Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

inevitable war, eh?
Posted: Tue Jun 21 14:09:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.downingstreetmemo.com


 
addi Posted: Tue Jun 21 14:45:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

Just one more confirmation of what we already knew about Bush and this war.
Sadly, it's all water under the bridge now and we have to figure out the best way to deal with the present chaos for all countries involved.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jun 21 15:58:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  load of crap



 
Posted: Tue Jun 21 16:15:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  seems fairly backed up. Even the uberconservative powerline blog has vouched for it's authenticity.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jun 21 16:41:33 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Absolutely :

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010382.php#010382


 
casper Posted: Tue Jun 21 16:42:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i'm not saying it's not real but i find it a little hard to believe that a "secret noforn" document is allowed to be posted all over the internet


 
Asswipe Posted: Tue Jun 21 16:45:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>load of crap
>

i agree with hif. Compared to the language and documentation process one would expect to find in such a document, the actual "memo" seems like it was written for a 5th grade textbook with it's summarizations. Basically, the entire article was written in a manner of heresay, where one person recounts all of this as happenings. He didn't even cite/quote anyone. They even mispelled "summarised" for fuck's sake.

On that note: I don't want anyone to love me, just give me love whenever i'm horny, cause all I want is instant pleasure, instant pleasure, instant pleasure.


 
Posted: Tue Jun 21 16:52:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>i'm not saying it's not real but i find it a little hard to believe that a "secret noforn" document is allowed to be posted all over the internet

Anything is allowed to be posted all over the internet. That's the idea.


 
Posted: Tue Jun 21 16:53:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:

>On that note: I don't want anyone to love me, just give me love whenever i'm horny, cause all I want is instant pleasure, instant pleasure, instant pleasure.

gogo (slightly misquoted) Rufus Wainwright!


 
Posted: Tue Jun 21 16:55:40 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  as for authenticity: "Two senior British government officials today acknowledged as authentic a series of 2002 pre-Iraq war memosstating that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen" and that there was "no recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to international terrorism—private conclusions that contradicted two key pillars of the Bush administration's public case for the invasion in March 2003."

from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8234762/site/newsweek/




 
casper Posted: Tue Jun 21 16:56:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>casper said:
>>i'm not saying it's not real but i find it a little hard to believe that a "secret noforn" document is allowed to be posted all over the internet
>
>Anything is allowed to be posted all over the internet. That's the idea.

secret documents are secret for a reason. Do you know what it takes to get a secret clearance? And you think they should just let anybody read them because the internet should be an exchange of information? please. and it even specifically says secret no foreign (uk nationals only) and here we are spread all across the world talking about it? if it is a real document then i'm more upset over somebody giving out this information to the press than i am about what it actually contains.


 
Posted: Tue Jun 21 17:02:41 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you know what I'm the most pissed about? the ratio of Michael Jackson news to Downing Street Memo news.

I'd say, somewhere in the neighborhood of 150:1.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jun 21 17:08:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>you know what I'm the most pissed about? the ratio of Michael Jackson news to Downing Street Memo news.
>
>I'd say, somewhere in the neighborhood of 150:1.

If Michael Jackson isn't the most significant news story so far this century, then I dont know what is! Come on Crim, clearly all media attention should be focused on celebrities, so that the public can stay up to date on what really matters, like how thin Lindsay Lohan is now and What shoes Paris Hilton wore yesterday. I mean, its not like theres anything else going on in the world the population needs to know about.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jun 21 17:16:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Let's join reality here folks.

The document is real

It's ridiculous to even have to say this, but if it wasn't Bush's team of expert spin doctors would have jumped all over this baby the second it hit the news. They didn't. They haven't. No one from the British government or from here has come out and stated that they're phoney.
Why?
Because they know they are...so the best tactic is to ignore them as much as possible and sidestep direct questions regarding the implications from them...
...namely and clearly that this administration was planning on going to war with Saddam all along, and damn any intelligence that surfaced to take them off that goal.

It needs repeating once more i guess..

You people can see at a dog and look right at the world without flinching and shout, "It's a cat!"

When you wholeheartedly believe a lie it becomes the truth.

Back up your words fellows. I'm calling you out. Post some convincing proof that the Downing Street memos are fake.
Put my eleitist liberal ass in it's place.

: )


 
addi Posted: Tue Jun 21 17:38:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Veracity of the memo:
One of the first articles on the memo to appear in the U.S. media quoted "a former senior U.S. official", who, speaking on condition of anonymity, called the memo's account "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired" during the senior British intelligence officer's visit to Washington.[19] (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/11574296.htm) UK Prime Minister Tony Blair denied that anything in the memo demonstrated misconduct and said that it added little to what was already known about how British policy on Iraq developed.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, when questioned about the document's accuracy, did not confirm or deny its accuracy.
US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, when questioned about the document's accuracy, did not confirm or deny its accuracy.
George W. Bush has not responded to questions from Congress regarding the memo's accuracy.
The British Embassy in Washington did not respond to requests for comment.
A White House official said the administration wouldn't comment on leaked British documents.
The reporter, Michael Smith, who first reported this story has admitted the memo is a copy, typed by one of his secretaries on a manual typewriter. He returned the originals to his confidential source.

