| Author |
 Topic  |
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2003 : 18:56:49
|
| Chuck, once again, you are wrong, and you missed my point entirely. I don't think Bush ever compared war to a game. You're as bad as the French. |
 |
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 20:08:19
|
Guys, I do not see Kile as a bigot. (That's B-I-G-O-T, with one T not two.) Nor do I view JIMF or CCARR as bigot baiters either. I see differing viewpoints here with the same underlying tone that wishes this entire mess had never been brought to this point.
By the way, this afternoon on CSPAN2 I watched the English House of Commons debate with Prime Minister Tony Blair. His presentation and oratory made far more sense than anything Shrub & Pals have brought forth. Did you also notice the English Parliment layout wherein the members all sit close to each other in a round type setting that fosters a sense of togetherness and belonging? There were, to be sure, pointed disagreements in the questions asked, but it was all done in a civilized manner and stayed on topic.
My ancesteral Celtic blood began to percolate and thoughts of an SMLE rifle came forth. I remembered my dual citizenship birth certificates. The arguments were clear and to the point. I came away with a sense that truth was being spoken and the logic of Mr Blair's case was clear. I was impressed.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress was engaged in business as usual, fretting with political infighting over judicial appointments and the budget. Rome is burning but the pork fest goes on while the house members feast on their 'freedom fries'. Here's an idea, let's move the U.S. Capitol to Oklahoma where every few years an F-5 tornado could blow them all away so we could start over with a fresh batch! |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2003 : 20:28:45
|
Thanks for the perspective Ghost. I agree with you about the British Parliment, I love watching those guys. That kind of give and take could never happen in our own legislature. The people we send there just aren't witty enough.
It also goes back to a point that I think I made earlier. Why is Tony Blair doing what he is doing? his own party is against it. His constituency is against it. I believe it is because he knows something that we don't. Didn't he meet with GW in Crawford a few months back? Is it possible that W showed him the evidence that for reasons we don't yet know can't be shown to the general public? What else could be the answer? What does Blair have to gain politically for going against his own party? |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 06:40:49
|
Sums up what?
An article by Bill Bennett, long time Republican activist and Bush crony. What else would you expect him to say?
By the way, what took Bennett so damn long to opening his eyes to human rights violations and Iraqi torture? Has Bennett never heard of Jimmy Carter or Amnesty International? Can we expect him to demand that America move on to the liberation of all the other multitudes of nations with horrible human rights records who ritually torture their citizens?
All these articles posted about torture in Iraq at the hands of Sadaam are nothing new, and in fact had long been going on prior to the First Gulf War under Bush 41. Didn't you or Bush 41, Cheney and Powell or Bennett read what Amnesty International and others were writing about torture long prior to 12 long years ago?
Why the sudden interest in human rights now? I do remember only one President who was truly interested in human rights, and the same voices screaming for war now, castigated President Jimmy Carter and would have tortured Carter in ways which would make Sadaam's methods look like a fraternity hazing had they been given the chance.
Wonder why Bush 1, Cheney and Powell didn't deem it necessary then to overthrow Sadaam?
Why did Bush 41 turn his head to the torture which Bennett talks about now? Did he not care about human rights, but suddenly Junior does?
I think it is fair to say that a majority of people around the world now see the change of heart by The Bushes, Cheney and Powell as nothing more than Bush 43's efforts to redeem Ol' Dad 41 and a useless attempt to rewrite history.
This war has nothing to do with the liberation of Iraqis other than as subterfuge and obfuscation for what drives this Bush Administration: OIL PROFITS FOR CRONIES and BUSH FAMILY REDEMPTION.
Let's not kid ourselves: This is Bush's War, not America's War.
Watch public opinion change when the body bags start showing up on television and coming home.
Someone once said: "In order to save the village we had to destroy it."
The same holds true now.
|
Edited by - JimF on 03/19/2003 07:31:01 |
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 07:50:03
|
Indeed, just what did Shrubby share with Mr Blair? And, more importantly, why does Shrubby not trust his own countrymen with this information? The tidbits we have been fed are mighty thin gruel to be able to justify such bully boy tactics. Just what are the TRUE motives?
|
|
|
|
Ghostbuster
476 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 08:05:13
|
Oh, and one more thing...where is it written that just because we can do something, we should? Why are we becoming the social worker to the world? Where in the Constitution does it say we are the cop on the beat?
What really pi--es off the rest of the world is the way our government meddles in their internal affairs. As a storm trooper from Atlanta who came from Singapore said, "All the world detests the American government sticking it's finger up our rearends!"
Folks, that about sums it up. Just because we can do something does not mean we should. If anything, this country could stand a dose of isolationism for awhile and Shrubby & Pals sent to time out over in the corner. |
Edited by - Ghostbuster on 03/19/2003 08:11:41 |
|
|
|
claimfool
5 Posts |
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
|
|
tomgriffin56
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 09:15:52
|
Tip-toe, tip-toe, tip-toe........All clear?????? Got mighty bloody there for a while in this thread........All I can say is that in 13 years as an infantryman I concentrated on doing my job as well as I could and learned as much as I could to preserve the lives of me and my troops. At the same time I vowed to follow the commands of my chain-of-command which included the duly elected authorities. Votes, public pressure, impeachment are all tools available to the U.S. people and their representatives. All views are allowed to be expressed under our constitution and Bill of Rights. I do not approve of the manner in which certain elected officials fence-hop for political gain in a time that I believe calls for solidarity if for no other reason than to spare troops lives. If we are going to do it then do it. Incriminations and retributions for wrong decisions can wait. I saw a disturbing report on the news last night that seemed to indicate that our troops would have to ask for permission to return fire and that they may not be allowed to return fire if the fire was sporadic, not sustained. This is total BS and smacks of the same kind of political crap creeping into military matters that gets grunts killed. Just my Opinion!!!
