Turn Off Ads?
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 120 of 120

Thread: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

  1. #106
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
    Where do you get your numbers? Tens of thousands you have said. I am not sure where that "number" comes from and I am curious as to your source for this "number" (British news sources do not hold much water). Have you studied how many people died while Saddam was in power? You are sad and disgusted by death, but no mention of Saddam's reign. Again, I ask, where do get your numbers? Do you count dead insurgents and dead terrorists? Oh, by the way... that one man you mention must be Saddam Hussein. Right?

    Since we are talking "numbers". Look up the approx. numer of dead people under Saddam's iron-fist and divide it by the number of years that Saddam was in power. How many dead per year while Saddam was in power? Does this disgust you?
    Two logical fallacies: straw man and "two wrongs don't make a right."

    Straw man in the sense that you believe registerthis and I don't think Saddam was an evil or that his reign wasn't despicable. No one ever said it wasn't.

    Two wrongs don't make a right: just because Saddam was evil doesn't make it right to go to war on false pretences and lies. Those are totally separate and separable issues.

    Do I get an A zombie?

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #107
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
    Where do you get your numbers? Tens of thousands you have said. I am not sure where that "number" comes from and I am curious as to your source for this "number" (British news sources do not hold much water).
    OK, then I'll gather my information from "non-british' sources.

    CNN (I ssume you trust them) lists 1,858 coalition casualties so far. Link

    Of those, over 1,600 are American

    The Washington Post runs a daily chart which is available in the print edition, but unfortunately not the online edition, which tracks Iraqi civilian casualties as a result of coalition actions (or, inaction, as it were). The most recent count lists between 22,000 and 25,000 Iraqi civilians dead since the beginning of the invasion. The U.S., conveniently, does not track Iraqi civilian deaths, leaving it up to sources such as Human Rights Watch and IraqBodyCount to track the civilian deaths. It should be noted that over 7,000 deaths occured during the immediate invation, until Bush declared an end to "hostile actions."

    Have you studied how many people died while Saddam was in power? You are sad and disgusted by death, but no mention of Saddam's reign.
    Well, to be fair, i didn't mention Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pinochet or Milosevic, either...because I view it as implicit that I don't support authoritarian dictators. But do you really want to compare U.S. policy with Saddam Hussein's? Do you want to say that, hey, at least our body count isn't as high as it was while Saddam was in power? Do you think that's a positive? And, since we're on this path, there is no shortage whatsoever of global situations where people are living under a murderous, or inept and corrupt, governments. Consider Haiti, Sudan, Uzebekistan and Sierre Leone, to name a few. If the U.S. wishes to be global human rights police, then there are certainly no shortage of opportunities. Although, it should be noted, places like Haiti and Sierre leone don't have much in the way of oil, so our interest in intervening might not be so high.

    Again, I ask, where do get your numbers? Do you count dead insurgents and dead terrorists? Oh, by the way... that one man you mention must be Saddam Hussein. Right?
    I listed sources above, feel free to view if you like. Or don't, and continue on ignorantly thinking that this is a "clean" war.

    Since we are talking "numbers". Look up the approx. numer of dead people under Saddam's iron-fist and divide it by the number of years that Saddam was in power. How many dead per year while Saddam was in power? Does this disgust you?
    Nice try to divert the argument, but it doesn't work.

    My point--which you made no effort whatsoever to rebut--was that Bush led the U.S. into a war against Iraq because he claimed that:

    1) Saddam Hussein had WMDs, including nuclear weapons, that he was preparing to use against the U.S. and/or Israel,
    2) That Saddam corroborated with Al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks, and
    3) That Saddam posed an imminent threat to U.S. security.

    ALL THREE OF THOSE STATEMENTS ARE WRONG. Absolutely false. At the beginning of the war, there was very little mention of Saddam's well-documented atrocities, and if they were made it was done so only in passing. Bush knew that popular support for a war would be very difficult to obtain if the cause was only the liberation of a downtrodden people. SO intelligence wa embellished and/or fabricated, charges were trumped up, lies were repeated, and Bush got his war.

