Post #137,005
1/21/04 9:47:23 PM
|
Doesn't matter...
Because, I'm sad to say it, mmoffit is misrepresenting the issue.
The issue isn't whether or not Bush trumped up charges to justify an invasion in which our boys were killed. (That charge is hard to ignore, however, given the Niger documents.)
The issue is whether an invasion (for nation building) was justified in the cost of American lives. (This is the same charge used against Clinton for his wars and therefore this question MUST be valid.) Furthermore, did Saddam Hussein pose a real threat to the United States that justified military action (To put this in Clinton terms - was this merely a case of Wag the Dog)
|
Post #137,011
1/21/04 10:11:04 PM
|
This was typical American Statesmanship
If ya cant find the Indian doing the killings,
Kill and Indian you can find, been working in the Americas since 1492
thanx,
bill
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #137,061
1/22/04 9:29:35 AM
|
Certainly, and both sides have been doing it for decades.
|
Post #137,067
1/22/04 9:39:28 AM
|
Riddle me this.
Cite another US President that used deception as a rationalization for "pre-emptive war".
This situation is unique. And its not just American lives I'm talking about. How many innocent Iraqis were killed? Afghanis? (Q: How many Afghanis were on the flights of 9/11?)
No sir, this is a depth we have never been to in foreign policy. The lies this pResident told were to justify an otherwise completely unjustifable war.
If we are ever to recover the prestige we once had around the world, the first thing we need to do is assure the world that the previous policy of lying to rationalize pre-emptive war has been abandoned.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #137,072
1/22/04 9:49:36 AM
|
Abe Lincoln
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #137,073
1/22/04 9:51:37 AM
|
And the lie would be?????
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #137,077
1/22/04 10:13:25 AM
|
Re: And the lie would be?????
That he would not impose desegregation of society or the abolition of slavery on the South - the idea that the overall goal was always the end of slavery, even though this was not the explicitly stated reason.
The Yankee creation myth holds that the Emancipation Proclaimation was conceived by Lincoln as a means of transforming the war into a moral crusade after the fact.
-drl
|
Post #137,078
1/22/04 10:14:49 AM
|
that the South was not entitled to secede
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #137,154
1/22/04 2:29:08 PM
|
That's not what I was ever taught.
Of course, born in North Carolina and raised in Southern California, my experience may be different from most.
I was taught in grade school (and later in college) that the only stated mission was the preservation of the Union - at any and all costs.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #137,163
1/22/04 2:39:08 PM
|
Re: That's not what I was ever taught.
Yes, and he just happened to wait for the first decisive Yankee strategic victory and for the blockade to sink in to announce the EP (after Antietam, late 1862). However it is known that he had been making drafts for some time.
-drl
|
Post #137,102
1/22/04 11:45:22 AM
1/22/04 11:48:15 AM
|
Remember the Maine?
and I won't touch Vietnam or Korea. (Lots of lies in both)
|
Post #137,106
1/22/04 11:56:25 AM
|
A few Nits. (Aside to Box)
First, everyone knows "The first casualty of war is the truth."
Second, the Maine was more about Hearst than the President.
[link|http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html|See here for example]
Third, in Viet Nam and Korea, whatever position you hold, we were *not* the first to attack.
This notion of "pre-emptive" war is strictly a Neocon construction.
Aside: Hey box, who fired the first shot?
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #137,140
1/22/04 2:00:40 PM
|
Alexander Hamilton
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #137,231
1/22/04 10:13:10 PM
|
still waiting
if you are thinking the fort sumpter incident that was state property illegally occupied by federal troops disobeying pussy communist rules.
thanx,
bill
same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #137,294
1/23/04 9:25:26 AM
|
Imminent domain dude ;-)
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #137,299
1/23/04 9:37:06 AM
|
any minute domain? or did you mean eminent?
-drl
|
Post #137,311
1/23/04 10:08:42 AM
|
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH.