On June 7, 2005, at a joint George W. Bush-Tony Blair press briefing in the White House, Reuters correspondent Steve Holland asked, "On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?" President Bush did not address the issue of the intelligence and facts being "fixed" around a decision to go to war, but he did deny that he had, at the time of the memo, already decided to use military force against Saddam Hussein, saying "There's nothing farther from the truth." Bush also questioned the motives of whoever leaked the memo during the British election, saying "Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of his race. ... I'm not sure who 'they dropped it out' is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there."

_________________________________

No one in authority says they are fake. They do their little political dance around it, and try to move on...hoping that the world and the American public is still too apathetic and stupid to give a fuck.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jun 21 17:54:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>American public is still too apathetic and stupid to give a fuck.


Girl-Like, Oh My God, did you hear Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are getting married?!?!?!?! kekekekekekeke

Guy #1-OH YEAH!!!!!!! I saw that on the news! They did a whole one hour special on it, right after their interview with the runaway bride and right before their report on which reality TV shows are coming on this season! kekekekekekeke


Guy #2- What do you guys think about Boltons nomination for representing the USA in the UN?

Guy #1- *blank stare*

Girl- Michael Bolton? Did he stop making music or something?.........whats the UN?


Guy #2- Oh wow......




 
Posted: Tue Jun 21 18:36:11 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:

>kekekekekekeke

ZERGLING RUSHHHHHH


*hopefully somebody gets what i'm talking about.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jun 21 18:39:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>as for authenticity: "Two senior British government officials today acknowledged as authentic a series of 2002 pre-Iraq war memosstating that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen" and that there was "no recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to international terrorism—private conclusions that contradicted two key pillars of the Bush administration's public case for the invasion in March 2003."
>
>from http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8234762/site/newsweek/
>
No ties to international terrorism ?
When he publicly offered 25 grand to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers?
He supported Zarqawi for how many years ?
Duh . . .


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jun 21 18:41:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  There is nothing new in that memo, and certainly nothing incriminating.
If there were Howard Dean would have ejaculated all over it by now.
Doesn't matter whether it's authentic or not, but I will say this, as someone who has held a top secret special intelligence clearance at one time in my life, if this memo is real, then someone is going to do some prison time for leaking it.



 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jun 21 19:04:00 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>
>*hopefully somebody gets what i'm talking about.


I must inform you right from the start that if you’re a fan of tank / zerling rush, or have little patience for games, Nexus is not for you.


 
Mesh Posted: Tue Jun 21 19:08:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh and http://kekekeke.ytmnd.com/


 
kurohyou Posted: Tue Jun 21 19:28:13 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The only thing strking about the memo to me was how it was written, given that you can argue whether it is legit or not until the cows come home. It seems to have a strong editorial flair to it, more so than most meeting minitutes I'm use to reading. Now this may just be the way that the person taking the minitutes writes. I know my field service reports are novellas at times with tons of useless conjecture in them.

Whether or not it is real is pretty irrevelant in my eyes because it seems as though we are fixating on what happened in the past as opposed to how its going to get fixed. Okay Bush lied, okay he didn't, does it matter when he lied or how he lied or if he lied? The reality in the here and now is that we need to find a way out of Iraq. Whether we had an exit stragety or not is irrevelant because the fact is now we need one. Instead of looking at this from a perspective of "oh so and so lied then and oh! here's the memo to prove it." I think we need to take the Apollo 13 approach. Lock these fuckers in a room and tell them to fix it. Sure there are logistical issues and yes we are talking diplomacy, or the lack of it and not how to get a hunk of metal with 4 guys on it out of space, but the idea is the same. Fix the problem. Stop the bleeding, and then figure out what happened. But what do I know?

I don't like the idea that war, be it this one or any other one is inevitable? War can be avoided, but all to often its not. We spend far too much time planning for it, preparing for it and basing our civilizations around it. Donald Sutherland's Character in JFK said it best. "The organizing principle behind any nation is for war..." Sometimes that seems all to true for my liking.

I guess where I sit is I would rather hear someone come forward and start offering solutions to this problem, even if they are dumb, so at least we can start in that direction. I don't care if they are liberal or conservative, I don't care if they are democrat or republican, someone who steps forward and say, "know what, we fucked up, lets try this." Instead of twisting and skewing every memo, document, blog or what-have-you to say what has become obvious to everyone.

For what it's worth...


 
FN Posted: Tue Jun 21 20:00:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>ZERGLING RUSHHHHHH
>
>
>*hopefully somebody gets what i'm talking about.

I do. And now I don't like you anymore.



That Bush quote is priceless addi haha


 
FN Posted: Tue Jun 21 20:01:58 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>Nexus is not for you.

I finished it on hard. Now how's that for tactics.


 
FN Posted: Tue Jun 21 20:03:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>When he publicly offered 25 grand to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers?

I never heard anything about that when you or anybody summed up the reasons to go to war, hif.

>He supported Zarqawi for how many years ?

I dunnow. For how many?


 
FN Posted: Tue Jun 21 20:53:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>Whether or not it is real is pretty irrevelant in my eyes because it seems as though we are fixating on what happened in the past as opposed to how its going to get fixed.

This is an arguement that a lot of people use in just about any situation imaginable, and anybody who does deserves to be hit on the head with a blunt object. I have physicly harmed people for saying this. The naivity and plain moronic logic behind it putrifies the foundation of ethics and principles.

If you fuck up, then you need to get punished, plain and simple.