    Death disgusts me, RFA. Whether it be brought on by a murderous dictator like Hussein, or someone like Bush. And, like I said, if the U.S. wants to play Human Rights Cop, well, the world sure could use some help there. Where, oh where, to begin...?

  4. #108
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,725

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    But he told BBC's Today that another independent estimate of civilian deaths was around 15,000. "
    Perhaps we can add a grading system in conjunction w/ the rep system?!?

    UK foreign secretary? I am not sure if he has a number-crunching degree, but I am sure that he is British. Those Brits sure seem to know a lot.

    How many people have been killed by insurgents? Does anyone keep those numbers? Are the insurgents Iraqis or do they belong to the Iraqi army? Too many seem to imply that the Americans are doing all this killing. Too many seem to want to portray things in this light. That is sad and disgusting IMO. Insurgency/Saddam good, Americans bad. Amazing that some Americans paint this picture less than 4 years after 9-11.
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  5. #109
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,725

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    Death disgusts me, RFA.
    Something we can agree upon.

    And a shame that the world has never figured a better way than killing each other. Cure for polio, man on the moon... and never a better way to settle disputes.
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  6. #110
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
    Perhaps we can add a grading system in conjunction w/ the rep system?!?

    UK foreign secretary? I am not sure if he has a number-crunching degree, but I am sure that he is British. Those Brits sure seem to know a lot.

    How many people have been killed by insurgents? Does anyone keep those numbers? Are the insurgents Iraqis or do they belong to the Iraqi army? Too many seem to imply that the Americans are doing all this killing. Too many seem to want to portray things in this light. That is sad and disgusting IMO. Insurgency/Saddam good, Americans bad. Amazing that some Americans paint this picture less than 4 years after 9-11.
    So NOW the word of our Allies the British isn't good enough, eh? Where does the skepticism, willful ignorance, the buried head in the sand end? You trust nothing but your gut and Fox News?

    Of course Americans aren't doing all the killing. Again, who SAID THAT? From typing Jack Straw to Strawman so many times, I'm getting hay fever.

  7. #111
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
    Perhaps we can add a grading system in conjunction w/ the rep system?!?

    UK foreign secretary? I am not sure if he has a number-crunching degree, but I am sure that he is British. Those Brits sure seem to know a lot.
    Have you ever considered asking yourself why the U.S. government doesn't track Iraqi civilian casualties? Maybe you think, like their press releases say, that it's just too hard.

    How many people have been killed by insurgents? Does anyone keep those numbers?
    Well, the U.S> government doesn't, because it reflects poorly on them. reports I have read indicate between 10-12,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by the insurgency. Which is as much a statement on the inability of the U.S. to provide security or plan accordingly for the invasion's aftermath as it is a condemnation of the insurgents perpetrating these acts. The U.S. can't invade and conquer a nation, dispose of the army and civilian police forces, then throw their hands up and claim no responsibility when fanatical insurgents attack the civilian populace.

    Are the insurgents Iraqis or do they belong to the Iraqi army? Too many seem to imply that the Americans are doing all this killing. Too many seem to want to portray things in this light. That is sad and disgusting IMO.
    So, blaming America for the results of a war that it started disgusts you? But the fact that this war came to be under false pretenses does not? I wish for the life of me I could understand your rationale for such things, RFA.

    Insurgency/Saddam good, Americans bad. Amazing that some Americans paint this picture less than 4 years after 9-11.
    Now your posts are just getting laughable. Who here has claimed that Saddam was good? Then again, this post is just another in a series of posts by you which do not address any of the arguments being presented, but only resort to simplistic phrases like "Saddam Good/America bad." Let me guess--your next post is going to be "Why do you hate freedom?"