I leave it, sheesh. What a dumb-ass, sheesh.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #137,318
1/23/04 10:25:19 AM
|
Eminem domain
--
Select [link|http://www.glumbert.com/pictures/Default.asp?index=30|here].
|
Post #137,323
1/23/04 10:39:44 AM
|
minimum dolman (who really started hostilities)
[link|http://www.tulane.edu/~latner/Background/BackgroundForts.html|http://www.tulane.ed...kgroundForts.html] With public sentiment pressing for action, South Carolina sent commissioners to Washington to negotiate the transfer of the forts to the state, and requested immediate control of Fort Sumter. Like Slemmer, Anderson considered his situation increasingly precarious, indeed untenable if South Carolina occupied Sumter. After nightfall, on the evening of December 26, Anderson moved his small force from Moultrie to the more defensible Sumter.
Despite South Carolina's insistence that Anderson's action was a hostile act and must be repudiated, President Buchanan refused to order Anderson to return. South Carolina then proceeded to occupy federal property in Charleston, including the military posts surrounding Sumter. By January 1, only Sumter remained a Union outpost in the midst of secessionist South Carolina. so negotiations were refused and hostile acts taken by the Union. Sounds rather clear cut, the North Started this shit. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned,
Gabriel Dupre
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #137,164
1/22/04 2:39:44 PM
|
How 'bout Vera Cruz?
-drl
|
Post #137,165
1/22/04 2:40:26 PM
|
"See no evil" before Pearl?
-drl
|
Post #137,186
1/22/04 4:42:47 PM
|
Again - Not Pre-Emptive War.
If the conspiracy theorists are right about FDR sacrificing Pearl Harbor to be able to "get into WW II", then you've made my argument for me. For, it was so vile a notion that the US would enter a war when it had not been attacked that it couldn't be done until we were attacked.
Am I not making this clear? The point is that Dubya went to war with Iraq on the basis that we were "under imminent threat" - NOT that we had been attacked. That makes his lies worse because it is the first time that a sitting president has lied to get us into a pre-emptive war without the thinnest veiled argument that we had been attacked first.
We attacked first (and now it should be clear to all) without provocation.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #137,273
1/23/04 5:38:23 AM
|
Such a simple, clear notion
So hard.. to get a 0-RPM reply.
Yep: the Neocons were headed there, No Matter What; lied in their teeth about the certainty of attack by Iraq on the US (!) any old coming weekend.. Unless We Act Now!\ufffd.
Steadfastly ignored the (now apparent) success of the slow-old UN inspections, in keeping this monster toothless - and still today! maintain the same utter BS (as in the SOTU pabulum as recently as Tues.)
And still: that's debatable !?
Suuure it is: because this be the land of the tiny-brain folks, where F=MA is debatable, even after the train hits your SUV.
Pshaw.
|
Post #137,275
1/23/04 5:53:14 AM
|
Re: Again - Not Pre-Emptive War.
To show you how twisted American society had become even in 1940, I recently saw a short film in which Miguel de Notredame is invoked quatrain by quatrain to show how the German-Jap oppression was forseen, and the American response required.
I sumbit that our current problems are the logical outcome of the radical reconstruction of 1861, when the real Country was sacrificed on the altar of an imagined Nobility of Spirit on both sides - and that the problems will worsen until the Spirit of '76 is found again - meaning, an actually involved citizenry with a vested interest in preserving Liberty - but of course that will never happen, and we are streaking toward an increasingly authoritarian future. The torch has been extinguised little by little by each succeeding generation, and now barely flickers only in a loosely united Europe. One can forsee a climatic war with them, and throw in a strong and opportunistic China in the east. The Irish don't like us any more, and that tells the entire story.
-drl
|
Post #137,284
1/23/04 7:45:54 AM
|
You keep saying the Irish don't like us any more
Where did this come from?
When did they particularly like us in the first place?
Does this mean that the IRA won't be raising funds in the US any more?