If you hit a wall with your car you pay for the wall.
If you smash a window, you pay for the window.
If you steal something you go to jail.
If you attack somebody you go to jail.
If you murder somebody you go to jail.

If you go to war for the wrong or unjustified starting reasons, then this as well is murder. Mass murder even.

If anything is a war crime or a crime against humanity, starting a war with what could be called "dodgy" evidence at best (even if it only becomes clear at a later time), going to war like that must be it.

What's the difference between Hitler "waging war against "the jews"" and "waging war against "terrorists" (=arabs)".

Oh yeah, it's not just against Arabs, right.

And I'm not saying that war shouldn't be waged against arabs (sic) but tell me how many non-arabic countries actually have a chance of getting attacked. Public opinion doesn't care because everybody is a racist somewhere deep inside, and I don't judge anybody because of that, but then at least have the balls to admit it.

If the same number of americans would be locked up based on suspicion I have a dark brown feeling that opinions would vary a bit more, but now it's all happening in some far off country.

If you have any insight in sociology at all (= basic common sense for the most part) you know that the way to profilate yourself as a leader and get the masses going is to create a common and alien enemy.

Hitler did it, America has done it before, the Soviets did it, the church did it, everybody has done it.

And it's happening again and people are too dumb to see it, and some do see it but play along to be part of the crowd.

You said before (hif) that if I'd be an American I'd probably vote Republican, and being on the center-far right of the political spectrum, I probably would, but the difference between you (not talking to hif alone anymore) and me is that I don't shut all the other factors out.

If you're going to have the turkey talk about how wonderful christmas is, chances are you'll get a somewhat different story.

I have my political allegiance to my more favoured party in my country too, but that doesn't mean that I just nod at everything that gets said, or have the urge to dismiss everything the other parties say.

I can understand that that is what a system with 2 parties causes though, but that doesn't justify it.

That's not the way the world works. Nothing is black or white, everything is some shade of grey. It's one of the oldest clichés out there, but there's a reason for it being a cliché; it applies to everything.

If "what's done is done" and "it happened but we have to move on for here and not dwell on the past", then why are you going to war in the first place. Why still have a judicidal system if you're not planning on punishing anybody anyway, since you only want to "go from here".

2 wrongs do not make a right, no matter what anybody tries to make it look like.

If that truly is the logic you want to apply, then so be it, but the consequences of that train of thought are that Hitler, Saddam and Bin Laden (to name a few), shouldn't be punished for their offences.

Just like Bush according to you guys doesn't have anything to be blamed about, according to the logic you're using.

The thing is that intentionally or not, the war was based on the wrong reasons, and even if it wasn't intentional, somebody fucked up, so somebody should pay. I don't think that's too difficult to grasp.

>Okay Bush lied, okay he didn't, does it matter when he lied or how he lied or if he lied?

See above.

The same people who are saying Bush hasn't done anything wrong were the ones who wanted to get Clinton impeached for a blowjob.

I'm not saying if that was justified or not, but both dodged questions and both turned out to have made mistakes.

The thing is, how do you consider getting a blowjob and being under the impression that everybody should stay out of your personal affairs, or the fact that you go to war and at some point hit the fact that the basic reasons weren't there, compare to eachother.

Hence the little reflection.

>Lock these fuckers in a room and tell them to fix it.

If you go to get a penis enlargement and you come out with a vagina, I wonder if you'd have the same doctor preforming reconstructive surgery. Tell me, what's the difference.

>War can be avoided, but all to often its not. We spend far too much time planning for it, preparing for it and basing our civilizations around it.

Contrary to what some people might expect from me, I do not believe in war either. It's contra-productive in the long run, countries are still having some kind of animosity towards eachother because of wars that took place centuries ago. The collective memory does not die when it comes to stuff like this, and it by itself will facilitate the next war, fueled on the frustrations of a nation or a people, blinded by their misplaced patriotism, pride, or whatever they think that somebody somewhere might have damaged.

Hitler had World War I, Bush has 9/11.

I'm comparing Hitler and Bush a lot, but for the record, I'm not saying they're equal, and I'm not saying one was worse than the other, make up your own mind about it, I'm using them next to eachother, not compared to eachother, as a lot of the story overlaps in one way or another, just like with every other war.

>Donald Sutherland's Character in JFK said it best. "The organizing principle behind any nation is for war..." Sometimes that seems all to true for my liking.

So what do you do, you vote for the party that aims for just that?

I'm not saying you shouldn't, or that the party is wrong about it, but you're just contradicting yourself, and you probably won't even admit it.

>I don't care if they are democrat or republican

That's what the problem is when you only have 2 valable parties and why I think the system is flawed.

You always have 1 in power, having to justify *everything* it says or does not to lose power, and 1 opposition, having to destroy *everything* the other one says or does in order to gain power.

That leads to extremes, half truths and "not telling lies, just leaving out some parts of the facts", a lack of nuances, and "political nationalism/patriotism" if you catch my drift, and you see how it is tearing America in half, as the country has not only found a common enemy in "the terrorists", but in itself as well.

That's the pathetic irony of it all, and it's sad and amusing at the same time.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jun 21 21:07:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You don't have a clue how the two party system works.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jun 21 21:47:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:

>Whether or not it is real is pretty irrevelant in my eyes because it seems as though we are fixating on what happened in the past as opposed to how its going to get fixed. Okay Bush lied, okay he didn't, does it matter when he lied or how he lied or if he lied?

