taking Saddam out of power.
Page 5 of 37 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions