PDA

View Full Version : Well there appears to be some indications that the Surge is working


GarfieldJL
07-12-2007, 01:17 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FinalBenchmarkReport.pdf


This is the actual report that has been given to members of Congress, it appears there are some areas that Iraq is struggling in and some where they've made satisfactory levels of progress. It's really about 50/50 and this is the interm report, the final report will be made in september. Assuming the Democrats don't manage to force an idiotic retreat from Iraq letting Iran, Syria, and Al Qaeda win.



Also I'd like to thank news busters for pointing out the biased questions

http://newsbusters.org/node/14040

Furthermore, I'd like people to see how various media outlets are covering the situation trying to spin everything so it is anti-troop, anti-US, etc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19723307

Not going to bother quoting MSNBC which is a known far left outlet.

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/report-on-iraq-shows-progress-only-mixed/n20070712100809990007

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government has made only mixed progress toward fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday in a report certain to inflame debate in Congress over growing calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Okay first of all this is an interm report on the progress towards the goals for September, that's a few monthes from now.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/10/america/NA-GEN-US-Iraq-Progress-Report.php

WASHINGTON: Struggling to defend its Iraq policy, the Bush administration in a 23-page classified report will point to limited progress being made by the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad, U.S. officials told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The interim assessment, which will be presented on Capitol Hill on Thursday, finds the Iraqi government has failed to pass long-promised laws that Washington has called key to national cohesion and economic recovery, such as legislation that would fairly divide Iraq's oil resources.



Okay again same thing as what AOL did. Though I'm going to point out an inaccuracy, it is a 25 page report not a 23 page report, also if it was classified how did Fox News get their hands on the report and posted what was in it online for people to read.


In my honest opinion, I feel many in the News Media literally are actively rooting for the defeat of the US in Iraq.

The Source
07-12-2007, 01:39 PM
You very well may have a point. If you look at the history of newsmedia, they have been known for "Wagging the Dog". I think several news outlets are so upset at Gore's loss in 2001, so they have descided to cripple the Republican party once and for all. Remember, not all newsmedia is Democratic, but most of the media outlets are.

Media polls are not a good indicator of how "The People" feel. What if Bush actually has a good 50/60% approval ratting, but Democratic voters race to the news websites to vote against Bush?

GarfieldJL
07-12-2007, 01:51 PM
I think that's a given especially since supposedly Ron Paul won the Republican debates, which obviously is a load of garbage.


Furthermore, I'm accusing the media of being more than just having a left wing agenda, I'm accusing them of rooting for a US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

mimartin
07-12-2007, 02:31 PM
Furthermore, I'm accusing the media of being more than just having a left wing agenda, I'm accusing them of rooting for a US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is a bold statement and one that I totally disagree with. Just because someone is against this war does not mean they wish harm on our troops. Some people are against the war because they believe that it is being administered in a way that is needlessly destroying young American lives.

Personally I did not support the war. I felt we should have gone after bin Laden and al-Qaeda first. I just didnít see how a two bit dictator from a third world nation was a treat to the US (still donít). Now that we are there I do not see how we can cut and run. President Bush strategic has been nothing less than pathetic thus far. I hope the surge works, but if recent history is any indication I have my doubts. I AM NOT ROOTING AGAINST THE US; Iím just stating my observation.

For the sake of all involved I hope the deaths and disfiguring injuries stop. If we pull out my belief is that the Iraqi people will suffer even more than they are suffering today. I see no other option than staying and doing what ever is necessary to stabilize the security and government of Iraq. Like the President, I do not have a clue how that can be done.

ET Warrior
07-12-2007, 02:41 PM
So you state yourself that it appears to be "About 50/50" and then go on to criticize a news outlet for saying "The Iraqi government has made only mixed progress"?

Am I confused about the distinction between a 50% success rate and referring to it as mixed progress? Or are you once again just striving to find any anti-American sentiment you can in anything that isn't Faux News?

GarfieldJL
07-12-2007, 02:42 PM
That is a bold statement and one that I totally disagree with. Just because someone is against this war does not mean they wish harm on our troops. Some people are against the war because they believe that it is being administered in a way that is needlessly destroying young American lives.


I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that Time printed an article supporting a terrorist whom bombed Police Stations among other things that was released much to Time's dismay on 9/11 2001. This caused a huge backlash against Time, and in my opinionwas the only reason that other media agencies acted like they were pro US immediantly following 9/11. Also during World War 2, newsmen could be thrown in jail if they tried printing anything about our casualties or anything else that might demoralize the American people.


Personally I did not support the war. I felt we should have gone after bin Laden and al-Qaeda first. I just didnít see how a two bit dictator from a third world nation was a treat to the US (still donít). Now that we are there I do not see how we can cut and run. President Bush strategic has been nothing less than pathetic thus far. I hope the surge works, but if recent history is any indication I have my doubts. I AM NOT ROOTING AGAINST THE US; Iím just stating my observation.


I think Saddam chose the wrong time to start posturing and wrongly assumed President Bush wouldn't do anything. Seriously, it isn't in President Bush's nature to make an idle threat or to bluff. When he says he's going to do something he'll do it.


For the sake of all involved I hope the deaths and disfiguring injuries stop. If we pull out my belief is that the Iraqi people will suffer even more than they are suffering today. I see no other option than staying and doing what ever is necessary to stabilize the security and government of Iraq. Like the President, I do not have a clue how that can be done.

There are some signs though according to the report that the surge is working, however we may have to launch attacks into Iran to disrupt their training Taliban and Iraqi Insurgents. I agree with you that we can't pull out of Iraq and the consequences would be far worse than us staying. I honestly wish we could leave today, but unlike Vietnam we're fighting fanatics that will try to follow us home.


@ETWarrior, you can actually twist things while still stating the truth, the wording implies that there it was a failure however this was an interm report which was just to show there is progress being made which there is, but you wouldn't know it reading the AOL article. When I get Arrogance back from the person whom borrowed it from me I'll give a bunch of examples to show just how it happens.

Samuel Dravis
07-12-2007, 03:14 PM
I don't see a significant bias in saying that they failed to meet their objectives on schedule. Unless you want something like Putin's '50% of news must be positive' crap, there's little to find fault with in factual reporting. At least it's useful to know, even if it's not particularly good news.

GarfieldJL
07-12-2007, 03:28 PM
I don't see a significant bias in saying that they failed to meet their objectives on schedule. Unless you want something like Putin's '50% of news must be positive' crap, there's little to find fault with in factual reporting. At least it's useful to know, even if it's not particularly good news.


Samuel this is an interm report, you can't expect them to have every benchmark met already, the final report is supposed to be in September. They still have a lot of time before the final report. So the media is misrepresenting this report which is just supposed to show whether or not progress is being made not that they have everything done and ready....

Samuel Dravis
07-12-2007, 03:41 PM
At this time, the sources who have read the interim report say that objectives have not been met yet, correct? Fine, they haven't been met. Disappointing but hardly unexpected. I don't think that news sources should simply shut up about it until September, though. I like knowing what's going on (or not going on, as the case may be).