I have to part ways with you this time, my good buddy.
To me it has a hell of a lot of relevance. If we went to war under false pretences (told something was a fact when those in power knew it wasn't) then you have to take into account:
1. The President (and others) lied to us. Not about getting a blow job in the oval office, but about something with far more serious consequences.

2. Over 1,700 U.S. soldiers lives and been lost, and it's growing daily. Tell one of those mothers of a fallen soldier why we went to war is irrelevant.

3. Instead of money going to needed domestic problems we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the war effort, with no end in site. Our deficit is spiraling out of control and the economy is faltering.

You're right that we need to focus on a solution now (see my first post), but every action has it's consequences, and that applies to you and me as well as the President of the United States. Bush, or any President, shouldn't be exempt from having to account for the decisions he makes, especially when human lives are at stake.

peace


 
kurohyou Posted: Tue Jun 21 23:52:29 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>This is an arguement that a lot of people use in just about any situation imaginable, and anybody who does deserves to be hit on the head with a blunt object. I have physicly harmed people for saying this. The naivity and plain moronic logic behind it putrifies the foundation of ethics and principles.
>
>If you fuck up, then you need to get punished, plain and simple.
>
>If you hit a wall with your car you pay for the wall.
>If you smash a window, you pay for the window.
>If you steal something you go to jail.
>If you attack somebody you go to jail.
>If you murder somebody you go to jail.
>If you go to war for the wrong or unjustified starting reasons, then this as well is murder. Mass murder even.

I don't believe at any point did I mention anything about whether or not punishment was warranted for this situation. For me this is not a matter of punishment in the here and now. You are correct, choices have consequences, and as Addi high lights in his post above, the choices made to go to war have had some tremendous consequences. But when is the time to discuss punishment? Is now the time to discuss punishment? Is sitting here in the states where things are safe and debating the validity of a memo from the UK from sometime two years ago going to do anything in the here and now to get our troops home and out of harms way? Is it going to do anything to stablize the mess that we have made over there for those people? I just can't see how it will help.

Call the rationale moronic and bludgen me to death if you'd like, but the fact is there is a continium of importance in any situation. I'm sure I've used this example before, but if you bring a gunshot victim into the ER, you are going to treat the Gunshot before you treat a heart murmur or a broken leg. If the major concern is the number of American soliders who are being killed, and that a continued American presence there is only going to worsen matters, then the gaping wound in this victim would seem to be how to get the troops out of there and get stability back. Debating whether a memo from two years ago is valid I don't see as helping that endeavour.

History will tell the tale ultimatly on what happened and the truth will get out. Consequences will be felt and justice can be sought. While stringing Bush and his entrouge up right here and now would appeal to some, I fail to see how that will help. This country had a chance to get new leadership into place back in November, and the majority who voted choose to leave those who are in power now, in power.


>Just like Bush according to you guys doesn't have anything to be blamed about, according to the logic you're using.

I don't believe for one mintute that Bush is exempt from any form of responsibility for what is happening. He carries the majority of the responsibility for the course that we are on. I don't think I said at any point he was exempt. But is that where our focus should be right now?

>The thing is that intentionally or not, the war was based on the wrong reasons, and even if it wasn't intentional, somebody fucked up, so somebody should pay. I don't think that's too difficult to grasp.

And what does someone "paying" for this look like? Should we drag Bush, Condi and the rest of them out on the lawn of the white house and have a public flogging? Should we engage in this debate over who lied and when while young men and women are continuing to die for a war no one really wants to be fighting?

>If you go to get a penis enlargement and you come out with a vagina, I wonder if you'd have the same doctor preforming reconstructive surgery. Tell me, what's the difference.

I'm afraid I don't understand your analogy. When I referred to "these fuckers" I was referring to our government. Whomever has the control, and whoever would be needed to solve this problem. I don't know who it would be, but I'm sure those who are responsible would be amongst those who should help solve the problem.

>I'm not saying you shouldn't, or that the party is wrong about it, but you're just contradicting yourself, and you probably won't even admit it.

How did I contradict myself? Perhaps something was lost in the translation of my statment following the quote by Donald Sutherland, but I don't like the fact that nations organize for war. I don't like war. I think that it can be avoided if those in power work hard to prevent it. The country I live in and many others in this world seem to organize for war. That is not to my liking.

In talking to my wife just now I had a thought. Things like this memo, and any other debate about the pretenses, reasons and actions taken prior to this war could very well be used by the Bush administration as a diversion for the American people. What better way to get the focus off of the present, and what needs to be done, than get everyone's dander up about the past. It would seem that this current administration is having a difficult time enacting an exit stragety of any type, whether it was thought about or not. If public attention was focused on that then they would be under the gun. If you want out from under the gun, distract the person holding it, in this case the american public. Could be off base but just popped into my head.

For what it's worth...


 
Silentmind Posted: Tue Jun 21 23:59:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You make a mess, you clean it up. You don't make a bigger mess. Bush has made a bigger mess. He said fuck you UN, I showed you a truck that was a "bio-terror lab, but whoops, it was actually just a regular old truck moving the nice Iraqi family to their new neighborhood. My mistake. Now, he comes back and wants aid money, and assistance from the UN. Which the UN should give, as it would help the people. But rightfully, why should they clean up Bush's mess? Because it is their job to help people ravaged by war. No matter the war was created by Bush, it was created, and the mess has to be cleaned up.

