Time for heads to roll...

Crav · Post by **Crav** » July 10, 2003, 6:09 pm

I never supported the war and I believe that we are heading for a big disaster in in Iraq, but I can't honestly say that the U.N. would have been able to do anything about the situation in Iraq. Then again they won't be able to do much of anything about human rights violations around the world or with countries wasting their time and resources on developing weapons to balance out their neighbors. It was partly the U.N.'s fault that this situation happened, this of course includes all it's member nations. If your going to have an organization that is suppose to be making sure countries do not violate any of it's resolutions yet it's member nations only vote for half measures then you will cause more problems then help. I'm pretty sure we could have made Iraq completely harmless to it's people and those around them if all the countries in the world actually wanted to, but they didn't for whatever reasons. In today's world we do have to start thinking globally and not just locally, with many nations able to ruin the world for everyone I don't think attitudes on both sides of this argument are very helpful. Is the U.S. government doing things wrong? Yes it is, but are other government not helping the situation by not fulfulling their commitment to the U.N. along with the U.S.?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 10, 2003, 6:15 pm

Vetira,

Would you like to argue that Iraq admitted faking the documents they submitted to the UN, not once but on three seperate occasions?

They violated the UN accord many times, not least by continously blocking the efforts of the inspectors.

WMDs or no WMDs, whether Iraq complied with the UN isn't even open to debate.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 10, 2003, 6:17 pm

Vetiria wrote:*flashback to 9 months ago*

You sound like a broken record Fallanthas.

Acies, Bush isn't going to get voted out unless something big happens within the next year. (And apparently lying about WMD isn't big enough.)

I do not know. I would hope than reason would prevail in our electorate college, however I feel you are probably right.
Still, I am voting for anyone else.

I wonder what Ralph Nadir is up to?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 10, 2003, 6:19 pm

Fallanthas wrote:
because they weren't in violation of anything
Yes, flagrantly disopbeying the UN for 12 years obviously indicates full compliance with council resolutions.

Why don't you just go the fuck away now before you embarass yourself further?

The UN 100% acted on the mandate they exist to act on. The UN's primary goal in the world is to insure that international borders are respected and countries do not invade other countries. Saddam Hussein was not allowed to invade other countries, he was not allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction, and he was not allowed to rebuild his military after it was smashed in the gulf war. It is abundantly clear now as it was before you invaded Iraq to steal their oil that he did neither 3 of those things. And unless you have evidence of this to the contrary then perhaps you should substantiate your argument a little better than "go the fuck away now before you embarass yourself further" because unless the entire forum's intelligence level has dropped to the low standards you possess, that shit isn't going to fly here.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » July 10, 2003, 6:19 pm

Fallanthas,

Would you like to argue that the US and Britain admitted faking the documents they submitted to the UN, not once but on however many seperate occasions it happened?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 10, 2003, 6:29 pm

Truant wrote:
Sionistic wrote:im still wondering why iraq wasnt letting the UN guys do thier thing, they had to be hiding something, maybe those paintings?
Who can say, a conspiracy theorist could say, they were just trying to provoke in order to increase the western hatred, strengthening their regime. A more simple explanation is, they just didn't want to. It's a question that can only be speculated really.

Neither of those were on the list of options given to them after the '91 Gulf War. They had only two choices: be inspected or be invaded. Everything else is irrelevant.

Their posession of WMDs IS relevant to Bush's credibility here in the US, as he was on the TV every fucking day preaching like Jerry Fallwell about what a danger they were.

Personally, I'm looking forward to Liberia: Operation African Heat more than the constant rehashing of GW2.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 10, 2003, 6:30 pm

EDIT: double post

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » July 10, 2003, 6:32 pm

Wow, I didn't realize the almighty Kyuokan had the power to rewrite the resolutions of the UN council !!

Alright, class choice. Do I post links to the documents to educate, or just link to the old threads where we hashed this bullshit out before?

I cannot BELIEVE you idiots want to even take a stab at defending Iraq by claiming they abided by the UN resolutions.

1. If they had, there would not have been any need to continually issue new resolutions saying in effect 'This is you last chance to comply!".

2. Blix has said several times that the government of Iraq did not do all it could to aid the inspectors, a requirement laid out in black-and-fucking-white int he resolutions.

3. The Iraqi minister has openly ADMITTED that the first three times they submitted the documents required by the UN to meet the disclosure requirements that they LIED OUT THEIR ASSES!

There is not now, nor has there ever been any question about whether Iraq complied or didn't comply. If you want to debate whether the invasion was justifiable given the questions arising over the intelligence data, that's another debate entirely.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » July 10, 2003, 6:40 pm

Acies wrote:
Vetiria wrote:*flashback to 9 months ago*

You sound like a broken record Fallanthas.

Acies, Bush isn't going to get voted out unless something big happens within the next year. (And apparently lying about WMD isn't big enough.)
I do not know. I would hope than reason would prevail in our electorate college, however I feel you are probably right.
Still, I am voting for anyone else.

I wonder what Ralph Nadir is up to?

Acies, no offense buddy, but this was kinda funny.

I think Ralph Nadar is still falling to a new nadir.

Seriously, I'd love to see Nadar take another shot and totally ruin any Democratic hope to unseat GW. Go Ralphie Go!

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 10, 2003, 6:44 pm

It was meant to be funny, I swear.

No, I did sleep last night, honest truth.

Sorry, partly of the reason I really don't want to argue my points heavily is the fact I am exhausted, and would likely just get reamed.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 10, 2003, 6:45 pm

Oh yeah because clearly not being fully cooperative is grounds for an instant full scale military invasion, because civilians should have to pay for an uncooperative government. Brilliant fucking logic.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 10, 2003, 6:53 pm

kyoukan wrote:Oh yeah because clearly not being fully cooperative is grounds for an instant full scale military invasion, because civilians should have to pay for an uncooperative government. Brilliant fucking logic.

It would be more accurate to say "stonewalling for a dozen years" instead of "not being fully cooperative." If they didn't want us to have our fingers in their pie, then Hussein shouldn't have fucked with our cizash money brothers in Kuwait in the first place.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 10, 2003, 6:58 pm

kyoukan wrote:Oh yeah because clearly not being fully cooperative is grounds for an instant full scale military invasion, because civilians should have to pay for an uncooperative government. Brilliant fucking logic.

When you agree to those terms when you LOST A FUCKING WAR!!!!! After you invaded another country. You stupid Iguana fucking bitch!

Are you that fucking stupid that you cant see the holes in your logic, My god Kyoukan I use to think you were smart but now im questioning that.

Yes if Bush did not tell us the truth about the WMD shame on him but it DOES NOT!!!! change the fact that a invasion was needed.

And before you bring in the UN, Ill say STFU the UN has about as much power as your boyfriend in keeping that hole in your head called a mouth closed.

So in a nutshell, Listen up my little Liberal Legion friends, You lose a war you better fucking live by the rules no if ands or but's about it.

And you kyoukan go deep throat a Cattle Prod.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 10, 2003, 7:35 pm

For the moment, I will grant you that the war was a just war.

Did the Bush administration lie and manipulate public opinion in order to wage a just war?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 10, 2003, 7:47 pm

If he did, I'd be pissed.

If he did, even I wouldn't vote for him because it would demonstrate that he was willing to violate the public's trust in him acting in an honest manner.

I'd like to hear how the fact checking for the president's most important speech of the year was screwed up. Were they just half-assing things? If so what else of their responsiblies do they perform in a sloppy manner?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 10, 2003, 9:43 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:If he did, I'd be pissed.

If he did, even I wouldn't vote for him because it would demonstrate that he was willing to violate the public's trust in him acting in an honest manner.

I'd like to hear how the fact checking for the president's most important speech of the year was screwed up. Were they just half-assing things? If so what else of their responsiblies do they perform in a sloppy manner?

Bullshit. Not you Adex, but the half-assed fact checking.
They had no facts, and they knew that. Nonetheless, the President decided to push ahead with this, depsite the lack of hard knowledge. When you see this, you see a man who put down a petty weakling of a tyrrant.
When I see this, I see a man who just manipulated America to achieve a personal end, the bi-product of which was putting down a petty tyrrant.

Do not kid yourself, you people are too smart.
Bush is the President and wanted this war. He knew.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 10, 2003, 10:06 pm

Acies wrote:Nono, worst case scenario is the U.N. grows a spine and ends America due to our hostile nazi-esque actions.

While I agreed with the majority of your post, your opening sentence here speaks volumes about your complete inability to have a functional opinion on world affairs, political systems, or foreign policy.

The UN needs the US more than the US needs the UN. If the US pulled out of the UN, it would be a meaningless organization.

Your use of the word 'nazi' is an insult to anyone who suffered at the hands of the real nazis, and is neither a relevant or accurate comparison to the United States, past or present.

In short, and as usual, fuck off.

On another note, I think the scenario we're in now is already pretty fucking worst case. We have the equivalent of Vietnam all over again. We have people dressed as civilians blowing themselves up, sniping, and boobytrapping our troops, we have no signs of political or legal stability coming down the pipe, and there's no one to hand Iraq off to. We ARE in a bad situation, that we brought upon ourselves. Probably the only reason we're making any progress in the Israel/Palestine negotiations is because all the Islamic terrorists are in Iraq to take what are essentially free shots at our soldiers. We need to get the fuck out of Dodge, and we need to do it now.

On the subject of Bush, Lying, and WMD, we have no way of knowing what information Bush was told. If he operates on the best information given to him, and that information tells him there are WMDs in Iraq, and that they may present a 'Clear and Present Danger' to the US, then he has a responsibility to the American people to act. At this stage of the game, I think he has a responsibility to the American people to fire some intelligence officials for either not providing him with accurate information about the existence of WMDs, or perhaps not being able to pinpoint their whereabouts.

I don't believe in a grand oil-money scheme. I think it's far too difficult to move that much money without the connections being made. Just an opinion, but until there's evidence of such a scandal, it's nothing more than conspiracy theory bullshit with no credence. If something like that were true, it would make Bush and his flunkies the greatest criminals to the US and the world we've ever seen. Again, as there's no evidence to support this, kindly choose a different tact that's based in reality for disapproving of the US's actions.

To those of you who want Bush out, great... fine... get him out... But if you honestly think voting in a Democrat will make things all better, I pity you. Because of the more extensive party system (my rough understanding -- apologies if I'm wrong) in Britain, you actually might have the opportunity to make a difference during an election, but by the time the two parties of retards have narrowed down their roster to a single candidate here in the US that candidate has already sold his soul to Satan many times over. Essentially in the United States, in my lifetime anyway, we've essentially had the opportunity to vote for the lesser of two evils. I don't think I've been alive during a presidency where I felt it was someone I could admire and respect as a person.

So yeah, vote out Bush, I don't care, but don't fool yourself into thinking some Democrat is going to be any better.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 10, 2003, 10:18 pm

Aranuil wrote:
Acies wrote:Nono, worst case scenario is the U.N. grows a spine and ends America due to our hostile nazi-esque actions.
While I agreed with the majority of your post, your opening sentence here speaks volumes about your complete inability to have a functional opinion on world affairs, political systems, and foreign policy.

The UN needs the US more than the US needs the UN. If the US pulled out of the UN, it would be a meaningless organization.

Your use of the word 'nazi' is an insult to anyone who suffered at the hands of the real nazis, and is neither a relevant or accurate comparison to the United States, past or present.

In short, and as usual, fuck off.

Excuse me. What I define as a very active trait of the Nazi party was their conquest machines, propaganda and war like nature. It was not meant to state we will kill 7 million people of a certain race because they are such, nor even make a similarity between the U.S. and the Nazis in that regard.
And what do you know about fighting Nazi's anyway Aranuil? In fact, other than history books and documentaries, do you know anything about the Nazi regime or anything concerning World War 2 for that matter?
I won't tell you to fuck off, but I will ask that you try not to percieve only the most negative possiblity in my comments.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » July 10, 2003, 10:27 pm

And the nazi argument begins. This spells certain doom for the CE forums.