When the full report is available in September, there will be another chance to evaluate it. To be honest, I doubt the report will be substantially different then but I'll keep an eye on it.

mimartin
07-12-2007, 06:15 PM
I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that Time printed an article supporting a terrorist whom bombed Police Stations among other things that was released much to Time's dismay on 9/11 2001. This caused a huge backlash against Time, and in my opinion was the only reason that other media agencies acted like they were pro US immediantly following 9/11.

So one media source printed something you deemed supports terrorist and you lump all the media outlets (Iím guessing except FoxNews) into the statement they are rooting against the US in the war with Iraq? Could it be that the reason American news outlets acted pro American after 9/11 is that they are Americans?

Also sometimes news outlets print stories that go against their standard beliefs. They have a reporter look at something from a different perspective and give a report based on that information. By looking at both sides of an argument or a problem you get a better perspective of the root cause of the disagreement. That is something called being balanced in your reporting, giving both sides a chance to state their case.


Also during World War 2, newsmen could be thrown in jail if they tried printing anything about our casualties or anything else that might demoralize the American people.

Have you heard of Freedom of the Press? WW2 brought out some of the greatest attributes of being an American, but it also brought out some of the worst. The worst being something like this or putting American citizens into internment camps. The American people's Fathers, Mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters were fighting and dieing, the American people were paying tax dollars to support the war effort, the American people deserved to know the casualty reports just as they do today. I am against the press reporting about current or future operations that could but soldiers in harms way, but reporting the numbers and the names of American men and women that gave their life for their county is hardly what Iíd call treasonous.

Nancy Allen``
07-12-2007, 07:55 PM
I would agree with the notion that news networks would report on issues based on their political views (one would report in support of or in criticism of Iraq for example) and there would be some news sources, not CNN or Fox but something like a political publication or special interest group, that would be outright biased for one side or another. Take an Earth First enviromental newspaper that was made with recycled toilet paper (and depending on your views post consumer waste), they would scream the world is going to end and it's all our fault. They would demonise Bush, the government, the war, show solidity and sympathy for Al Qaeda and Palestine and speak of the evils of drug laws. Now that is an extremist portrayal to be sure, to which I say to look at such groups and see for yourselves, but the point is there is media bias, in some cases even media siding.

GarfieldJL
07-12-2007, 08:10 PM
So one media source printed something you deemed supports terrorist and you lump all the media outlets (Iím guessing except FoxNews) into the statement they are rooting against the US in the war with Iraq? Could it be that the reason American news outlets acted pro American after 9/11 is that they are Americans?


Okay I am overgeneralizing a bit, but the fact is we're at war. A war that could take a long time, and trying to undercut the commander in chief in the middle of it because you don't agree isn't appropriate.


Also sometimes news outlets print stories that go against their standard beliefs. They have a reporter look at something from a different perspective and give a report based on that information. By looking at both sides of an argument or a problem you get a better perspective of the root cause of the disagreement. That is something called being balanced in your reporting, giving both sides a chance to state their case.


They do but then they word things to twist it in a poor light. For example they offer Clinton praise for signing a bill that he is keeping his promise to the American people. Yet when Bush signs a bill that he promised he'd support publicly they paint it like he's doing it for a special interest group or the Republican base.


Then there is just reporting deaths every single day, roadside bombs, etc. That isn't news, that is trying to demoralize the American people. I hate to sound cold, but it's a war and people die in war. Furthermore, this kind of reporting would have gotten the reporter thrown in Jail during WW 2, for aiding the enemy.


Have you heard of Freedom of the Press? WW2 brought out some of the greatest attributes of being an American, but it also brought out some of the worst. The worst being something like this or putting American citizens into internment camps. The American people's Fathers, Mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters were fighting and dieing, the American people were paying tax dollars to support the war effort, the American people deserved to know the casualty reports just as they do today. I am against the press reporting about current or future operations that could but soldiers in harms way, but reporting the numbers and the names of American men and women that gave their life for their county is hardly what Iíd call treasonous.

We're at war, there are provisions in the Constitution that limits these rights during wartime. The President hasn't exerted them, but the provisions in the Constitution are there. Also thing is the Press has reported current and future operations here recently specifically ABC news. So that's why I'm so upset with the Press.

Also the American people do not need to know the casualty reports every single day, that goes beyond reporting the news and actively trying to discourage the American people.

mimartin
07-12-2007, 11:09 PM
Then there is just reporting deaths every single day, roadside bombs, etc. That isn't news, that is trying to demoralize the American people. I hate to sound cold, but it's a war and people die in war.

I respectfully disagree. Paris Hilton or Britney Spears drinking in a bar is not news our troops are always news. People die in war and it does lessen American support for the war, but it is news. To me saying that it is not news is disrespecting what our troops are doing over there. I will say their deaths and injuries are not the only news the media should be portraying. I really wish the media would also show the good the troops are doing over there, but blood and guts is better for the ratings.

We're at war, there are provisions in the Constitution that limits these rights during wartime. The President hasn't exerted them, but the provisions in the Constitution are there.

Again, I disagree. I know there are provisions in the Constitution that limit our rights during war. I also know even if there were not this President would make it so.If this President wanted to remove those rights he would just issue a ďSigning StatementĒ and remove the law protecting our rights.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
I just donít see how casualty reports are hindering our war effort. If the truth hinders the American peopleís conception of war then maybe we will be a little more reluctant next time to send little Johnny to his death. Maybe the American people will make sure our leaders do a little more planning before putting our men and women in harms way.

Also the American people do not need to know the casualty reports every single day, that goes beyond reporting the news and actively trying to discourage the American people.

Who should decide what the American people do and do not need to know? The American people, if we decide we do not want this on the news then it will not be on the news.

I want my news. I want it fair and complete. I donít want it sugar coated just give it to me straight. If 50 American military men and women died today I want to know. It will not make me feel any less for them, just for the leaders that put them there (both Democratic and Republican).

People die in war. That is a fact. Hopefully the American people will think before they put someone in office that believes war is the first option and not the last.

John Galt
07-13-2007, 01:56 AM
In general, I think the term "Surge" is pointless. They got some reinforcements, of course operations will be more effective. Maybe things will finally start to quieten down over there.

@Garfield- What's wrong with Ron Paul? I thought he fairly dominated the debate, but he only got 6 minutes of airtime, compared to Rudy McRomney's collective 30.

GarfieldJL
07-13-2007, 12:11 PM
I respectfully disagree. Paris Hilton or Britney Spears drinking in a bar is not news our troops are always news. People die in war and it does lessen American support for the war, but it is news. To me saying that it is not news is disrespecting what our troops are doing over there. I will say their deaths and injuries are not the only news the media should be portraying. I really wish the media would also show the good the troops are doing over there, but blood and guts is better for the ratings.


Bill O'Reilly agreed with you about Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, that was until Paris Hilton got the special release because she got stressed out. Then the special treatment of a celebrity was legitimate news.

Did you know in World War 2, the American Media wasn't allowed to print anything concerning American casualties because it was considering aiding the enemy? Seriously, one could argue that the press is aiding the enemy by reporting the deaths.