Their is this whole democratization of the middle east, which America is attempting to do by force. For years and years, all these people have known is dictatorship. It afforded them stability, more than democracy does. Even democracy turns into dictatorship during times of war. You need to make a slow transition, not forcefully rip their dictator from the country and go "Here is democracy, have a nice day, hope it all works out." It doesn't work that way, and America isn't seeing that. Because what'll happen, in a few years, new elections, America is gone, and a dictator will be back, because they need stability. Stability America destroyed.


 
kurohyou Posted: Wed Jun 22 00:19:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>To me it has a hell of a lot of relevance. If we went to war under false pretences (told something was a fact when those in power knew it wasn't) then you have to take into account:
>1. The President (and others) lied to us. Not about getting a blow job in the oval office, but about something with far more serious consequences.
>
>2. Over 1,700 U.S. soldiers lives and been lost, and it's growing daily. Tell one of those mothers of a fallen soldier why we went to war is irrelevant.
>
>3. Instead of money going to needed domestic problems we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the war effort, with no end in site. Our deficit is spiraling out of control and the economy is faltering.

Perhaps some clarification is needed. I'm not suggesting that the reasons we went to war are completly irrevelant overall. I don't beieve them to be revelant in the here and now. We know how we got here, we started a war. For me it's simple. The reasons, motives or devices used to get us there, don't change the fact that we are in one and that we need to get out of it. All the examples you cited are strong examples of the gravity of the problem that we have found ourselves in, and they scream that resolution is needed soner rather than later.

What do you think the outcome would be if the combined focus of this entire nation was on how we are getting out of iraq? How we are going to end this conflict and stablize the mess we have made? What do you think would happen if 1 million americans marched on washington demanding that something be done now?

Would focusing on a solution, which could save 1700 or more soliders, jusify sweeping the reasons for this war under the rug for the time being? Or do we owe it to those who have already lost their lives to get to the bottom of why they died? And if so, is this the time and the place for that debate? Would contiuing that debate for those who are lost, justify the loss of who knows how many others, on both sides of this conflict? Depending on what side of that coin you are on, your answer will undoubtedly be different.

I'm afraid I have far more questions than answers for this. What I do know is that despite the president's assertions that we will win this war, he's wrong. Even if you could define this war, it wouldn't change the fact that the end result is not victory, its a loss of humanity for all parties involved.

>You're right that we need to focus on a solution now (see my first post), but every action has it's consequences, and that applies to you and me as well as the President of the United States. Bush, or any President, shouldn't be exempt from having to account for the decisions he makes, especially when human lives are at stake.

I think we are all in agreement that this needs to be ended swiftly, it would just seem that we are at odds on the methods of getting that done. And perhaps young Chris is right, and I do hold a niave look at this situation. Perhaps I look at this from a much rosier perspective than I should. I know from personal experience that holding onto the past transgressions when your present is in turmoil will not do anything to advance your position. I'm not suggesting that we forget the past, nor am I suggesting ths consequences don't need to be levied against those responsible, whoever and whatever they may be. I just feel that the focus is too quickly diverted from what I consider to be the big issue. That works to the advantage of those with something to hide, and works against those who want to see this conflict end.

For what it's worth...


 
kurohyou Posted: Wed Jun 22 00:22:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>You're right that we need to focus on a solution now (see my first post)...

Sorry, blew right past your first one and missed it. I should have said ditto and let it be done at that...oh well...

My apolgies...

For what it's worth...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 22 07:00:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I guess no one who call himself a liberal thinks that UN resolution 1551 had any meaning whatsoever.

I also suppose that if Bush knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq that the rest of the world must have known as well, so the entire world was in on the conspiracy.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 22 07:07:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>When he publicly offered 25 grand to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers?
>
>I never heard anything about that when you or anybody summed up the reasons to go to war, hif.
>
Really ?
I've posted it many times, you just choose not to read what you cannot rebutt.
I've even posted the fact that WMD's were not the main reasons for going to war in Iraq, and you ignored that as well, pretty much like all leftists have done.
Here, I will post it one more time:

The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq that President Bush did seek and obtain in October 2002 has a total of 23 clauses. These 23 clauses spell out the rationale for the war. Out of all 23 clauses, only two even mention stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. What the clauses do stress - twelve of them, are U.N. resolutions that Saddam ignored or defied.



 
addi Posted: Wed Jun 22 07:37:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:

>Sorry, blew right past your first one and missed it. I should have said ditto and let it be done at that...oh well...

: )

I feel like the Downing street memos, and all the other evidence that has surfaced since we invaded Iraq that calls into question this administrations truthfullness regarding going to war, can't be sweep under the rug and forgotten under the rational that.."oh well...we're there now so there's no reason to dwell on the past."
I view it as imperative that there is accountability for the actions of our politicians, for the sake of our country's future.
It's not an either/or situation to me; focusing all our attention on what lead to this war, or focusing all our attention on how to deal with the current mess in Iraq. We are capable of multi-tasking here. You're emergency room analogy was correct in that our primary focus needs to be on the critical situation our troops face every day there. However I still feel some effort needs to be expended on letting Bush and company know that lies and deception of this magnitude will not be shugged away and forgotten, that they will ultimately have to directly answer questions of their truthfullness to the American public and the world in the months leading up to the invasion.