Of course, that also happened as soon as Acies started posting his over-dramatic opinions anyway.

noel · Post by **noel** » July 10, 2003, 10:33 pm

Acies wrote:Excuse me. What I define as a very active trait of the Nazi party was their conquest machines, propaganda and war like nature. It was not meant to state we will kill 7 million people of a certain race because they are such, nor even make a similarity between the U.S. and the Nazis in that regard.
And what do you know about fighting Nazi's anyway Aranuil? In fact, other than history books and documentaries, do you know anything about the Nazi regime or anything concerning World War 2 for that matter?
I won't tell you to fuck off, but I will ask that you try not to percieve only the most negative possiblity in my comments.

If that's the feeling your trying to convey, the Roman empire would have been a far more appropriate comparison. Despite your emotional feelings, the US is not led by a genocidal maniac, and I have yet to see our troops raping, torturing or killing Iraqis. Quite the contrary as a matter of fact.

Please explain what you're trying to say in your second paragraph and I'll address it, but I really don't see any relevant comparison between the US and the Nazi Germany.

Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 10, 2003, 10:56 pm

Aranuil wrote: If that's the feeling your trying to convey, the Roman empire would have been a far more appropriate comparison. Despite your emotional feelings, the US is not led by a genocidal maniac, and I have yet to see our troops raping, torturing or killing Iraqis. Quite the contrary as a matter of fact.

I am not going to argue that, because your right. Rome would have been a much better analogy.
Sincerely though, if I gave the impression to anyone that a cliquie of thugs led by a mass murder was the case as I percieved it in America, then I appoligize. That is most certainly not the case.

Nevermind the second paragraph, it is not important.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » July 10, 2003, 11:18 pm

Here is an interesting question.

What do you think a democrat would do with our troops overseas if elected?

Acies · Post by **Acies** » July 10, 2003, 11:22 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Here is an interesting question.

What do you think a democrat would do with our troops overseas if elected?

I HOPE not the same thing Bush did.

Do I put it past a democratic president? No.

I miss Clinton. He was an excellent President in my opinion, screw democrat/republician.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 10, 2003, 11:41 pm

Damn... all I can say is that Aranuil pretty much stated my opion on the matter.

However I will add once again since it was ignored in my other posts... what about the Russian SF team? what about the documents the British found indicating covert operations and Putin stating that he KNEW not only that Saddam had WMD but that he knew where they were and was almost ready to spill his guts. It's all about power, the French and the Russians have very little of it anymore but are just as hungry as they have been for the past 500 years.

As others have stated there is NO question Iraq was out of compliance. Kicking the inspectors out after getting his ass kicked was just asking to be invaded. Hell Clinton should have done it years ago. The difference is that when Clinton did need to invade he didn't even attempt to clear it (kudos to Bill). At least Bush tried to use the UN but got derailed because that French wussy who lent Saddam his Palace designer didn't want to lose any money and the Russians just want enough money to feed their freakin' people (can't say that I blame them for doing whatever they can to make that happen).

While it seems almost childish maybe it's really not. Hell WWI was pretty much just a big family fude where the Royalty of Europe got thousands of innocent people killed rather than just dealing with each other. I propose this, I propose that one of the unstated motives not to cooporate with the US was pure jealosly. If nothing else pisses off the rest of the world it's our lack of regard other other cultures and pride. But I think when it boils right down to it they are just mad because they can't behave in a similar fashon... of course I could be wrong. But hey, I think it's at least plausable.

As I also said before, if Bush did lie, shame on him. Big difference in lying about getting a blow and getting hunders of people killed and hell Clinton almost got thrown out of office for the former. I would hope Bush fair no better and frankly far worse. But from my statements above I don't think he was lying. There were/are WMD somewhere. Maybe not where we can find them right now, maybe in Siria but they are there. If they weren't then Saddams actions since 1998 make him even stupider than we thought.

Marb

Truant · Post by **Truant** » July 11, 2003, 12:46 am

Cartalas wrote:Yes if Bush did not tell us the truth about the WMD shame on him but it DOES NOT!!!! change the fact that a invasion was needed.