Again, I disagree. I know there are provisions in the Constitution that limit our rights during war. I also know even if there were not this President would make it so.If this President wanted to remove those rights he would just issue a ďSigning StatementĒ and remove the law protecting our rights.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
I just donít see how casualty reports are hindering our war effort. If the truth hinders the American peopleís conception of war then maybe we will be a little more reluctant next time to send little Johnny to his death. Maybe the American people will make sure our leaders do a little more planning before putting our men and women in harms way.


Okay how bout this, we're talking about something where progress isn't instantaneous. However, we see deaths plastered over the news all the time all the while acting like nothing positive is happening. I know it can be argued it makes good ratings. However it can also be argued it's aiding the enemy.

As far as wartime powers being in the Constitution our Founding Fathers were the ones that put those powers in, because they recognized that things had to be kept secret in a war as well the fact that they realized the enemy could and would send people in to try to sow dissent throughout the country. Thing is right now it could be argued the media is doing it for Al Qaeda just to get ratings. Then there was ABC News reporting on an active CIA operation and completely blowing their covers.


Who should decide what the American people do and do not need to know? The American people, if we decide we do not want this on the news then it will not be on the news.


Considering we're at war at the moment, I'd argue that the military and the President should have the power to decide what is allowed to be reported concerning what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Blabbing it on the public airwaves, boosts the morale of our enemy and disheartens the American people. That is why the media wasn't allowed to report a lot of things during World War 2.


I want my news. I want it fair and complete. I donít want it sugar coated just give it to me straight. If 50 American military men and women died today I want to know. It will not make me feel any less for them, just for the leaders that put them there (both Democratic and Republican).


To be blunt, I've pretty much lost all respect for most of the Democrats in Washington DC as well as respect for a few Republicans. Trying to set up a time table for withdrawl and saying "It's a lost cause," is irresponsible to say the least. The number of casualties in D-Day wasn't reported until long afterward, the reason for this was that it would be announcing to the enemy our losses. The American people didn't need to know at the time, and it would provide information to the enemy. If the media had acted in World War 2 like they do today, more than a few of them would have come home in body bags, probably shot by our own troops at the command of they commanding officers for treason (for things like setting up lights for cameras during the middle of a nighttime landing, broadcasting while an operation is ongoing and compromising the positions of our forces, etc.)


People die in war. That is a fact. Hopefully the American people will think before they put someone in office that believes war is the first option and not the last.

In all honesty, I don't appreciate you labeling President Bush as a warmonger. Fact is, after 9/11 the only appropriate response was to go to war. Bush told the Taliban that they needed to turn over Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in their country, or suffer the Consequences. The Taliban basically thumbed their nose and thought he like Clinton wouldn't do anything cept lob a few missiles into Afghanistan. However, unlike Clinton Bush means what he says and so he didn't just lob missiles or have an airstrike, he invaded Afghanistan to take out the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The difficulty with finding Bin Laden is the terrain, and it would have been the height of idiocy to send a bunch of troops stumbling blindly through the mountains, searching caves. Some areas in mountains enable a small force to stand against an army 10 times their size or more because you can't flank them.

Then Saddam started acting up bragging about sending money to the families of people that did suicide bombings against Israel. Then he also gave a run around on the Weapons Inspectors. Bush demanded he prove he didn't have WMDs and that he fully cooperate with Weapons Inspectors and no tricks whatsoever. He sent us the same report that he sent the UN just after the first Gulf War that was proven false then. Bush then went to the UN and got another Security Council Resolution concerning Iraq. Again Saddam thumbed his nose, and then Bush went to the Security Council again. The Security Council this time refused to follow through, and so Bush spent monthes trying to get their support which caused the time period where there wouldn't be as many sand storms pass. There was also a lot of activity between the Iraqi/Syrian border during this time. Finally, Bush decided to go in without the United Nations with the countries willing to support the United States, which Saddam didn't expect Bush would have the guts to do it without UN support.

Bush made mistakes after we took down Saddam, which is why we're having problems in Iraq now, however he is right that if we leave Iraq the consequences would be far worse to the US and the Middle East than if we stay.

A President shouldn't want to go to war, that's true and to be honest I don't think people realize that President Bush didn't want to go to war either. However, a President also shouldn't take the military option off the table and if the situation warrents it they need to be willing to use that option. If Bush was really a war monger, then we would have conducted airstrikes on Iran and North Korea already. (Though we will probably have to do airstrikes on Iran, it looks like the military option won't be needed concerning North Korea at this time). I know President Bush's stance isn't popular, that many people are against the war, however the President is choosing to do what he feels is the best course of action to protect this country, which he swore an oath to protect when he took office.

At the time when Reagan was in office, his hardline stance wasn't popular, many thought he was crazy. If you look at the world today, can you honestly tell me we aren't better off now because of Reagan? While Russia may be having a lot of problems, there are several other countries that gained their freedom and are allies of the United States today, many of those countries are our strongest supporters in Iraq. Germany is now united again due to Ronald Reagan, whose hardline stance helped end the Cold War. What's going on now isn't something that can be judged accurately in the present, it's probably going to be something that can only be judged accurately 10-20 years down the road. It is my opinion that Bush will be vindicated years after he leaves office, and he like Reagan before him, will be proven right.

mimartin
07-13-2007, 12:49 PM
People die in war. That is a fact. Hopefully the American people will think before they put someone in office that believes war is the first option and not the last.

In all honesty, I don't appreciate you labeling President Bush as a warmonger.

If you can show me where Iíve written that Mr. Bush is specify a warmonger I will apologize. You canít because I didnít. I did not even apply that with the above quote. Mr. Bush is not the only person responsible for the war in Iraq; I seem to remember at lot of other elected officials voting for war too.

I guess you could imply that I was labeling all our elected officials that voted for the War Resolution as warmongers. This did not have anything to do with our war on terror at the beginning of the war with Iraq. However, now it does since this war has inspired so many to join the ranks of the terrorist.

Then there was ABC News reporting on an active CIA operation and completely blowing their covers.

That is wrong and ABC News should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. ABC News is no more above the law than the White House itself. After all they prosecuted Lewis "Scooter" Libby for doing the same thing didnít they?

To be blunt, I've pretty much lost all respect for most of the Democrats in Washington DC as well as respect for a few Republicans.

Iíve lost complete respect for most of the men and women in Washington, but not their office. That is why I want open reporting of the facts of the war. These people can not be trusted to do what is in the best interest of the American people or the American soldiers. We must watch them or they will only be accountable to ďbig businessĒ and ďspecial interestĒ. They must be held accountable by the American people.

Allowing them to black out news coverage and only allow positive news to escape Iraq is not the answer. Even more troops would be ridding around in under armored Hummers without news coverage that inspired the American public to contact their congress person and even send scrape metal to Iraq. One could also argue that not allowing this coverage could be considered aiding the enemy.

However, unlike Clinton Bush means what he says

I really believe Bush does mean what he says. The problem is sometimes the facts do not support what he says. Sometime he was right 6 months ago, but the conditions have changed and he still keeps to his earlier evaluation. Combat is fluid and must be allowed to change as the conditions change. Mr. Bush is so set in his ways and believes only he and his inter-circle knows what is the right course of action the he disregards the actual evidence staring the American people in the face. I know flip flopping is considered this great evil by the Republican base, but when the evidence no longer supports your theory it is time for a new theory.