I have less faith in the average American citizen than I do about god's existence, but slowly the message is getting through to our thick skulls that something is rotten in DC. Every major poll taken now is showing that our patience with this administration is lessening. Bush's popularity numbers are at an all time low, and continue to sink as the months go by and the death toll mounts. Now the majority of Americans polled think the Iraq war was a bad idea (Well D'uh!). Our domestic problems are growing like a malignant tumor and people are slowly beginning to take off their Texas Rose colored glasses and smell the growing stench all around them.

rant over



 
FN Posted: Wed Jun 22 08:20:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>Is now the time to discuss punishment

It should have happened already.

>Call the rationale moronic and bludgen me to death if you'd like

That was a little out of place, for that I apologize.

>I'm sure I've used this example before, but if you bring a gunshot victim into the ER, you are going to treat the Gunshot before you treat a heart murmur or a broken leg.

Ah see, but that's the thing exactly; are you going to have it treated by the hillbilly who shot you or by a guy who knows what he's doing? Because chances are the hillbilly will go for the broken leg.

>and the majority who voted choose to leave those who are in power now, in power.

Democracy has its flaws.


>But is that where our focus should be right now?

Yes (see below)

>And what does someone "paying" for this look like? Should we drag Bush, Condi and the rest of them out on the lawn of the white house and have a public flogging?

No, but I've seen political heads roll for much, much less than this, and it's only normal.

In most other countries, a minister or a prime minister who fucks up has to resign, plain and simple. You only get one shot when it comes to stuff affecting entire nations. I really can't figure out how this is so hard for you to grasp.

>>If you go to get a penis enlargement and you come out with a vagina, I wonder if you'd have the same doctor preforming reconstructive surgery. Tell me, what's the difference.
>
>I'm afraid I don't understand your analogy. When I referred to "these fuckers" I was referring to our government. Whomever has the control, and whoever would be needed to solve this problem. I don't know who it would be, but I'm sure those who are responsible would be amongst those who should help solve the problem.

I think the anology works just fine. If the government is the doctor, and the government fucked up by giving you a vagina instead of a bigger penis (and you went in to get the latter), you probably would sue the doctor, and certainly wouldn't pay him to operate on you again.

>How did I contradict myself?

You're a Republican, right?

Nothing wrong with that, as I said, I'd probably vote Republican too, but yeah the party focuses on military aspects more than its counterpart. Or am I mistaken?

So in that case, you are contradicting yourself if that's who you're voting for when you don't like the idea of a society centralised around the military.


 
FN Posted: Wed Jun 22 08:28:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>I've even posted the fact that WMD's were not the main reasons for going to war in Iraq, and you ignored that as well, pretty much like all leftists have done

Fair enough hif. Fact is though that I must admit that I stopped reading most of your lenghty articles since the neutrality of them is often far out of sight, but having said that, lets assume that from the very start you were up in arms to say that the wmd's were not the only and most important reason, are you saying the the government did not in any way towards the media stress on those points?

People don't get scared since a country negated UN talks, they do get scared when you tell them the country has vast amounts of chemical/nuclear weapons aimed at their homes.

Would that have something to do with it?


 
addi Posted: Wed Jun 22 08:41:19 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I've even posted the fact that WMD's were not the main reasons for going to war in Iraq, and you ignored that as well, pretty much like all leftists have done.

Just some of the reasons we went to war. Straight from the Horse's mouth:

1. "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." -- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.

2. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." -- President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.

3. "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."

4. "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

5. "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

6. "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

7. "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." -- President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003, in a national radio address.

8. "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.

9. "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003, in statements to the press.

10. "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the UN prohibited." -- President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1, 2003.

Yes, there's much more, but that would just fucka wit chu eyes : )

*Every one of the above statements has since been shown to either be completely false, or a misleading half truth.

Here's a truth you can take to the bank:
Cheney and Bush knew hours after the 9/11 attacks (if not earlier) that at some point they were going to get rid of Saddam, come hell or high water, even if he had no direct involvement in the attack.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 22 09:04:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Here's a truth you can take to the bank:
>Cheney and Bush knew hours after the 9/11 attacks (if not earlier) that at some point they were going to get rid of Saddam, come hell or high water, even if he had no direct involvement in the attack.
>
Would that be only your opinion or is there evidence to support this ?

As for your points above on WMD quotes, that only proves that the liberal media pounces on what they want to hear.
A lot of your quotes were merely responses to questions on the same subject. The rest were merely taken out of context.


 
addi Posted: Wed Jun 22 09:09:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Would that be only your opinion or is there evidence to support this ?

My opinion, but based on things I've read on the pre-war days of this adminstration. Sorry, should have clairified that.

>As for your points above on WMD quotes, that only proves that the liberal media pounces on what they want to hear.

: )
Um..okay...
Damn those liberal media pouncing types!


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Jun 22 09:18:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The Houston Chronicle, 1999: "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency."


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Jun 22 09:19:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That was our President who said that.


 
kurohyou Posted: Wed Jun 22 10:23:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>You're a Republican, right?