  8. #112
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,725

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    Now your posts are just getting laughable. Who here has claimed that Saddam was good? Then again, this post is just another in a series of posts by you which do not address any of the arguments being presented, but only resort to simplistic phrases like "Saddam Good/America bad." Let me guess--your next post is going to be "Why do you hate freedom?"
    Thanks. I guess that I should be flattered.... considering the source. I do my best.... and try my best to not get personal. Have a good day!
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  9. #113
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFanAlways1966
    Thanks. I guess that I should be flattered.... considering the source. I do my best.... and try my best to not get personal. Have a good day!
    I didn't insult you or call you names, RFA, I simply said that in this thread you are conjuring up statements that aren't there and aren't addressing the arguments that I and others are presenting. No one here, or anywhere that I have read (and I'm assuming that my reading material is far more progressive and liberal than is yours) has said Saddam or the insurgency is "good" or that Saddam was a good and fair leader. No one is arguing that--least of all me.

    But that isn't the argument we're making. We're saying that Bush led this nation to war on false pretenses, and that has led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of individuals. Your responses are to simply state that Saddam was bad, Clinton screwed up too, you don't trust british journalism, and you can't believe anyone could find American policies "bad". That's not rebuttal of the argument, they're straw men set up to deflect a serious discussion of these issues.

    Again, I maintain that if a Democrat had behaved this way, people would be clamoring for him to resign or be impeached. And you know what? I would be right there with them.

  10. #114
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,725

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    No problem, register. I enjoy "discussing" these matters with all you guys. And I know that I am a target sometimes and I do a fine job of putting out a welcome mat for that. A glutton for punishment!

    I think I'll step aside on this one at this point and as usual agree to disagree with you guys.
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  11. #115
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,668

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    9/11 commission? Who said anything about that? I'm talking about the Bush Administration's fraudulent claims that Iraq had WMD's and posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and/or its allies.
    The very same exact claims that Clinton and many of our leading Democrats were making too. Who used the term "imminent threat" first - Bush or Clinton?

    Clinton bombed Iraq to destroy these so-called non-existent WMD. Have you ever taken the time to look up what many in your own illustrious party have said? It is a matter of record. The same strong words/claims that this administration was making. The very same intelligence agencies that the Clinton administration believed and acted on, so did Bush.

    Were you outraged then? Were they fraudulent?

    And were you outraged when so many of the Dems, such as Hillary, Wes Clark (whom you support), Barbara Boxer, among many others, backed this war? Wesley Clarke heaped nothing but applause and accolades on Bush and this administration before and right after the initial invasion.

    Then- when things start to get rough, what do these lead Democrats do? They become bandwagon jumpers simply for the political expendiency of the circumstances. Yet they can't hide from their positions as far as I'm concerned, regardless of the explanations/excuse they now use.

    First of all, there is a HUGE difference between bombing a suspected missle site and invading and occupying a nation.
    Well duh. No kidding. And what did bombing those suspected sites get us? How many terrorist cells/organizations did we destroy/capture? How many terrorists did we kill? Capturing a blind cleric, and a few deranged followers, is not gonna come close to solving the problem. It was simply "window dressing".

    Do you actually believe that we could contain these people when their network was vast, and spreading throughout the world? When they publically were making threats on America and it's interests, and then carrying them out without little or no retaliation?

    Secondly, it appears the intelligence which led Clinton to bomb the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan and the suspected weapons site in Iraq was, in fact, embellished or fabricated. I'm not defneding Clinton here. But, then again, this isn't ABOUT Clinton, it's about Bush...unless you feel that you can't defend Bush's actions and in turn have to take a swipe at a past president.
    Not taking swipes at anyone my friend. And it's funny that you, like so many, want to nail Bush, while making excuses for those within your own party who supported this war, and were saying the same things. But it proves the point that I, the majority of Americans, and which the 9-11 Commission confirmed - our intelligence gathering agencies, from field operations, logistics, and coordination, was sorely, sorely lacking, and has been for sometime.