Germany is now united again due to Ronald Reagan, whose hardline stance helped end the Cold War.

Letís strike up the masons and starting carving Reaganís face on Mount Rushmore, but before we get ahead of ourselves we better make room for a few others; including John F Kennedy (remember a little something called the Cuban Missile Crisis), Richard M. Nixon (can not believe I said that, but he did do a little something about our relationship with China), George H Bush (helped with China and kept the pressure on the Soviet Union by continuing Reaganís policies). Does that leave room for the members of congress that approved the policies that help defeat the Soviet Union and what about the tax payer that footed the bill and we are forgetting all about the American Solider and scientist that produce the best weapons of mass destruction the world has ever seen. Oh, and do we completely forget about the contributions of Margaret Thatcher and England? What about our European Allies that were on the front line of the Cold War? NATO? How about Levi Strauss? Do you really believe the German people themselves and the people of Russia did not play a part in ending the Cold War?

No, Ronald Reagan was an import player in the end of the Cold War, but he was just one of many.

Prime
07-13-2007, 04:53 PM
@ETWarrior, you can actually twist things while still stating the truth, the wording implies that there it was a failure however this was an interm report which was just to show there is progress being made which there is, but you wouldn't know it reading the AOL article. No, the interm report is showing where the progress is satisfactory, and where it is not. The report itself says that for the 18 benchmarks mentioned, there are 6 that are labeled as having unsatisfactory progress (not completion), and several others that are in "funny states", and some that have satisfactory progress. Again, your government has stated that some benchmarks have satisfactory progress and some do not. One might say "mixed progress". What are you saying they are misrepresenting?

Here is the full AOL article:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government has made only mixed progress toward fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday in a report certain to inflame debate in Congress over growing calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal.The report states that some goals have had satisfactory progress so far, and some have not. So the statement you scream bloody murder over is a perfectly reasonable claim if you read the report.

In an interim report required by Congress, the administration accused Syria of fostering a network that supplies as many as 50 to 80 suicide bombers per month for al-Qaida in Iraq. It also said Iran continues to fund extremist groups.Report: "This Syria-based network is able to supply some 50 to 80 suicide bombers to AQI per month."

The report said that despite progress on some fronts by the government of Nouri al-Maliki, "the security situation in Iraq remains complex and extremely challenging," the "economic picture is uneven" and political reconciliation is lagging.Both these quotes come from the report, and it talks about how reconciliation progress is not where it should be.

The report warned of "tough fighting" during the summer, as U.S. and Iraqi forces "seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions of longer-term stabilization."AOL is just quoting the report here.

While Bush announced last winter he was ordering thousands of additional troops to the war zone, the full complement has only arrived in recent weeks, "The full surge in this respect has only just begun," the report said.Again, they are just quoting the report...

So...what exactly are you all up in arms about? You are saying that the use of the term "mixed" to describe the progress of specified benchmarks instead of saying some progress is satisfactory and some is not is clear left-wing bias?

Am I confused about the distinction between a 50% success rate and referring to it as mixed progress? Or are you once again just striving to find any anti-American sentiment you can in anything that isn't Faux News?It certainly comes across that way.

GarfieldJL
07-13-2007, 07:47 PM
Prime, it's the wording of the article that can make it sound better or worse than it is while still telling the truth.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Iraqi government has made only mixed progress toward fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday


Okay then let me say it in a different way:

The Iraqi Government has made some progress towards fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday...


See the difference, it's basically the same thing but with a word being removed and some grammar difference, but it now sounds different doesn't it.

Also Retired Colonel Oliver North sums up the situation in his op-ed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289142,00.html

Totenkopf
07-13-2007, 09:47 PM
There's a certain element of the half full/half empty argument. One can always report the "facts" in such a way as to slant the news. You could take the example of WW2, as has been done, and apply it there (remembering that NO comparison is EVER going to be perfect). Psychologically, PH and 911 are similiar in that approximately the same numbers of casualties are involved, as well as perceived damage. In 1941, a major part of America's military was damaged and in 2001 our economic infrastructure took a hit. In both cases you had a segment of the population that was willing to go to war as well as its more "isolationist" counterparts. There is no real need to turn the tv on everynight and hear that (yet) another 5-10 US servicemen perished in attacks by the enemy. The fact of the matter IS that many in the modern media are more concerned with their own agendas than anything else. How do you think America would react (properly prompted) today to defeats like those inflicted in the first 6-12 months of WW2? Or how about the Battle of the Bulge (80,000 KIA/WIA in only a few months), Iwo Jima (22,000 KIA/WIA) or Okinawa (over 50,000), all victories which came later in the war? Part of the problem with the #s game is that it doesn't address the question and only tends to sap the will of the people (need only look no further than Vietnam) in defeating an enemy.

The problem w/focusing on Bin Laden (or even Hitler, Aidid, etc..) is that you lose focus of the big picture. OBL did not pull off 911 by himself anymore than Hitler (or even Napolean) conquered Europe by himself. And, once you capture such a personality, another one rises up to replace him and you find yourself back at square one. Getting OBL, nevermind the rhetoric, is a very classic example of a futile pursuit. How many more countries do you want to invade to find him? Iran? Pakistan? Crapistan? Is getting OBL worth that much to you? If so, I suggest you write a BIG FAT CHECK to the Dept of Defense and volunteer to become part of the posse that has to hunt him down. Afterall, you don't naively really expect anyone in that region of the world to just hand him and his top people over to you, DO YOU?!? :wstupid: :headblast

Frankly, this asymetical war we face will be with us for sometime and will be done ...:wid:

Dagobahn Eagle
07-14-2007, 01:52 PM
I'd believe that if it wasn't for the fact that Time printed an article supporting a terrorist whom bombed Police Stations among other things that was released much to Time's dismay on 9/11 2001.Didn't read that article. Link to it, please.

Also during World War 2, newsmen could be thrown in jail if they tried printing anything about our casualties or anything else that might demoralize the American people.And in the People's Republic of China, the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie lacks its hilarious 10-minute segment with pirate lord Sao-Feng because the authorities believe it insults the Chinese people. And In Germany, it's forbidden and punished with jail-time to support Neo-Nazism. Censorship can be damned silly at times.

I think Saddam chose the wrong time to start posturing and wrongly assumed President Bush wouldn't do anything. Seriously, it isn't in President Bush's nature to make an idle threat or to bluff. When he says he's going to do something he'll do it.He's a politician (http://www.50bushflipflops.com/Introduction/home.html), Garfield. To assume he is in any way honest and dependable is naÔve beyond measure.

I honestly wish we could leave today, but unlike Vietnam we're fighting fanatics that will try to follow us home.So let's make it easy for them! Don't worry about finding money for your terrorist campaign in the USA, Mohammad, we'll come to you!
http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r292/safe-keeper/Goodplan.jpg

Face it, the reason there are madmen blowing themselves up in Iraq today is that the Coalition invaded. Not to mention, of course, that many Communists, especially a vast number of Soviets, would've loved to follow you home:p.

