It has begun

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

I dont smoke weed and I dont even drink.
My feelings about saddam are verry well known, I voiced my concerns while Rumsfeld was shaking his hand calling him a great ally and friend of the US, I and others protested the gas attacks at halabya where he gassed thousands upon thousands of Iraqi kurds while the CIA was claiming Iran did that, I talked about my disgust after US ambassador to iraq Glaspie gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.

Back to you.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

Ouch! Where was that coming from? Good for you to stand your ground.

Who was it who said the sign of an intelligent mind is the ability to hold two different thoughts in one's mind at the same time? Get this straight: just because we oppose the war, and oppose Bush's policies, does NOT mean we support Saddam. The man is (was?) a ruthless tyrant. But I wasn't handing him billions of dollars, weapons, and anthrax back in the '80s.

Most people recognize the fact that everyone is looking for the same objective, but disagree on how to do it. I happen to think that an invasion of Iraq will not make us safer from terrorism, or make the world safer, or solve the problems of the Middle East, or whatever. Just the opposite. Occupying this country could prove to be disastrous.

Of course, I don't know. Nobody knows. This is a huge gamble and most folks are caught with a sense of dread, that maybe this won't work out. As I've written before, those of us who are marching around the world support our troops. We don't want them to be needlessly put in harm's way, and we don't want them to be walking targets in the middle of a post-Iraq civil war or whatever else could go wrong.

Fortunately, things have been going relatively easy for our soldiers, and we all hope they come home as soon as possible. The fact that Iraq is no real threat to anyone means this will be a fairly easy war.

Smoke weed and drink? Please.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

oh josh. your mind is like your spelling.

weed smoking, butt fucking, homosexual hippy

well done! again, I love how you toe the company line. pull that lever, lift that weight! The fact that you may find yourself in the position to actually "teach" children is most scary. There certainly seems to be some licking of dick but I think you're terribly un-informed of who is doing what.

I said it once and you gloriously drive right past the point. Saying you dissagree with bush and his tactics does not, in any way, mean you like or appreciate anything Saddam does. The fact that you can only approach your world in shades of black and white doesn't mean the rest of the world has the same impairment.

Anyway, you show your true colors with your throwback insults. You might as well just goose step right now and march the dissenters into the oven.

GE

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

How wonderful, I can really see that sarcasm just totally eludes you....
I really don't even know where to start here...we have these people spouting all this crap about the government, making cart-blanch statements, but don't do much of anything to back them up...and then throw insults at other people. We have all these people who say that they oppose war with Saddam.
Well, to those that oppose the war, what do you propose we do with him? Hmm?

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

Joshua , old friend
how abt
we send u to fight him? ^0^

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

I second that.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

re: sarcasm. It must Josh, cause I fail to see the satire in your statements.

for the most part, that anti-war crowd is pretty much in control. We espouse our beliefs and are call cowards, or complicit terrorists. This is not unlike other war protests in the past in that regard.

we have these people spouting all this crap about the government, making cart-blanch statements, but don't do much of anything to back them up

I don't know what "crap" you're refering to so I won't address it

<font color="white"> carte-blanche </font>: this means, "freedom to choose whatever option you want" soooo in the context you place it in it is relatively meaningless. Unless you mean that the people of a country shouldn't have the power to voice an opinion. In which case I point you the the re-awakening of the "seditious publication act" that is undergoing several changes right now, including making speech part of it; that's correct! Right here in the west, it may be illegal to say things that are contrary to the government's stated position. pretty deomocratic. I'll bet those 7,200 black folks in Florida who were culled from the voter polls even though they had never comitted an indentifable crime would be shocked to hear that democracy is waning in the US.

And why, unless you toady to the power would you choose to "back up" a government that you dissagree with? Wow! I think your decisions are totally bankrupt and your lies to try and sway me are unconvinving but I SUPPORT YOU. Pretty effective mechanism of change.

I'm going to leave your last question for now. Not because I can't speak to it but because your mind is so in the trenches it wouldn't matter. I don't feel the need to get involved in a completely circular argument. I might question why (aside from the human rights atrocities that exist in other countries without access to oil) you think we need to do what we are doing currently.

GE

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

You know, some people actually BLAME the loss in Vietnam on war protestors. Sad, really.

And you know, if we actually HELPED the people in Iraq live a decent life by not imposing sanctions that starve them and deny them decent medicine, they might find the will and strength to resist Saddam's oppression themselves. But when you deny them that sort of hope, what more can they do but cling to what precious little they have?