This coming from you who acts like the clinton scandal is the so utterly and horridly wrong that anyone who ever voted liberal in their life, or anyone whose names begin with the letter 'l' just by association should be crucified, burned, and a celebration given that they are in hell.

Lieing is lieing cart, there is no 'this lie is ok, but that lie is not' It's either ALL wrong, or it's ALL ok. draw the line, and quit hopping the fence.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 11, 2003, 1:26 am

Hey Marb i havent heard about the Russian SF team or the Putin stuff.

what is your source for that l33t infoz?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 11, 2003, 2:04 am

kyoukan wrote:I only hope that one day in your lifetime a country more powerful that the united states invades you under false pretenses in order to "liberate you from your oppressors" and you live with no power, no water and armed foreign soldiers and tanks controlling your every move, not letting you do your job or meet with your friends, so you can see what it feels to be liberated thusly.

I only hope one day you get to life under a totalitarian dictator who really doesn't let people "meet with their friends." I hope that one day you realize Iraq wasn't some thriving-industrial-nation-on-the-rise-utopia before we came. I love the irony. Iraqi's no longer have to worry about a knock on the door in the middle of the night because their children in school said a single bad thing about Saddam, and now you're complaining that they don't all have air conditioned homes.

kyoukan wrote:so I get furious thinking about people like you actually being able to live out their natural lives in such an overwhelming state of ignorance and stupidity.

Seeing people get on their soap boxes blasting the brutal, mean, US bullies gets me pretty infuriated too. We attacked a poor, innocent, mass murdering dictator...and freed millions from his tyranny. "But it had oil OMFG" Boo-hoo. The way some of you go on you'd think we had decided to attack some nation led by an innocent, peace loving dove, and everything was fine until the US showed up!

Voronwe wrote:Go and look up Wolfowitz's recent comments about Iraq "floating on a sea of oil" and it being a factor in their decisions.

Just to clarify something. He didn't say that was a reason. In a conference of South Asian countries he was asked why economic pressure wouldn't work on Iraq but would on N. Korea. He said it was because Iraq was "swimming in oil," which looked to me like a logical explanation.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/conte ... p?aid=2971

But this quote is inaccurate on its face as well as taken completely out of context. Wolfowitz was answering a query regarding why the U.S. thought using economic pressure would work with respect to North Korea and not with regard to Iraq:

"The United States hopes to end the nuclear standoff with North Korea by putting economic pressure on the impoverished nation, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said Saturday. North Korea would respond to economic pressure, unlike Iraq, where military action was necessary because the country's oil money was propping up the regime, Wolfowitz told delegates at the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore."

"The country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse," Wolfowitz said. "That I believe is a major point of leverage." "The primary difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options in Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil," he said. Wolfowitz did not elaborate on how Washington intends to put economic pressure on North Korea, but said other countries in the region helping it should send a message that "they're not going to continue doing that if North Korea continues down the road it's on."

I should have added a prediction before the war started. "If Iraq is not a flourishing democracy two months after the war is over, reconstruction will have failed."

WMDs or evidence of an active WMD program will be found. Iraqi scientists will start to speak up and you all will look like fools. I have no doubt that you will immediately fall back on "well even if they did, they still weren't a threat." Making excuses for dictators who rule their people with an ironhand is something many people that I read here seem to be good at, I'm sure you'll be able to make the transition flawlessly.

And one other thing that I hope. I hope anyone who even THINKS of comparing Bush to Hitler and Americans to Nazis gets warped back in time like in the Twilight Zone and gets to see what living under that shit was REALLY like. The US is a bastion of freedom- always has been and always will be. You can point out that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay isn't getting enough anti depressents, or that the FBI can wiretap suspected terrorists without a warrant, or claim that removing one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th century was comparable to Hitler methodically murdering millions of Jews, but I just want you to realize that any sane person will always laugh at what a fucking hypocrite you are.