@ETWarrior, you can actually twist things while still stating the truth, the wording implies that there it was a failure however this was an interm report which was just to show there is progress being made which there is, but you wouldn't know it reading the AOL article.Yesh. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Weasel_words) However, you yourself stated the report speaks of 'only mixed progress'. So yes, we'd know from reading the article.

Okay, I am overgeneralizing a bit, but the fact is we're at war. A war that could take a long time, and trying to undercut the commander in chief in the middle of it because you don't agree isn't appropriate.First a war is started illegally through bullying, attempted silencing of dissenters, and lies about the target country, then it is discovered that serious atrocities have been carried out (white phosphorous, prisoner torture, detainment without fair trial) and then you want us to shut up and support the war? Paramoron Leader Hu Jintao (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao) would've been proud of you.

Then there is just reporting deaths every single day, roadside bombs, etc. That isn't news, that is trying to demoralize the American people. I hate to sound cold, but it's a war and people die in war.Well, deaths are news, after all, and are thus reported. There are reports on automobile accidents every single day, too, which probably demoralizes those who seek to make the roads a safer place. Should the news stop that, too, then? After all, more people die annually in the US in traffic than from terrorist attacks.

We're at war, there are provisions in the Constitution that limits these rights during wartime. The President hasn't exerted them, but the provisions in the Constitution are there. Also thing is the Press has reported current and future operations here recently specifically ABC news. So that's why I'm so upset with the Press.What makes wars so special? Body count? Tens of thousands of people die in murders each year in mainland USA, yet no one's crying for martial law and abolishment of freedoms in a War On Murder. I won't even bring up that terrorism allegedly threatens our freedom, 'cause this can't be a concern to you after your wholesale support of the temporary abolishment of Freedom of the Press.

So... what's so damned special about a war that means the rulebook has to be thrown out the window every time it draws near? And what war are we in, anyway? As far as I can tell, we're only occupying two countries (wait, strike 'we', I think Norway chickened out of Iraq a few years ago, damn us:o).

Also the American people do not need to know the casualty reports every single day, that goes beyond reporting the news and actively trying to discourage the American people.I'm actually in agreement with you here. The media tends to 'milk' the severity of cases as much as they can to improve its ratings, and this is one of the cases in which it is a pain in the butt (see my thread on the fear-mongering about global warming (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=178520) for another example).

Did you know in World War 2, the American Media wasn't allowed to print anything concerning American casualties because it was considering aiding the enemy?Er, yes. You've said it three times already in this very thread:rolleyes:.

Then there was ABC News reporting on an active CIA operation and completely blowing their covers.Idiotic, but not 'anti-American'. The media loves to blow the cover of everything from police operations to Intel operations. It seems to get them ratings and one Hell of a kick.

To be blunt, I've pretty much lost all respect for most of the Democrats in Washington DC as well as respect for a few Republicans. Trying to set up a time table for withdrawal and saying "It's a lost cause," is irresponsible to say the least.In your eyes. Please explain why.

The number of casualties in D-Day wasn't reported until long afterward, the reason for this was that it would be announcing to the enemy our losses. The American people didn't need to know at the time, and it would provide information to the enemy. If the media had acted in World War 2 like they do today, more than a few of them would have come home in body bags, probably shot by our own troops at the command of they commanding officers for treason (for things like setting up lights for cameras during the middle of a nighttime landing, broadcasting while an operation is ongoing and compromising the positions of our forces, etc.)

In all honesty, I don't appreciate you labeling President Bush as a warmonger.A warmonger is, pejoratively, someone who is anxious to encourage a people or nation to go to war. --Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger)
If Gee Dubya does not fit those criteria, few do.

Fact is, after 9/11 the only appropriate response was to go to war.Against the perpetrators, yes. If John Doe commits a murder, it doesn't give me reason to put his neighbor to death. Only when said brother-in-law kills someone can I put him in the chair. Revenge for 9/11-scale atrocities work the same way - you have to target the perpetrator, not his alleged buddies.

Bush told the Taliban that they needed to turn over Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders in their country, or suffer the Consequences.So they did (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#The_ 9-11_attacks). And then the US went to war.
Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid its impending retaliation. President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as insincere. On 7 October 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court. This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient. It was not until 14 October 2001, seven days after war had broken out, that the Taliban openly offered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if they were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.
Several people over several countries worked to hand over ibn Ladin. Bush turned down every proposal and then invaded, for then to invade Iraq before he was even finished with the War on Terror and ibn Ladin. Pathetic.

The difficulty with finding Bin Laden is the terrain, and it would have been the height of idiocy to send a bunch of troops stumbling blindly through the mountains, searching caves.Or perhaps accept the Taliban's offer of ibn Ladin's head on a silver plate (see link above). Problem solved.

A President shouldn't want to go to war, that's true and to be honest I don't think people realize that President Bush didn't want to go to war either. One Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) says more than a thousand words (Google it for a Wiki article and other unbiased sources). Also see the many threads in the Senate Chambers where support for the invasion of Iraq has been shot down multiple times as bullocks. This post (http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=1434831) in particular. Also, you may be interested in the view point (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051114/ritter) of the leader of the Weapons Inspectors.

However, a President also shouldn't take the military option off the table and if the situation warrents it they need to be willing to use that option.Let me re-phrase that so that it serves as instructions for a certain administration: However, a President also shouldn't take the diplomacy option off the table, and if the situation warrants it he needs to be willing to use that option for as long as possible.

If Bush was really a war monger, then we would have conducted airstrikes on Iran and North Korea already.So by your definition, Clinton was a war monger for bombing Iraq? The country was bombarded non-stop from the end of the first Gulf war.

(Though we will probably have to do airstrikes on Iran, it looks like the military option won't be needed concerning North Korea at this time).First you support an invasion of Iraq because you think, with no evidence whatsoever that he has WMDs, and then you oppose an invasion of North Korea even though it is known, as opposed to speculated, that they are very close to getting their hands on nukes. You're confusing me.

I know President Bush's stance isn't popular, that many people are against the war [...]To be more specific, almost half the American people wants to see him impeached, which still is less than those who want to see Cheney impeached. (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/)

Re the long paragraph on the hardliner stance: The hardliner stance works in some cases and not in others. Nobody says anything but.

GarfieldJL
07-14-2007, 02:18 PM
So you mean to tell me that Bush going to war after we were attacked on 9/11 was war mongering. Are you going to say us entering WW 2 is warmongering next?


Bush made it perfectly clear that they turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences, no negotiations, no trying him in Afghanistan by Bin Laden's supporters, no discussions turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences. Also those "moderate Taliban elements" to my knowledge weren't even in charge. President Bush made it perfectly clear, this wasn't up for a discussion, and that either the Taliban hand Bin Laden over or we were going to go in after him. You saying that he was doing a disproportionate response by going in after Bin Laden cause the Taliban were acting like this was a trade negotiation?

It makes me sick that people blame the President and blame the United States for everything.

Oh btw, your polling place also says 56% of Democrats don't care if violence spills over into other countries when we pull out of Iraq.