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

While I agree partly on sanctions, its also well known that Saddam general intercepts any humanitarian packages and distributes them to himself and his close family/friends.
GE: carte-blanche - means all encompassing power. An example would be the type of power that bush was looking for the make war - all encompassing.
Again, you take an easy road out to answering my question by making excuses.
The crap I am referring to is that this war is totally motivated by oil and american dreams of colonialism. I really don't buy that at all...maybe you can use that as a basis to give me a real response.
For the record, I generally oppose the war, I believe that negotiations and peacefull means should of been given more time, however I do beleive that Saddam is a problem that needed to be delt with...the threat of military force had to be there behind any peacefull attempts in order to motivate Saddam, and we have to have the resolve to carry out military actions should inspections fail.
What I don't like is people who are protesting b/c that is the current pc thing to do, because they simply do not like bush (hell, I hate bush, but I don't let blind hatred cloud my thinking), etc etc.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

[ QUOTE ]
Shadowdean said:

While I agree partly on sanctions, its also well known that Saddam general intercepts any humanitarian packages and distributes them to himself and his close family/friends.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the UN used to take care of that till the war started so thats a verry popular misconception.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

dude, if you think I'm being evasive its because I refuse to come up with points for you. You want to debate then come up with more than vague assertions of "crap"! yeesh. I'll lift up my corner of the argument but not my opponents.

For the record. your definition of Carte-blanche and my own are roughly the same and it still makes little sense in the way you used it. Your comma use indicates something that you may not want it to but that's not my concern. If you can't express yourself properly then...

Saddam as threat: yes, this is quite obvious given the ease in which the US ripped towards Baghdad, the fact that all airbornes used by Saddam’s regime were range impaired and of no threat to the US. Hey, what about the fact that their anti-aircraft weapons erupted in complete and almost random fashion in the first salvo of "shock and awe"?

You can tell the threats are borne out by the rampant use of chemical and WMD. Saddam just unleashed those as soon as the threat of US invasion was imminent, didn’t he? But, of course, he probably isn't using those simply as a ploy to embarrass the US. He has them he just won't use them as a means to invalidate US concerns.

Powell lied and was proven to lie about the evidence surrounding Iraq. After each assertion was denied or found to have little truth/justification behind them the reasons for going into Iraq continually changed. The propaganda and media complicity in reporting that propaganda (typically called a 'consensus of reporting') led people to remove their minds from the un-winnable "war on Terrorism" and focus--suddenly--on the massive threat to national security from Iraq.

(a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll showed that nearly half of Americans said they believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. A Knight Ridder poll taken in early January showed that half said they believed at least some of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11 were Iraqis. None were)

documents showing that the Bush regime had drawn up plans prior to coming into power surface and are ignored, subverted or dismissed because the regardless of what it might mean the war on Iraq is so obviously necessary. My question is why Iraq, why now?

If criminal offences against ones people are a proper reason then why did the US help prop up Pinochet and use their last gasp at state sponsored assassination to remove Allende? Why is North Korea allowed to operate under the soft pillow of diplomacy?

If the possession of WMD is the reason then, again, why is North Korea exempt when we know for a fact (they told us) that they have these weapons and the will to use them and we only have a suspicion that Iraq possesses them ("That evidence was dismissed as a forgery early this month by United Nations officials investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Bush administration does not dispute this conclusion").

If complicity in "sponsoring terror" is the reason then why isn't the US themselves held accountable for delivering the goods to Iraq in the 80's. Why isn't the US the enemy?

Is it not a problem that the Haliburton Group is awarded the task of Clean up and repair in Iraq? Is it not a problem that the Carlyle Group stands to gain millions of dollars from this attack?

If a lack of democracy is the issue why isn’t there allowed to be voiced concerns and demonstrations when that notion is continually thwarted in the US (we’ll ask for permission just to say we tried and go ahead anyway; We’ll hold a vote unless its obvious we won’t win; Multi-lateral approach? Uni-lateral all the way!)

Protesting Bush and this attack isn't PC it’s just a sign of too many questions, a repugnant foreign policy that has been allowed to run unchecked and too many profit dollars for certain individuals and their companies.

No one needs to support what they don't like. Everyone has the right to question what hasn't been properly explained or explained with such obvious faults; no country should be allowed to decide that they should be allowed to follow democracy only when it agrees with their terms. Not even the US.

GE

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

Great points made here.

Watching the events of the last day, it seems like the cakewalk is over. Our soliers are in some real battles now. Add in the very mixed responses by Iraqi civilians (some are happy, some are skeptical, some are almost hostile), the rising humanitarian crisis, American POWs, rising casualties, and the incident with a disgruntled Marine, and Iraq is looking less and less rosy.