EDIT: added the article on wolfowitz quote

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » July 11, 2003, 2:04 am

Reuters UK right at the beginning of the War. It got it DL via AvantGo to my Axom. It sucks down the top stories so you can read them at your convienence... better than the old 5lb Computer Shopper Magazines for good bathroom reading

I'll try to see if I can find it again actually on the Web somewhere.

Marb

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » July 11, 2003, 7:04 am

WMDs or evidence of an active WMD program will be found. Iraqi scientists will start to speak up and you all will look like fools. I have no doubt that you will immediately fall back on "well even if they did, they still weren't a threat." Making excuses for dictators who rule their people with an ironhand is something many people that I read here seem to be good at, I'm sure you'll be able to make the transition flawlessly.

It's the 4th quarter. The WMD hunt is almost over, yet not one shred of evidence of any WMDs has been found. This includes ALL of the intelligence data of the CIA and the MI5, this includes months of pre-war inspections by the UN, this includes fly overs with remote planes covering almost the entire surface area of Iraq, and it also includes an entire fucking invasion of a country. You still honestly believe we will find this shit? Reality is desperately awaiting your visit.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » July 11, 2003, 9:25 am

I'll say it again, if we have not found anything by now, then there is nothing to find. There really is no debate here.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 11, 2003, 9:38 am

Truant wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Yes if Bush did not tell us the truth about the WMD shame on him but it DOES NOT!!!! change the fact that a invasion was needed.
This coming from you who acts like the clinton scandal is the so utterly and horridly wrong that anyone who ever voted liberal in their life, or anyone whose names begin with the letter 'l' just by association should be crucified, burned, and a celebration given that they are in hell.

Lieing is lieing cart, there is no 'this lie is ok, but that lie is not' It's either ALL wrong, or it's ALL ok. draw the line, and quit hopping the fence.

Truant I never said Bush should not be held accountable for lieing, I think he should if he did. All I said was the invasion was justified even if there was no proof of WMD.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 11, 2003, 10:17 am

Aranuil wrote:
Godwin's Law - "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

We can't use this law, or else kyoukan would lose every argument the second Cart posts. The speed and consistancy of her replies calling him Hitler amaze me.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » July 11, 2003, 10:27 am

That'll be another board I guess. Not this one here on planet earth?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 11, 2003, 10:49 am

Brotha you attributed a Tancred quote to me

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 11, 2003, 10:53 am

Voronwë wrote:Brotha you attributed a Tancred quote to me

Fucking quote Nazi

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » July 11, 2003, 10:54 am

masteen wrote:
Voronwë wrote:Brotha you attributed a Tancred quote to me
Fucking quote Nazi

You lose

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » July 11, 2003, 1:23 pm

Brotha, I read your post, and all of your points make sense, but you seem to be missing the point. Then I read your sig, and decided I wouldn't bother trying to explain it. It wouldn't do any good.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » July 11, 2003, 1:48 pm

Acies wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:If he did, I'd be pissed.

If he did, even I wouldn't vote for him because it would demonstrate that he was willing to violate the public's trust in him acting in an honest manner.

I'd like to hear how the fact checking for the president's most important speech of the year was screwed up. Were they just half-assing things? If so what else of their responsiblies do they perform in a sloppy manner?
Bullshit. Not you Adex, but the half-assed fact checking.
They had.......

My statement above is honest.

What leads you to belive I am a liar Acies?

Have you catagorized me into some cookie-cutter mold?

I am an individual. Judge me as such.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 11, 2003, 4:29 pm

A Call for International Assistance, Not Isolation
By Senator Robert Byrd
Thursday 10 July 2003

On August 22, 1920, an article written by former Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Edward Lawrence appeared in one of the great newspapers of London, the Sunday Times. This legendary British military officer -- better known as Lawrence of Arabia -- began his commentary with a sharp warning about his country's occupation of ancient lands in the Middle East:

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are today not far from a disaster."

Colonel Lawrence concluded with an equally sharp question: "How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?"

These were the observations some 83 years ago of a British soldier who had studied the history of the Middle East, fought alongside Arabs in the Great War, and understood the anger of those who lived under the administration of a distant power.