    You want to use it for partisan purposes to nail Bush, then go ahead. I've never said Bush was perfect. And I've never said that he hasn't made mistakes during his terms. But I have never bought into these claims that Bush purposely fabricated intelligence in order to go to war. That is stupid and ridiculous IMO. And even lead Dems such as Biden, and others, who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and who reviewed all the intel, has publically refuted those claims.

    And I think if a Democrat were in the White House you could be protesting on the Capitol Steps calling for impeachment proceedings against him. Again, I ask, where is the outrage?
    No I wouldn't. We should have been utilizing our military and going after these thugs years ago. Our indifference and looking the other way attitude allowed them to prosper and flourish IMO.

    You seem to be so outraged over this war, and I never take lightly the deaths/sacrifices that our men/women have made in this efort. I just happen to believe that it was coming and was inevitable. We, as a nation (and even the world community) could no longer avoid it, or look the other way any longer. Whether it was in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    We, as Americans. shoul dhave been outraged when the WTC was bombed the very first time. That should have opened our eyes to the seriousness of the problem, and that it was gonna get worse if not confronted. This wasn't just a blnd clreic and some of his fanatical followers who did this. The intelligence agancies then, and it was confrimed by members of Clinton's Cabinet also (Berger and Albright) that their backing came from this guy named Bin Laden.

    The 1990's saw the expansion/growth of al Qaeda and various other terrorist networks throughout the world. Take a good hard look at all the embassies and other installations that were atacked by terrorists, inwhich thousands of innocent lost their lives. And the world community looked the other way in indifference, and hoped the problem would go away.

    We tried to take legal action against these thugs, and also diplomacy, and it didn't work. That is not the language they understand IMO.

    I have never blamed Clinton nor Bush. It's not the fault of one individual. As I have stated before - our illustrious leaders, on both sides, along with various world leaders, failed us ALL miserably, and set this country up for the tragedy that occurred on 9-11.

    And Bin Laden was right - he said back in '98 that Americans didn't have the fortitude, nor the stomach, to come after him (or any terrorists) because the public didn't want to see their boys coming home in bodybags. The situations surrounding "Blackhawk Down" taught him that. Did you know that he was behind that fiasco too?

    It's a fight we can no longer avoid. And I don't think our illustrious men and women who have died/sacrified in that cause have died in vain.
    Last edited by GAC; 06-09-2005 at 09:55 AM.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  12. #116
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    The very same exact claims that Clinton and many of our leading Democrats were making too. Who used the term "imminent threat" first - Bush or Clinton?
    Why is the comparison being made? What does this have to do with Bush leading the nation into war on fraudulent terms? I'm not here to debate the Clinton presidency--which was far from perfect, and which I have made no attempt to defend in this thread. But bringing up Clinton's rhetoric only serves to deflect criticism from Bush and away from the argument at hand.

    Clinton bombed Iraq to destroy these so-called non-existent WMD. Have you ever taken the time to look up what many in your own illustrious party have said?
    I'm not a Democrat, GAC.

    It is a matter of record. The same strong words/claims that this administration was making. The very same intelligence agencies that the Clinton administration believed and acted on, so did Bush.
    But the reactions were SIGNIFICANTLY different...bombing a suspected arms depot and invading and occupying a country aren't even in the same league...but let's discuss more below.

    Were you outraged then? Were they fraudulent?
    Outraged, no. I save my outrages for egregious acts of incompetency or falsifications that lead to the deaths of thousands. Fraudulent? It certainly appears that it was, it was misleading or exagerrated evidence. But, again, who here is defending Clinton's actions? This isn't about Clinton.

    And were you outraged when so many of the Dems, such as Hillary, Wes Clark (whom you support), Barbara Boxer, among many others, backed this war?
    Would I have liked to see them take a stronger anti-war stance? Yes. But voting for the approval of the use of force if necessary--versus a complete support of the war--are not the same things. No one wanted to let Saddam run amok, create WMDs and become a significant security threat. But that's what the UN inspectors were there for, and according to evidence we've seen after the invasion, they were doing their job--the inspection program was effective.