Then there is the Scooter Libby situation, all Bush did was remove the Jail Time because the Judge was going to ship him to prison while the appeals process was going. President Clinton which Dems hold in such high esteem pardoned terrorists to get campaign money for his wife.

Top that off, telephone surveys are horribly inaccurate polls, and relatively easy to those types of polls to say whatever you want.

Btw, there is absolutely no grounds to impeach Bush, there may be something on Cheney that I don't know (and sincerely doubt there is) about but not Bush. Bush's refusal to pull out of Iraq is due to his belief he'd Jeopardize the stability of the region and compromise our national security and you can't impeach him for exercising his powers under Article II of the United States Constitution. It could be argued the timetable stuff won't even stand up in court, because congress is overstepping their authority infringing on the powers of the Executive Branch.

Lastly, I'm aware President Bush is a politician, however unlike many politicians in the House and Senate currently, he is taking an unpopular stance due to his belief that taking the popular stance would be the wrong thing for us to do (for our country's security, for the Middle East, and for the World), you may disagree with him, but to say it's cause he doesn't care about the troops is a bunch of garbage!

Getting back to the media, I could easily (and quite successfully) argue that the media are announcing our losses to the enemy by talking about it all the time on the evening news! Also the media is sapping the will of the American people in a way that if it was during World War II, they'd be shot for treason! You can try to spin it however you wish, but the fact remains the media is supporting the terrorists for ratings.

Dagobahn Eagle
07-14-2007, 05:39 PM
So you mean to tell me that Bush going to war after we were attacked on 9/11 was war mongering.Are you saying invading Iraq was anything but? He insulted whoever disagreed with his stance on war, fabricated evidence, and went over the head of the UN - all to get his precious Operation Iraqi Wrecking. For no good reason, as I have demonstrated.

[The term warmonger] is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war. --Warmonger article, Wikipedia
Dubya fits the bill. He encouraged the invasion of Afghanistan even though it was not necessary. He invaded Iraq for selfish monetary reasons. If he's not a warmonger, there are very few of them in the world today.

Bush made it perfectly clear that they turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences, no negotiations, no trying him in Afghanistan by Bin Laden's supporters, no discussions turn over Bin Laden or face the consequences. Also those "moderate Taliban elements" to my knowledge weren't even in charge.Nor were they the only ones offering to turn over Usama. The deputy prime minister of the Taliban (and as such the most powerful person) himself stated that he was willing to turn over ibn Ladin once evidence was provided he was guilty (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html), and that the US stopped bombing Afghanistan. These are of course valid demands - you can't turn over alleged criminals before there is evidence they in fact are criminals, and the bombing of Afghanistan was in preparation of a war that would not be necessary if ibn Ladin was turned over.

President Bush made it perfectly clear, this wasn't up for a discussion [...]Which was very irresponsible of him, seeing that discussion could very well have produced one Usama ibn Ladin. But oh no - macho of him and the USA was at stake, so he chose instead to invade Afghanistan, kill thousands of people, and let Usama get away. He then ditched the War on Terror altogether by shifting his focus to Iraq and stating that he didn't really care much about Usama at all - strange words from a man who supposedly was so out to get him and avenge Pearl Harbou-- er, I mean 9/11.

[...] and that either the Taliban hand Bin Laden over or we were going to go in after him. You saying that he was doing a disproportionate response by going in after Bin Laden cause the Taliban were acting like this was a trade negotiation?The Talibans offered several times to hand over ibn Ladin and Bush refused each time. Those are the cold, hard facts. The demands of the Taliban were reasonable, and the US refused them.

Interestingly, the Germans are currently working on the case of one Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#Attempted_war_crimes_prosecutions) for, primarily, his torturing of detainees. Are you in favor of him being sent away to Germany for trial? I have a funny feeling that you'll at the very least want evidence shown first - just like the Talibans did.

You want to see reasons and evidence before Bush is impeached.
You'll probably want to see reasons and evidence before you support sending Rumsfeld off to Europe for trial.
But when the Talibans ask for reasons and evidence, you go to war against them. No, screw that, you started bombing them before they had a chance to even do that.

Why, I ask, does it seem to me that the rules the US push never, ever apply to the US itself? It's things like this that almost make me understand the anti-Americans of the world.

It makes me sick that people blame the President and blame the United States for everything.Where have I 'blamed the United States for everything'? Your attempt at portraying me as anti-American for attacking a known war criminal is what's worthy of nausea.

Oh btw, your polling place also says 56% of Democrats don't care if violence spills over into other countries when we pull out of Iraq.Red herring. This says absolutely nothing about Bush or Iraq.

Then there is the Scooter Libby situationSince when was this thread about Scooter:confused:?

Top that off, telephone surveys are horribly inaccurate polls, and relatively easy to those types of polls to say whatever you want.It still says about 50% of Americans want Bush impeached, which, judging by how poorly he's been handling things, is no surprise to me.

Btw, there is absolutely no grounds to impeach BushI've listed the reasons for impeachment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rationales_for_ impeachment) elsewhere on this forum. I believe it was for you, actually.

Bush's refusal to pull out of Iraq is due to his belief he'd Jeopardize the stability of the region and compromise our national security [...]He ****ed up the stability of the region when he invaded. And as for US national security, I fail to see how Iraq is even relevant to it, except, of course, that it and the use of torture on detainees is probably the #1 recruitment tool of the terrorists.

Lastly, I'm aware President Bush is a politician, however unlike many politicians in the House and Senate currently, he is taking an unpopular stance due to his belief that taking the popular stance would be the wrong thing for us to do (for our country's security, for the Middle East, and for the World), Which countries of the world, precisely? In my view, only a few countries, at most, would suffer from US withdrawal. You make the resistance in Iraq sound like an army out to conquer the world.

[...] you may disagree with him, but to say it's cause he doesn't care about the troops is a bunch of garbage!I never wrote in this thread that he didn't care about the troops, but when I think about it - does he? Sending thousands of troops to death by invading two nations unnecessarily is an odd way of me to care about them, especially for a draft-dodger. Not to mention the lack of discussion on what they would be doing after the invasion itself (I'd certainly have a plan ready if someone I cared about went into danger). Not to mention that he's repeatedly tried to cut soldiers' benefits.

Let's turn this around: How, pray tell, does this draft-dodging warmonger care about his precious troops?

Getting back to the media, I could easily (and quite successfully) argue that the media are announcing our losses to the enemy by talking about it all the time on the evening news! Also the media is sapping the will of the American people in a way that if it was during World War II, they'd be shot for treason!You keep putting yourself very close to a Godwin's Law call by repeatedly bringing up World War and how people there were imprisoned if they dared speak up against the war. Are you doing it to support the jailing of journalists should be started again, or are you saying that just because they jailed media people then for 'sapping peoples' will', they should again do so now?

You can try to spin it however you wish, but the fact remains the media is supporting the terrorists for ratings.Harsh wording. Are they supporting road accidents by reporting on them, too? Should FAUX News reporters be imprisoned for 'sapping our will' to fight the War on Global Warming (ha-hah, I branded it a war, now everyone needs to shut up!)? Am I supporting racists if I report on crimes committed by people who happen to have non-European ancestry? I'm not saying that the media does not need to be reeled in, nor am I defending the media's excessive coverage of troop operations when it causes lives to be lost needlessly, but your comments are way over-the-top.