PS--I actually agree with GB and think that a damned solid dose of Isolationism wouldn't hurt us. I don't like people getting into my business and don't believe it is my place to get into anybody else's. Let's take care of our own and let the rest of the world muddle along without our meddling. I just don't want any more of our boys killed than is absolutely necessary. |
Edited by - tomgriffin56 on 03/19/2003 09:21:10 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 09:57:14
|
The entire war for oil is the stupidest thing I ever heard. If we wanted oil from Iraq, all we would have to do is lift the sanctions and let it flow. If you believe Bush is doing this to redeem his father, you're smoking crack. Believe it or not, Bush is an honest and decent man. I know it's hard to believe, especially after the previous administration.
If Carter is so big on human rights then why is he against ousting Sadam? I explained in a previous post why we stopped short of Baghdad in the first Gulf War. The UN wanted us to stop and Bush I was told that the Iraqi army was sufficiently weakened by the war that the people could now rise up and overthrow him. That was a miscalculation. It should have also taught us that the UN does not care about what is in the best interest of the US and other people around the world. The UN only cares about living in expensive hotels and eating gourmet meals.
Tom, I was all for isolationism for a long time, but after 9/11/01 I realized that we can't just sit here and mind our own business while those who have decided to make us their enemies build bombs and plan ways to kill us. We have to be proactive in order to preserve our safety.
The 48 hours expires at 8:00 pm eastern tonight. Lets hope the Iraqi troops surrender as predicted. |
|
|
|
JimF
USA
1014 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 10:10:47
|
Yeah. Right.
And under your line of thinking, then there are hundreds of millions of us around the world who just suddenly started smoking crack cocaine.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't use drugs! |
Edited by - JimF on 03/19/2003 10:15:33 |
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 10:24:34
|
Below is a quote from an article that points out the problems of trying to establish peace through weakness.
"Hasn't anyone else noticed that former President Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize a few months ago for criticizing President Bush, actually started this whole crisis back in 1978? That was when his policy of emphasizing human rights above realpolitik, led him to withdraw America's support for the Shah of Iran, which soon led to the century's first successful Islamic fundamentalist revolution--and the grabbing of 52 American hostages. In response, it was Mr. Carter who tilted America toward Iran's enemy, Iraq, and Mr. Carter who, being shocked--shocked!--by Brezhnev's subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, began arming that country's Islamic fundamentalists. Both of those policies have now become the big nyah-nyahs war critics chant to prove that we created this monster, which maybe we did but which, anyway, is as rational as insisting that we remain enemies of Germany and Japan forever.
And yet, there stands the aging peanut farmer, grinning ear to ear, reveling in Nobel adulation--while singing lead in the antiwar chorus. What colossal irony. Since being antiwar in this case is being pro-Saddam, that makes the former president a coddler of the worst human-right violator since Hitler and Stalin. Wow. I guess, like his friend and co-laureate Yasser Arafat, Carter loves human rights but doesn't have much use for humans. "
Yeah, that Jimmy Carter, quite the humanitarian. Maybe he should stick to building houses.
If you want to read the rest of the article, here it is.
http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/378zyaut.asp |
|
|
|
claimfool
5 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 10:25:06
|
RE: ("Believe it or not, Bush is an honest and decent man. I know it's hard to believe, especially after the previous administration")
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton. Is that all you ever think about? Do you see him hiding around every corner? Does he haunt your dreams? If I was you I'd probably want to forget about him. Unlike what is happening with the current administration, he managed during his two terms peace, prosperity, balanced budgets, lower poverty and child poverty rates, 21 million new jobs, 50,000 new teachers, 100,000 new cops, the lowest crime rate in 25 years, greater worker protections, the highest home ownership rate in history, the protection of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security..... Mind you, after 8 yrs. and millions of dollars spent on a witch hunt, some people found he had a penis. Wow!--- What an evil bastard!
|
|
|
|
KileAnderson
USA
875 Posts |
Posted - 03/19/2003 : 10:34:55
|
If you think that the oil companies want this war, just wait, after the war the price of crude oil will drop. Exactly how does that help the oil companies. This entire line of reasoning is a non-starter. It simply makes no sense.
Ghost, as to your question about why W doesn't share the information he gave Blair with the public, it may just simply be too sensitive. It may give away too many of our own intelligence secrets and compromise the assets who gave us those secrets. The President does not need to make a case to the public for war. It is his job to decide, not ours. This isn't a court of law. He has the power and we must trust that he will use it wisely. If he abuses that power we won't reelect him. That's how the system works. I don't remember Truman asking the public if he should drop the bomb. I don't remember ever reading about how FDR asked the public permision to send troops to Europe. Reagan never made a case for going to Grenada before the fact. Bush I didn't make a case for going to Panama.
Why have the rules suddenly changed? It's because the anti-war people are not really anti-war, they are anti-Bush. The vast majority of this anti-war movement is 100% political and it makes me absolutely sick. If Bill Clinton were doing this, Hollywood would be lineing up to kiss his big white hiney. These people are willing to let the US remain in danger rather than let W do the right thing because they know that after the war is succesfully completed and the economy rebounds, they won't be able to win back the white house. They actually want uncertainty because if the economy is strong and the American people feel safe they will be unable to retake power. Not much different than the French. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Iraq
Forum Locked