    The government grants police the use of force if necessary to subdue a subject, but if the police abuse their authority, it doesn't mean the government supports it.

    Wesley Clarke heaped nothing but applause and accolades on Bush and this administration before and right after the initial invasion.
    Well, unfortunately, Wes, much like Hillary and Kerry and others, are politicians at heart, and they play that card, and play it safe. But do i think that this country would be embroiled in a war in Iraq seemingly wihtout end if Clark, Kerry or another Dem were President? Not for a second.

    Then- when things start to get rough, what do these lead Democrats do? They become bandwagon jumpers simply for the political expendiency of the circumstances. Yet they can't hide from their positions as far as I'm concerned, regardless of the explanations/excuse they now use.
    Well, I would tend to agree with you that their public statements on this war were meant to play the political game--as much as any of the statements by Republicans were. But this is a war propagated by Bush--he wanted it from the beginning. Transcripts of White House conversations only days after September 11 had Bush searching for a way to "tie this to Iraq." Afghanistan was a diversion, Iraq is what he always wanted. No Democrat--and certainly some Republicans as well--sitting in the Oval office would have led this nation to war under the circumstances that Bush did.

    Do you actually believe that we could contain these people when their network was vast, and spreading throughout the world? When they publically were making threats on America and it's interests, and then carrying them out without little or no retaliation?
    Yes, because you can't defeat terrorism with an armed force. It doesn't work that way. Not that you ever would, but I highly recommend Chomsky's "9/11" for an outstanding narrative on the ways to combat terrorism. He explains it far better than I ever could, at least while making this post still readable.

    And, just so we're clear on this: the number of global terrorist attacks during 2004 was an all-time high. This is after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, three years after our launch of the so-called "war on terrorism"...terrorism must be addressed at its core, which means a fundamental change in the way America conducts itself in the world, and the way we construct our foreign policy. A lot of people don't want to do that, or believe that we can "force" the terrorists into submission. Sadly, they will find that is not the case.

    Not taking swipes at anyone my friend. And it's funny that you, like so many, want to nail Bush, while making excuses for those within your own party who supported this war, and were saying the same things.
    First of all, I haven't defended ANYONE here. And if you feel that I have, I would appreciate quotes I have made to that effect.

    Secondly, I am a registered member of the Green Party, and no one in "my" party voiced any type of support for the war at all. But, then again, you simply *assumed* I was a Democrat because I don't support Republican policies.

    But it proves the point that I, the majority of Americans, and which the 9-11 Commission confirmed - our intelligence gathering agencies, from field operations, logistics, and coordination, was sorely, sorely lacking, and has been for sometime.
    Well, I'm not going to list a point-by-point rebuttal to this, only to say that--people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. Bush had plenty of evidence to show that Saddam, for example, didn't attempt to purchase yellow cake uranium in Nigeria, didn't try to align himself with Al Qaeda, didn't have functioning WMD labs...and he chose to ignore it.
    A detailed CIA report highlights the fact that Iraq had no WMDs and no weapons facilities (available here if you're interested ) and numerous detailed correspondance between intelligence agencies and the Bush administration in the months leading up to the invasion show that the administration was made known that a good deal of the intelligence they were relying upon was speculation or downright inaccurate, yet the administration used it anyway.

    If he was so very wrong--if it was, honestly, a failure in intelligence and there was no effort made to deceive the American public, then why not apologize? Why not admit that mistakes were made, that intelligence was bad, and apologize to the families of all the soldiers who have been killed fighting a war that needn't have been fought?

    No I wouldn't. We should have been utilizing our military and going after these thugs years ago. Our indifference and looking the other way attitude allowed them to prosper and flourish IMO.
    Pardon me for finding this hard to believe, GAC, but say what you will...

    You seem to be so outraged over this war,
    I am.

    and I never take lightly the deaths/sacrifices that our men/women have made in this efort.
    Would you send your son/daughter/loved one to Iraq to fight? Do you believe the cause is just, and the price is worth the outcome?