His observations, which might have been considered academic in the months before U.S. and British troops began their advance into Iraq, now appear prescient. As violence in the streets of Baghdad increases, as our troops are being killed and wounded by guerilla attacks, as progress toward creating a new Iraqi government stagnates, the American public is only just now beginning to come to grips with the enormity of the task that we have before us in Iraq. A clear picture had never been painted for them by the "powers that be." Rosy scenarios about instant liberty and flowers to the troops were the order of the day.

But, now reality has emerged and it is harsh. And seeing the enormity of the task before us, and the increasing dangers to the loved ones who serve in uniform, the American people are beginning to ask, how long must our troops remain in those distant, hot sands? How long must they patrol the dangerous streets of Najaf and Fallujah? When will our troops be coming home?

Weeks ago, the President gave vague assurances about the timely withdrawal of our troops. He said, "We will stay as long as necessary to get the job done, and then we will leave." [Remarks at Santa Clara, CA, 5/2/03] Such words are without substance. They are "doublespeak." They do nothing but feed the hopes of the American people that our troops will soon return from Iraq while avoiding any real indication of when that might happen. The fact is that the Administration has carefully avoided telling the American people when it expects our occupation of Iraq to conclude. So far, this Administration has yet to even estimate how soon it will be able to hand Iraq over to the Iraqi people. In short, it appears that we have no exit strategy. The word "quagmire" is starting to be used by the media. Clearly, many people are very worried about our situation in Iraq. The death toll keeps mounting.

Last week, the President actually taunted those forces who are murdering our troops in the streets of Iraq. He dared the violent militants by saying "Bring 'em on." One can hardly think of a more inappropriate comment for a President to make when Americans are under siege in Iraq and being asked to deal with the treacheries of urban guerrilla warfare with no end in sight. Chest thumping should have no place in such a situation. This was the President who went to the trouble to put on a flight suit, land on an aircraft carrier, and, with great fanfare, tell the American public that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." But, British and American soldiers are still dying in Iraq. Now, the President is saying, "Bring 'em on." What are we to believe?

The President has backed away from earlier suggestions of a foreseeable end to U.S. peacekeeping efforts in Iraq. He warns of the return of tyranny if our troops begin returning home. Judging by the President's statements, our armed forces have become the thumb in the dike - - the only obstacle that prevents the return of a repressive dictatorship in Iraq.

How did it come to this? Members of Congress were told that our forces would be greeted as liberators. Iraqi citizens were supposed to eagerly embrace democracy and serve up Saddam Hussein on a silver platter the moment that they sipped from the cup of freedom. We should have known that the burden of democratizing Iraq would be no easy task. The Administration should have been more forthcoming about the difficulty of that task, about the time it would take to execute it, and about the cost to the taxpayer. To be sure, the Defense Department is now scrambling to scrape up as many as 20,000 foreign troops to join our forces in occupying Iraq by the end of September. I applaud these efforts. But it would be folly to believe that a deployment of 10,000, 20,000, or even 30,000 foreign troops would significantly reduce the dangers to the nearly hundreds of thousands of Americans who are now in Iraq.

The failure of this Administration to adequately plan for post-war Iraq has become painfully evident. At yesterday's Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that he did not know if the United States had made any formal request for assistance from NATO or the United Nations since the beginning of the war in Iraq. The deployment of experienced peacekeepers from our friends and allies would go a long way to relieving the strain on our troops. It is simply shocking that our Secretary of Defense would be unaware of any efforts by the Administration to make a formal request to NATO and the U.N. to provide these troops.

The tragic failure of the Administration's efforts to build international support before launching its impatient rush towards war against Iraq is now bearing its bitter, bitter fruit. The difficulty in finding just 20,000 peacekeepers to patrol Iraq is evidence that White House efforts to assemble 49 nations into a "coalition of the willing" was merely an exercise in rhetoric, meant to cover the lack of significant military or financial contributions from dozens of nations, save for those of Britain, Australia, and Poland.

Has the lack of a plan for post-war Iraq needlessly cost American lives? If we had not been so convinced that Iraqis would greet our armies with flowers and smiles, could we have better anticipated the chaos and lawlessness that broke out in the days after the war?