Color me confused...
|
Post #137,285
1/23/04 8:03:48 AM
|
Re: You keep saying the Irish don't like us any more
Ireland has benefitted enormously from the EU, and in only 25 or so years has gone from being traditionally poor to having a thriving economy. Thus the modern Irish are more in line with France and Germany than they are with the US. Bush hatred is virulent in Ireland, who mock him mercilessly (you know how they are :).
[link|http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/uttm/main595275.shtml|http://www.cbsnews.c.../main595275.shtml]
[link|http://www.geocities.com/irelandvus911/main.htm|http://www.geocities...ndvus911/main.htm]
Although I don't have any information, I would not be surprised if the Irish were ticked at us for not backing their desire for union with Northwest Britain.
-drl
|
Post #137,084
1/22/04 10:31:02 AM
|
About these replies
How very US-centric. It underlines why there's a major image problem for the US around the world. The point is not whether one side or another of the debate uses misrepresentations... the point is that if you actually go to the source (the people in the UN that were working on the folio) they thought the programs were basically dead, and wanted to keep inspections going to make sure they stayed dead.
Evidence is bearing out the UN's position on the whole issue, and making the US position look more and more like living in fantasy land. Don't think the rest of the world is not noticing.
The big thing I hear from the various folks I talk to (esp. in Europe) is about the next election. They don't think that the current positions taken by the current administration really represent the POV of the US citizenry; for one thing, the last election was dodgy, and two they think that a lot of what's going on is a naked executive power grab using 9/11 as the pretext. In other words, they're applying the principle of charity. If however, the US citizenry elects Bush again, then the perspective is going to change a lot.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #137,103
1/22/04 11:46:29 AM
|
You and I (at least I think it was you)
have said that before. We (in the US) are being given the benefit of the doubt because the current occupant of the White House was not elected (USSC aside).
I fear that he will be this time though. Which, as depressing a notion as that might be across the pond and to our north, is not nearly as depressing as it is to a lot of us here.
Who could dispute your post? (Except for this nit)
...the US citizenry elects Bush again...
Should read ...the US citizenry elects Bush this time...
they think that a lot of what's going on is a naked executive power grab using 9/11 as the pretext.
I only wish that more than 45-50% of the US populace could see that with the clarity I believe the rest of the world sees it with.
bcnu,
Mikem
I don't do third world languages. So no, I don't do Java.
|
Post #137,124
1/22/04 1:16:08 PM
|
It would do
if congress and the senate saw it as a power grab.
The election this year is going to be very closely watched all over the world, far more so than usual.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #137,276
1/23/04 6:05:30 AM
|
That is my sense of an attitude towards US persons, thus far
also. I do think 'abeyance' is the word for a certain remaining charity towards 'the Murican Peepul': but IF we retain these madmen, in the face of the nascent chaos in Iraq; amidst Cheney's lugubrious counterpoint to Shrub's baby talk ("we must be prepared for indefinite awfulness.." cha cha cha) -- there will be no more free passes for 'accidental events', just shame: we shall have Deliberately prolonged a period of unprecedented bellicosity towards the whole planet. No More Excuses.
If this cabal is able to cement their usurped power, via whatever Stupid combination of infighting among the Opposition + the willful ignorance of the rarely-voting populace - I see myself as fighting the inertia, and beginning liquidation..
Hell, with some real work on my miniscule French, I could coexist with even feisty Quebecois - though I anticipate that the Canadian border will not remain very passable.. not long after.. a second 4-year agenda of these Psalm-singing hypocrites seems assured.
There's really no place to 'hide' from maddogs with the nuke football, of course; still, one can choose which barricades to man / which group to endure with - with a bit of luck and cajoling. More honorable death than just hanging around and consuming.
Gonna be an ugly and suspenseful next 10 months - for the entire world. We can only hope that: a Lot Does Happen to reveal the face of the PNAC droids, by their Actions. And... in time.
Ashton
it's too dreary to be a farce, anymore
|