    I just happen to believe that it was coming and was inevitable.
    Now THIS I would agree with--I, too, think the Iraq war was inevitable, only probably for completely different reasons than you do.

    We, as a nation (and even the world community) could no longer avoid it, or look the other way any longer. Whether it was in Iraq or Afghanistan.
    OK, well, let's go invade North Korea. They've admitted to having nuclear weapons, are run my a maniacal dictator who kills his own people, have admitted that they loathe the U.S. and are pursuing missles that could attack us...come on, let's go. (Warning! No oil in North Korea. Interest might be low.)

    We, as Americans. shoul dhave been outraged when the WTC was bombed the very first time. That should have opened our eyes to the seriousness of the problem, and that it was gonna get worse if not confronted. This wasn't just a blnd clreic and some of his fanatical followers who did this. The intelligence agancies then, and it was confrimed by members of Clinton's Cabinet also (Berger and Albright) that their backing came from this guy named Bin Laden.
    Fine, go after Bin Laden. I haven't heard anyone not want to do that. I even supported the Afghanistan invasion--although I think the handling of the aftermath has been extremely disappointing (insamuch as we never really cared much to be there in the first place). But Iraq? Yes, I was outraged at the attacks of 9/11, I wanted them to catch who was responsible. But I DIDN'T want to start a war against a nation that had nothing to do with that attack...a war which would kill thousands of people. (I maintain that if Iraq had been a poor, destitute third-world oil-starved nation in Africa, we wouldn't give a crap about them...)

    Again, I highly recommend reading Chomsky's book. It's far better explained than I could do. If I have time I will post some quotes here for you. A brief warning, though, if you read him with an open mind it may expand your views on the world.

  13. #117
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by registerthis
    Why is the comparison being made? What does this have to do with Bush leading the nation into war on fraudulent terms? I'm not here to debate the Clinton presidency--which was far from perfect, and which I have made no attempt to defend in this thread. But bringing up Clinton's rhetoric only serves to deflect criticism from Bush and away from the argument at hand.


    I'm not a Democrat, GAC.


    But the reactions were SIGNIFICANTLY different...bombing a suspected arms depot and invading and occupying a country aren't even in the same league...but let's discuss more below.


    Outraged, no. I save my outrages for egregious acts of incompetency or falsifications that lead to the deaths of thousands. Fraudulent? It certainly appears that it was, it was misleading or exagerrated evidence. But, again, who here is defending Clinton's actions? This isn't about Clinton.


    Would I have liked to see them take a stronger anti-war stance? Yes. But voting for the approval of the use of force if necessary--versus a complete support of the war--are not the same things. No one wanted to let Saddam run amok, create WMDs and become a significant security threat. But that's what the UN inspectors were there for, and according to evidence we've seen after the invasion, they were doing their job--the inspection program was effective.

    The government grants police the use of force if necessary to subdue a subject, but if the police abuse their authority, it doesn't mean the government supports it.


    Well, unfortunately, Wes, much like Hillary and Kerry and others, are politicians at heart, and they play that card, and play it safe. But do i think that this country would be embroiled in a war in Iraq seemingly wihtout end if Clark, Kerry or another Dem were President? Not for a second.


    Well, I would tend to agree with you that their public statements on this war were meant to play the political game--as much as any of the statements by Republicans were. But this is a war propagated by Bush--he wanted it from the beginning. Transcripts of White House conversations only days after September 11 had Bush searching for a way to "tie this to Iraq." Afghanistan was a diversion, Iraq is what he always wanted. No Democrat--and certainly some Republicans as well--sitting in the Oval office would have led this nation to war under the circumstances that Bush did.


    Yes, because you can't defeat terrorism with an armed force. It doesn't work that way. Not that you ever would, but I highly recommend Chomsky's "9/11" for an outstanding narrative on the ways to combat terrorism. He explains it far better than I ever could, at least while making this post still readable.