The longer this goes on, the worse the consequences will be. Watching, you can almost see how Vietnam became such a deadly quagmire.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

Verry eloqountly put GE.

From this weeks Newsweek international edition:The US wants democracy in the middle east, well they got it in Turkey(about the Turkish parliaments decision not to allow US troops stage a northern front from Turkish soil despite heavy US pressure and 30billion dollar in aid)

Also in the same edition an article about how US and to a lesser degree K oil companies are already vying for long term Iraqi oil contracts.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

What? Um...referance please...sorry, don't buy it.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

N. Korea and Iraq are two different beasts. We know that Iraq does not posses nuclear weapons. N. Korea does...the United States is not going to risk a neighbor getting nuked (we also will not stage against a foe that can inflict serious casualties). [ QUOTE ]
Saddam as threat: yes, this is quite obvious given the ease in which the US ripped towards Baghdad, the fact that all airbornes used by Saddam’s regime were range impaired and of no threat to the US. Hey, what about the fact that their anti-aircraft weapons erupted in complete and almost random fashion in the first salvo of "shock and awe"?


[/ QUOTE ]
Not a threat to the U.S, but definatly to any immediate neighbor. Face it, when it comes down to it, only countries which posses nuclear weapons and the delivery systmes needed to hit our shores are a real threat. No military can fuck with us. Period. Not the Russians, Not england, Not France (snicker). Hell, China could, but they do not have the capabilities to deliver their arms the way we do. Iraq, however, can threaten its neighbors in a stand up fight - as obvious in the Iran-Iraq war.

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

take your retarded head out of the sand and take a look around. just type "iraq halliburton oil contracts" into google and read away.

 

Bling Bling for U.S. defense budget

The United States cannot afford to go without the UN, they dont have the means financially. Without multilateralism, the defense and security budget ( which is actually at the present time 3.5% of the GDP, absolutely acceptable levels ) will soar beyond its estimated point of 8-9% in 4 to 5 years. The projected number takes into account the recent investment into International Aid and financial backing from the US towards the countries it has "encouraged" to support their actions, the internal "homeland security" expenses and developments aswell as the expansion of surveillance and threat response in foreign soil of US interest ( i.e. post-war Irak, Afghanistan, etc. ). These numbers have been crunched and veryfied by most international bank committees, the IMF and even Newt Gingrich. This necessary growth of the defense budget is pretty much guaranteed, but what is not is the possibility of an even higher percentage due to lack of multilateralism. The less countries share the cost for security, the less the states can stand on its 2 feet. The USA simply do not have the monetary means to support a global security net to ensure their way of life. The less countries agree with the States ( especially the richer ones. i.e. Germany, China, France, Japan, etc. Aswell as the tremendous cost of buying allies and not getting any return other than symbolic or governmental i.e. Blair, Aznar & Berlusconi wont be seeying office again after their terms are over as they are going against 80% of their respective national voices. ), the more the States must pay to ensure their security interests. Im not sure W. Bush will necessarily be seeying the oval office again after his term. What I am sure of is that the next or following administration will be dealing with the reality of a defense budget at 8% of the GDP ( which is ludicrous, especially since this is calculated in terms of "peace time" ). Foreign policy will dictate how many more "percents" over that number 8 will be added.

France, Germany, China, Russia are all paying economically already for their political standpoints but eventually the biggest bill will be given to the United States to pay. Kinda like a credit card given to a university student....

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

to make it easier you could start here and then move on with a larger search. Top article entitled "No doubt about it, war's about oil".

GE

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

BTW, anybody got any numbers crunched on how much bling bling the States will gain from the exlcusivety contracts for oil extraction and refinement and reconstruction in post-war Irak ?? It'd be interesting to compare the cost and estimated cost vs. the gains. Im sure the Bush admnistration has a tentative figure...

 

Re: Get off the bandwagon...

oof. you are the bullshit bandwagon personified.

>> No military can fuck with us. Period.

you mean, not even the vietnamese? after nine years and three million dead? or even just a bunch of ragtag clans in somalia? gee...

>> as obvious in the Iran-Iraq war.

you mean the one where we supported iraq with financial aid, materials and even with our own covert and overt attacks on iran?

btw, here's some "referance" on that point -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm

aww fuckit, why should i do the work for you? look it up yourself.

this is such a classic image - bad copy, but it'll do...



(yes, that's rumsfeld on the left)