If we had not been so cocksure about our ability to neatly decapitate the leadership of the Iraqi regime, could we have fashioned a better plan to deal with the collapse of civil order as our tanks rolled into Baghdad.

Perhaps this White House should have listened to the advice of many senior military leaders who foresaw the need for several hundred thousands troops to stabilize post-war Iraq. Perhaps it should have contemplated the consequences of a Saddam Hussein driven into hiding, but still potent and dangerous. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

The Administration appears quite ready now to dedicate our military to a long-term occupation of Iraq. War-weary soldiers will continue to patrol the areas around Baghdad. The citizen-soldiers of the National Guard and the Reserves will be kept from returning to their homes, their jobs, and their families. Thousands of American families will continue to worry about the fate of their loved ones.

And in spite of the heavy commitment that this Administration has made to the most ambitious policy of nation-building in more than half a century, it appears to be on the verge of sending unknown numbers of U.S. troops to yet another peacekeeping mission in Liberia.

In my home state, there is a growing sense of disenchantment with these foreign adventures. Every day, more letters come to my office from West Virginians asking when their family members will be coming home. They contain details about National Guard and Army Reserve units with unclear missions and open-ended deployments. I have received word that some units are without mail service, others must wait weeks between phone calls home to their families. One unit had to ration water to just 20 ounces per day because of supply shortages. I suspect that other Senators are experiencing a similar phenomenon in the content of their mail from families of the Guard and Reserve.

These part-time soldiers are proud to serve in our nation's military, but they know that they are also full-time members of their communities. Our nation's reservists have important duties in their civilian lives, serving their cities and towns as police officers, businessmen, doctors, teachers, and laborers. Members of the Guard and Reserves proudly joined to serve their country in times of crisis, not to be a permanent constabulary force in the Middle East.

Our brave and professional fighting men and women are awesome on the battlefield, but they must not be expected to carry out the role of peacekeepers or nation-builders in an open-ended mission, whether it take place in Lebanon, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Liberia, or Iraq. Our American soldiers are not Iraqi bureaucrats. Our Armed Forces are trained to win wars, not run countries. Putting our men and women in such an untenable situation is a misuse of our military and a disservice to our military personnel.

This Administration should think hard about whether we have the manpower to sustain a large commitment of troops in Iraq for the long term. We currently have overseas commitments in South Korea, Japan, the Balkans, and Afghanistan. Keeping tens or hundred of thousands of troops in Iraq for as many as ten years may demand more troops than our voluntary armed forces can muster.

This Administration should think hard about whether we have the money to single-handedly pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. The Department of Defense has reported that we are spending $3.9 billion each month to occupy Iraq, in addition to the $950 million we are spending each month for our mission in Afghanistan. At a time when the United States is running record-breaking deficits of $400 billion each year, the Administration has not even included these $58 billion in occupation costs in its budget. In sharp contrast to the 1991 Persian Gulf war, where our allies contributed $54 billion of the $61 billion cost of that war, the American taxpayer is virtually alone in bearing the burden for the staggering cost of this most recent war with Iraq.

Americans have good cause to be proud of the men and women who unselfishly serve our country in uniform. They have carried out their duty in Iraq admirably. But what is the next step? The last thing we want to do is repay the services our troops have given to our country by committing them indefinitely to a fuzzy reconstruction mission of uncertain duration.

Iraq is fast becoming an urban guerilla shooting gallery with U.S. troops as the targets. It is time to go to the United Nations and work to deploy a trained multinational peacekeeping force to cope with the perils of the occupation of Iraq. Before there is a disaster to cope with. Before there is a major loss of life. Before there is a crisis, we must read the tea leaves.

This White House cannot further presume on the patience of the public. The American people must be given an exit strategy for our troops. We must ask the International Community for help in Iraq.

# # # ENDS # # #

Might makes right...right? Clean up your own mess.

I would be furious if my government sent troops into Iraq to be used as target practice or be forced into situations where they might have to kill Iraqis themselves.