    And, just so we're clear on this: the number of global terrorist attacks during 2004 was an all-time high. This is after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, three years after our launch of the so-called "war on terrorism"...terrorism must be addressed at its core, which means a fundamental change in the way America conducts itself in the world, and the way we construct our foreign policy. A lot of people don't want to do that, or believe that we can "force" the terrorists into submission. Sadly, they will find that is not the case.


    First of all, I haven't defended ANYONE here. And if you feel that I have, I would appreciate quotes I have made to that effect.

    Secondly, I am a registered member of the Green Party, and no one in "my" party voiced any type of support for the war at all. But, then again, you simply *assumed* I was a Democrat because I don't support Republican policies.


    Well, I'm not going to list a point-by-point rebuttal to this, only to say that--people hear what they want to hear, and believe what they want to believe. Bush had plenty of evidence to show that Saddam, for example, didn't attempt to purchase yellow cake uranium in Nigeria, didn't try to align himself with Al Qaeda, didn't have functioning WMD labs...and he chose to ignore it.
    A detailed CIA report highlights the fact that Iraq had no WMDs and no weapons facilities (available here if you're interested ) and numerous detailed correspondance between intelligence agencies and the Bush administration in the months leading up to the invasion show that the administration was made known that a good deal of the intelligence they were relying upon was speculation or downright inaccurate, yet the administration used it anyway.

    If he was so very wrong--if it was, honestly, a failure in intelligence and there was no effort made to deceive the American public, then why not apologize? Why not admit that mistakes were made, that intelligence was bad, and apologize to the families of all the soldiers who have been killed fighting a war that needn't have been fought?


    Pardon me for finding this hard to believe, GAC, but say what you will...


    I am.


    Would you send your son/daughter/loved one to Iraq to fight? Do you believe the cause is just, and the price is worth the outcome?


    Now THIS I would agree with--I, too, think the Iraq war was inevitable, only probably for completely different reasons than you do.


    OK, well, let's go invade North Korea. They've admitted to having nuclear weapons, are run my a maniacal dictator who kills his own people, have admitted that they loathe the U.S. and are pursuing missles that could attack us...come on, let's go. (Warning! No oil in North Korea. Interest might be low.)


    Fine, go after Bin Laden. I haven't heard anyone not want to do that. I even supported the Afghanistan invasion--although I think the handling of the aftermath has been extremely disappointing (insamuch as we never really cared much to be there in the first place). But Iraq? Yes, I was outraged at the attacks of 9/11, I wanted them to catch who was responsible. But I DIDN'T want to start a war against a nation that had nothing to do with that attack...a war which would kill thousands of people. (I maintain that if Iraq had been a poor, destitute third-world oil-starved nation in Africa, we wouldn't give a crap about them...)

    Again, I highly recommend reading Chomsky's book. It's far better explained than I could do. If I have time I will post some quotes here for you. A brief warning, though, if you read him with an open mind it may expand your views on the world.
    That one left the freakin' park.

  14. #118
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,653

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    That one left the freakin' park.
    Yep... BTW Zinn is good too.

  15. #119
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,117

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Honestly GAC, this war is a serious issue and you treat it like some lame high school debate. Dredging up the past utterances of Democratic politicos doesn't serve any purpose -- it doesn't exonerate Bush, justify the war and or shed any light on the current tragedy. It's telling, that you can only see things through a filter of partisanship and talk-radio-level sophistry. Many folks here feel a wrong was committed and feel it very strongly. Surely, you must have some real thoughts about the tragedy that has unfolded in front of our eyes.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  16. #120
    Harry Chiti Fan registerthis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,872

    Re: Newsweek Wrong In Report That Causes Protests & Deaths

    Very interesting, I just saw this today:

    Downing Street Memo

    I would like to see GAC, RFA and other war 'defenders' thoughts on this memo. It seems to support the position that many of us have held for some time: That Bush long ago planned an invasion to topple Saddam's government, and that evidence to support this directive was being compiled and fixed around this directive.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25