No, I'm not.


 
kurohyou Posted: Wed Jun 22 10:35:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I view it as imperative that there is accountability for the actions of our politicians, for the sake of our country's future.
>It's not an either/or situation to me; focusing all our attention on what lead to this war, or focusing all our attention on how to deal with the current mess in Iraq. We are capable of multi-tasking here. You're emergency room analogy was correct in that our primary focus needs to be on the critical situation our troops face every day there. However I still feel some effort needs to be expended on letting Bush and company know that lies and deception of this magnitude will not be shugged away and forgotten, that they will ultimately have to directly answer questions of their truthfullness to the American public and the world in the months leading up to the invasion.


I agree. I just worry about the balance in the multitasking efforts. I will conceed that I don't read a ton of news, but when I start hearing more about things like the Downing Street Memo, or who lied when, and less about how we are going to be getting out of this situation and how we are going to fix it, it makes me concerned that too much of our focus is being distracted from the main wound.

Its said that those who ignore their past are condemned to repeat it. I do believe that we need to figure out what happened and take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

All my thoughts are repeats of what I've already said to this point so I guess I'm done for the time being.

For what it's worth...



 
FN Posted: Wed Jun 22 10:37:24 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>Christophe said:
>>You're a Republican, right?
>
>No, I'm not.

Hmm. Got the idea that you were.

Very well then, it is noted for future reference.


 
addi Posted: Wed Jun 22 10:38:55 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>Christophe said:
>>You're a Republican, right?
>
>No, I'm not.

LOL!

It's okay if you are, Kuro. We still love and respect you...and there are treatment centers popping up all over now to help people suffering from that mental disorder
: )


 
kurohyou Posted: Wed Jun 22 10:47:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>LOL!
>
>It's okay if you are, Kuro. We still love and respect you...and there are treatment centers popping up all over now to help people suffering from that mental disorder
>: )

That whole, denial is the first sign of a problem thing...

I'm not dammit!!! I swear!!! I don't even like elephants, or is it a donkey? See, I can't even remember the repuclican mascot, I can't be a republican...I'm not I tell you!!! I'm nnnnnnnoooooooootttttt!!!

*muffled screams continute as the attendants carry him off into D wing to begin treatment*

For what it's worth...




 
kurohyou Posted: Wed Jun 22 10:48:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kurohyou said:
>I can't even remember the repuclican mascot

I can't even spell it either it appears...


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jun 22 10:53:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>kurohyou said:
>>Christophe said:
>>>You're a Republican, right?
>>
>>No, I'm not.
>
>LOL!
>
>It's okay if you are, Kuro. We still love and respect you...and there are treatment centers popping up all over now to help people suffering from that mental disorder
>: )

AARRGGHHHHH !


 
addi Posted: Wed Jun 22 11:00:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>AARRGGHHHHH !

good pirate imitation, hif.

and don't feel like I'm picking on the elephant party only. The treatment center for liberal democrats has been around for decades...the Betty Ford Clinic

: )


 
Posted: Wed Jun 22 13:07:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>AARRGGHHHHH !

What's a Pirate's favourite pickup line?

AARRRGHHH ya' free saturday night?


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 23 01:37:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I love this place, because half the time I'm in agreement with the likes of hif and company, the other half the time with the likes of addi, christophe and company.





 
addi Posted: Thu Jun 23 06:49:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Then you're right half of the time, meshie!

D'oh!

: )

*While I may disagree with some of the good people here on certain topics I am sincerely glad we're not all on the same page. This place would be reduced to every post saying,

"That is correct!"


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jun 23 09:36:34 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  meshuggah said:
>I love this place, because half the time I'm in agreement with the likes of hif and company, the other half the time with the likes of addi, christophe and company.
>
Who is this "company" of which you speak ?


 
Posted: Thu Jun 23 12:59:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I long to be on neither the left or the right, but simply on the side that stirs emotions up at GT. 'tis my goal.


 
Mesh Posted: Thu Jun 23 17:53:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>meshuggah said:
>>I love this place, because half the time I'm in agreement with the likes of hif and company, the other half the time with the likes of addi, christophe and company.
>>
>Who is this "company" of which you speak ?

LOL.....well...casper, occasionally at least.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 24 11:23:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Yeah, right Bush lied . . .


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003




 
addi Posted: Fri Jun 24 14:56:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Can't comment today, hif. Friday's are my no political posts day. I need one day a week to keep my blood pressure low
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Fri Jun 24 14:58:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Can't comment today, hif. Friday's are my no political posts day. I need one day a week to keep my blood pressure low
>: )
>
I got pills for that.
:-)


 
addi Posted: Sun Jun 26 11:19:53 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  It's Sunday...I think I can handle a small rise in my blood pressure...

A few comments on your post, Mr. mcnasty:

First of all, there is no doubting the fact that several democrats were dupped into believing the intelligence reports coming out of Iraq, that many on both sides of the fence believed Saddam posed a bigger threat than, in hindsight, he really did.
I think where you have a weak case is that in many of the above quotes the Bush defenders don't include the whole context of what what said. They keep what they want, and leave out what they don't want (it's a frequent tactic of liberal bashers).
Case in point...

Senator Hillart Clinton said this:
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

The left out part:
"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

John Kerry said this:
"Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime.

The part they don't include:
"... But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
"If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."

Senator Robert Byrd:
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."

What they don't include:
"...So where does Iraq enter the equation? No one in the Administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then, and we know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not, de facto, mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock and load position and is readying an attack on the United States. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of Administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue."

Senator Edward Kennedy:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

The left out part:
"But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction."