Frankly, this asymetical war we face will be with us for sometime and will be done ...:wid::D And the SDK?

Nancy Allen``
07-14-2007, 07:35 PM
And America thinks they have it bad. Criticising Christianity or Bush ishn't punishable by death the way it is in the Middle East.

GarfieldJL
07-14-2007, 08:58 PM
Are you saying invading Iraq was anything but? He insulted whoever disagreed with his stance on war, fabricated evidence, and went over the head of the UN - all to get his precious Operation Iraqi Wrecking. For no good reason, as I have demonstrated.


In case you haven't heard, Saddam was bribing members of the security council, members like France, Russia, and China. Remember the Oil for Food Scam?


[The term warmonger] is often used to describe militaristic leaders, or mercenaries, commonly with the implication that they either may have selfish motives for encouraging war, or may actually enjoy war. --Warmonger article, Wikipedia
Dubya fits the bill. He encouraged the invasion of Afghanistan even though it was not necessary. He invaded Iraq for selfish monetary reasons. If he's not a warmonger, there are very few of them in the world today.


Yeah right, Bush isn't a warmonger, we were attacked on 9/11, and the Taliban weren't handing over Bin Laden they were trying to turn this into a negotiation.


Nor were they the only ones offering to turn over Usama. The deputy prime minister of the Taliban (and as such the most powerful person) himself stated that he was willing to turn over ibn Ladin once evidence was provided he was guilty (http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573975,00.html), and that the US stopped bombing Afghanistan. These are of course valid demands - you can't turn over alleged criminals before there is evidence they in fact are criminals, and the bombing of Afghanistan was in preparation of a war that would not be necessary if ibn Ladin was turned over.


Let me spell it out to you, no matter what we showed them, they would have ruled that Bin Laden wasn't guilty. Furthermore, Bush made it perfectly clear this wasn't up for negotiation. We were attacked on 9/11, and unlike Bill Clinton, Bush wasn't going to lob a few missiles into a village, whine to the UN and call it a day.


Interestingly, You want to see reasons and evidence before Bush is impeached.
You'll probably want to see reasons and evidence before you support sending Rumsfeld off to Europe for trial.
But when the Talibans ask for reasons and evidence, you go to war against them. No, screw that, you started bombing them before they had a chance to even do that.


Okay, so what are you going to blame Bush for next, the Holocaust? What you're proposing is the US not to do anything after 9/11. We're fighting fanatics, we don't allow people to drill holes in people's hands, break their fingers, etc.

Btw, the reasons to impeach Bush are faulty at best, more like a witch hunt. I'm glad we didn't have the press like we do now during WW 2, or Hitler would have won the war.


Furthermore let me spell out how the media is supporting the terrorists. The terrorists believe it or not watch our news they watch us reporting the troops getting killed day to day, the lack of support for the war, about how congress wants out on and on and on. This emboldens them leading them to attempt more and more attacks, the more spectacular and bloody the better to dishearten the American people even more.

Also wikipedia even states that your article as far as grounds for impeachment's neutrality is in dispute. One of which is reducing Libby's sentence, which is a power spelled out in the United States Constitution! The Dems never made any fuss over Clinton pardoning terrorists for his wife to get campaign money. Quite frankly the article is a bunch of garbage, because practically everything mentioned is authorized in the Constitution while we're at war!

John Galt
07-14-2007, 09:46 PM
practically everything mentioned is authorized in the Constitution while we're at war!

Source?

"Practically everything" still leaves "something" that violates the constitution. I'd call that grounds for impeachment, or at least a good slap on the wrist.

GarfieldJL
07-15-2007, 02:37 AM
Okay let's begin debunking things from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush#Rationales_for_ impeachment

NSA Wiretapping: Contrary what the mainstream media and the Democrats have tried to lead people to believe, the wiretapping without a warrent did not occur with phone conversations where both parties were within the United States. The wiretapping occurred when it was a phone call from a country like say Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan into the US and vice-versa often when the party outside the United States was a known terrorist. Are you saying the NSA should have just hung up and stopped listening because the phone call was to someone in the United States? How many terrorist plots that were foiled, would have succeeded if the NSA had just hung up?
Also, this is something covered in the Constitution in the advent of a war, like the suspension of habeus corpus.

Also Congress knew about it beforehand:
It should be noted that President Bush did notify Congressional leaders of his decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping at the time of the decision.

2003 Invasion of Iraq:
Contrary to the Wikipedia article, Congress authorized the invasion into Iraq, the attempt to rewrite history is just plain sad. So there is another reason for impeachment debunked. Only way congress can unauthorize it is to cut off funding for the troops something that it wouldn't suprise me that the Democrats would attempt, cutting off support of the troops in harms way.

Justification for Invasion:

Okay despite what many people are now trying to claim, the information Bush had at the time did seem to indicate Saddam was developing Nukes. As far as WMDs are concerned none have been currently found. However, if there wasn't any WMDs there, why was Saddam so adamently opposed to the weapons inspectors or giving them a run-around. Fact is there was a lot of traffic along the Syrian-Iraqi border. Who is to say the WMDs weren't smuggled out while we were busy trying to get UN support.

UN Charter:

Okay you say about invading Iraq is illegal, how about the bribery, corruption, etc. extending to the highest levels of the United Nations. Indications that the Secretary General was in the pocket of Saddam.

Saddam was paying off France, Russia, and China to keep the UN from taking any serious action concerning Saddam.

Furthermore, the last resolution that was passed before we finally went into Iraq, did authorize the use of Military Force, just the UN wasn't going to back it up due to Saddam paying off key members of the security council. Top that off Saddam was routinely having people fire at US and British aircraft enforcing the No Fly Zone set up by the UN, which is an act of war anyways.

Unlawful Combatants:

Excuse me but we captured them in Afghanistan, in many cases we asked their countries of origin to take them back and their own home country refused to take them back. What is being proposed is just letting them go, where they'll end up attacking us again. Back in World War 2, unlawful combatants would probably have been shot or imprisoned.

Accusations of Torture:
Let me just first say, I'm against torture that being said the President is a catch 22 situation here. The captured terrorists often have information of plots to attack our troops or here in the US. Many of the torture cases have been proven to be just the CIA gone overboard or a group of soldiers that ended up being courtmartialed.

CIA Leak Case:

That was proven in the very beginning to have come from a man under Collin Powell, however the Prosecutor went on a witch hunt trying to get a scalp on his wall. Libby ended up being a casualty, it is entirely possible that Libby's appeal will be successful, if his conviction is thrown out, will people still call for impeachment because Bush commuted his sentence? Btw, the commuting of Libby's sentence is a Presidential Power and Bush didn't take money when he commuted the sentence.

Politicization of the United States attorney offices:

The President has the power to fire them at any time even if he doesn't like their hair color. It should be noted, that some of the people that gave the biggest outcry were the same people that called for the particular attorney's removal in the first place...