Al Gore:
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

What they leave out:
"Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam...
...If we end the war in Iraq the way we ended the war in Afghanistan, we could easily be worse off than we are today. When Secretary Rumsfield was asked recently about what our responsibility for restabilizing Iraq would be in an aftermath of an invasion, he said, "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide."
What is a potentially even more serious consequence of this push to begin a new war as quickly as possible is the damage it can do not just to America’s prospects to winning the war against terrorism but to America’s prospects for continuing the historic leadership we began providing to the world 57 years ago...
Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."


I think there is no doubt that many democrats have egg on their face now for some of the public comments they made prior to the invasion. But this does not excuse Bush from responsibilty for his actions. The simple fact is that HE decided that this war was necessary, not Clinton or Kerry or Gore. It's also evident that he and Cheney wanted Saddam gone long before Bush came to power...and that even if it took twisting and tweeking the intelligence reports to do it they were going to have their war. It's also clear now that their war plan was poorly conceived...from not having enough troops there, to not having a good idea of what to do once the country was conquered. It's also clear, even to many republicans now, that proceeding without the support of the international community was a grave mistake, and that ivading Iraq had little or nothing to do with our primary objective of defeating al-queda and the terrorists. Osama is still loose, and according to a top CIA official, we know where he is, but because it's Pakistan this administration refuses to go after him.

What infuriates me the most is the blind devotion conservatives give to Bush, no matter what evidence surfaces. I have and will critisize democratic leaders for their mistakes. I have yet to read ONE post over the last 3 years where you write anything critsizing this adminstration. I have no problem with opposing political views; I have a big problem with blind allegience to any leader. Bush can do no wrong in the eyes of the vast majority of republicans, and that is a very dangerous view to hold in my opinion.

What are we doing now to solve the mess in Iraq? Are we asking NATO to provide troops to cover the porous border with Syria? Are we bringing over the amount of troops needed to successfully complete this mission? Are we accepting Egypt's and France's offers to send in military trainers to help train Iraqi officers? Britain started off with about 45,000 troops in the war effort. They are now down to less than 10,000. Bush has made this an even more unilateral American effort.
Instead the republican controlled congress decides that we need to pass an amendment banning the burning of our flag. Yep, that's gonna solve all our problems. Fucking morons!

Protesters against the Vietnam War back in the '60's were painted as unpatriotic scum at the time by the war hawks. Time passed and the country saw that they were justified in their actions.
I resent that today anyone questioning this war is attacked by conservative pundits as being unpatriotic. I did not question our right to go after the taliban in Afganistan. I will continue to question the ultimate purposes of why we went to war in Iraq when we did, and the essentially unilateral way we did it....and continue to do.

sorry people...i know this one is a long rant
: )




 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 26 13:13:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Democrats were duped into believing the intelligence reports ? HA !
They saw the same stuff that Bush saw.
The analysts are not conservatives or liberals, they are the same anaylysts that were there for the Clinton administration for the most part.
As for the context, it's not important whether they believed we should go to war or not, the point I was making was that they believed the same thing the Bush administration believed, hence Bush was not lying.

WMD's not withstanding, his support of terrorism was justification enough for the war, as was the UN resolution that authorized it in the first place, you know, the one that had a unanimous approval.


 
addi Posted: Sun Jun 26 13:33:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  At least you're consistant in your refusal to even entertain the possibility that Bush and company were, at the very least, less than forthright in the months leading to the invansion.

I expected no less from you.

I'm convinced amoung fervent Bush supporters that the portion of their brains that discerns truth from propoganda isn't functioning.


 
FN Posted: Sun Jun 26 16:33:46 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Since when is context not important.

I don't believe it hif when you say you don't see how the left out part of their quotes doesn't change the undertone of what they're saying.


 
addi Posted: Sat Jul 2 12:02:28 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Just watched Robert Greenwald's "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War"

It's much more factual look at this war than Michael Moore's movies. It was disturbing to say the least. Anyway it made me think about the nature of patriotism and war so I did some searching and found some quotes on the subject that I wanted to share...cuz this is a quote site : )
Maybe because I'm celebrating a very patriotic holiday here in America, and I've been made to feel very unpatriotic by the Bush supporters here (not you hif). I think the good thing about the following quotes is that they apply to all of us, and not just us American GTers.
A few of my favorites:

Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.
~William Penn

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
~Dwight D. Eisenhower

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president...is morally treasonable to the American public.
~Theodore Roosevelt

A man who says that no patriot should attack the war until it is over...is saying no good son should warn his mother of a cliff until she has fallen.
~G. K. Chesterton

Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.
~George Orwell

Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government.
~Sen. Robert Taft, (R) Ohio

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
~Voltaire

I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.
~James Baldwin

Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong.
~James Bryce

The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
~Herman Goering
_________________________________

I raise a toast to America this weekend, for the freedom to be a loyal patriot and to also express my total distain and loathing for this President's War.

Peace to ya'll!









 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jul 2 13:03:52 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>I raise a toast to America this weekend, for the freedom to be a loyal patriot and to also express my total distain and loathing for this President's War.
>
>Peace to ya'll!
>
And I am proud of what we have accomplished and what we will accomplish in Iraq and the other terror states to come.
I am proud that we live in a country where you can express your loathing and I am proud of my service to this country to defend your right to express your aforementioned loathing.
A HAPPY 4th OF JULY TO ALL !


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]