Hurricane Katrina:
I've proven before that it was the fault of the Governor and not the President, Federal Law kept Bush from sending in the Guard.

Columnist Byron York of The National Review has suggested that proponents of impeachment are almost entirely left-wing bloggers, that Conyers had "already decided the conclusions he will reach" before the Judiciary Committee's investigation had even started, and that "interpretive structure of the [Conyers] report" indicates that it "is not the product of a real investigation."[201]

While noting that the latest poll "numbers show true trouble" for Bush-Cheney, columnist Matt Towery, in reporting the results of the May 2007 InsiderAdvantage poll, stated "Those few in the Democrat-controlled House who are advocating impeachment are on the fringe of political thought -- at least for now." He further opined that their rationale for impeachment "looks specious", and went on to say "It's not beyond consideration that what now seems silly political grandstanding could get much more serious, especially if the Iraq war continues to go badly, current scandals surrounding the attorney general or White House political adviser Karl Rove get worse, or new White House scandals emerge."[202]

Totenkopf
07-15-2007, 06:20 AM
:D And the SDK?

SDK?

Also, I know that a number of you like to throw the godwin law thingy around, but it seems to have as much relevance as Beavis or Butthead going "oh, he said ^$*@#, hehhehhehheh". I wonder if someone's come up w/a similiarly inane "law" that attempts to belittle others for citing other periods in history (say, to Rome or the Middle Ages)...

Lastly, the only really valid argument IMNSHO for impeaching Bush, at this point, is the way in which he's mishandled the ILLEGAL immigration problem in this country.

mimartin
07-15-2007, 07:45 PM
Top that off, telephone surveys are horribly inaccurate polls, and relatively easy to those types of polls to say whatever you want.


Were the surveys just as inaccurate when he was setting at 77% approval? Or are these numbers just inaccurate because they are unfavorable to the President?

You are right in so far as you say that survey or poll numbers are inaccurate. That is why they have a built in margin for error. The poll itself deals with the errors by tell you up front that it could be plus or minus a number above or below the reported number.

One poll could be skewed based on the wording of the question asked, but all of the surveys show his disapproval (including Fox) in the 60% range are not errors, it is a fact.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Oh btw, your polling place also says 56% of Democrats don't care if violence spills over into other countries when we pull out of Iraq.

You quote a survey, and then write surveys are ďhorribly inaccurate polls.Ē


It makes me sick that people blame the President and blame the United States for everything.

I donít. I blame the President because as youíve pointed out over and over he is the Commander and Chief. I also blame congress and not just the current members I also blame the prior Republican Congress that rubber stamped everything this President wanted. I blame the Democrats for believing all the evidence given to them about Iraq and not doing their jobs by questioning it. I blame the Republican members for the same thing.

Mr. Bush is the President and deserves the lion share of blame, but there is enough blame to go around.

Btw, there is absolutely no grounds to impeach Bush

Agreed and even if there were, there is not enough time. Impeachment should not be political and the only reason to impeach President Bush is political (Just like Clinton).

You can try to spin it however you wish, but the fact remains the media is supporting the terrorists for ratings.

Do you have one shred of proof other than the so called Time's article?

This emboldens them leading them to attempt more and more attacks, the more spectacular and bloody the better to dishearten the American people even more.

Do you really believe that if suddenly there was a total black out of all casualty reports out of Iraq that the insurgence would suddenly lose confidence? Have you actually heard of Al Jazeera? When you can stop the insurgence from recording the attacks and then showing them on Al Jazeera or their web sites then the terrorist might not be so embolden.

There is also one major difference between today and 62 years ago and it is technology. There were no cell phones, satellite phones, satellites, computers, internet or many other communication devices during WW2. Even if you could shut down news reports you could not stop the information from getting to the American people.

I've proven before that it was the fault of the Governor and not the President, Federal Law kept Bush from sending in the Guard.
I wouldnít say you've proven it. I still say Bush could of pick up the phone instead of his fishing pole and called the Governor.

Let's turn this around: How, pray tell, does President Bush care about his precious troops? fixed out of respect for the office, not the man

Well the only answer I have is he will not allow their coffins be photographed when they return home.

Since when was this thread about Scooter:confused:?

I brought him up saying ABC News should be prosecuted just like Mr. Libby. I wonder if the President will pardon them too. Most Americans convicted have to serve their time while awaiting appeal by the way. Bush had every right to do it, but saying the reason of him having to serve time while awaiting his appeal does not wash. If it unfair for Mr. Libby to do it why is it fair for other Americans to do it?

GarfieldJL
07-15-2007, 08:16 PM
For the record mimartin President Bush did call the Governor of Louisanna whom initially refused to authorize the National Guard entry to the state. So Bush's hands were tied.

mimartin
07-15-2007, 09:24 PM
I guess it was Governor Blancoís fault that Homeland Security preformed so inadequately too? I guess she was foolish enough to make FEMA a part of a huge bureaucracy known as Homeland Security? I guess it was really her disguised as George Bush that mistakenly praised Michael Brown and the job FEMA had done in response to Katrina? I also did not know that the Governor had to give approval for FEMA to go into the state (They Donít!).

For the record, the state, local and federal governments all were responsible for the aftermath of Katrina. As Bush is head of the Federal government he is responsible to a certain extent. That does not mean that Blanco and Nagin are forgiven as they too are responsible.

Nancy Allen``
07-15-2007, 10:38 PM
Were Governers Ventura and Schwarzenegger in on the plot to bring misery to the people of New Orleans as well? Just where does accountability end?

GarfieldJL
07-15-2007, 11:19 PM
Fact is President Bush couldn't send in the guard due to Federal Law. The Governor didn't authorize the National Guard being sent in.

FEMA not responding well could be argued was due to the lawlessness in New Orleans. For example at least one Rescue Copter had to abort a rescue mission because someone was taking pot shots at it.

mimartin
07-15-2007, 11:25 PM
Were Governers Ventura and Schwarzenegger in on the plot to bring misery to the people of New Orleans as well? Just where does accountability end?

Just like the War in Iraq the accountability for what went wrong rest with those responsible for the planning and implication of our strategy. When our elected officials take on that burden they should take responsibility when their decisions are wrong. The buck stops with the man or women in charge. If they deserve the credit and praise when things go right then they deserve the blame and the criticism when things go wrong.

In the case of Iraq, President Bush is the Commander and Chief. He and his appointees are making the decisions that affect our war effort. If his plans were going well then I'm sure he would gladly accept the acclaim and glory. Then as the war goes badly why is it everyone but his fault?

Same goes for Katrina. Three governments were involved in the rescue response and all three obviously fail. As C. Ray Nagin is the mayor in charge of the New Orleans City Government, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco is Governor of Louisiana in charge of the State Government and George Bush is President and in charge of the Federal Government including appointing Michael Brown as head of FEMA, Iíd say it is fair to put the blame on them as they were the decision makers.

Iím also not saying it was a plot to bring misery to the people of New Orleans, Louisiana or Mississippi. I do not believe any of those responsible did so with malice in their hearts. I just think all three made deadly mistakes that cost people their lives. Their mistakes also do not forgive those that could have made other arrangement to evacuate the area. After all your health and safety is first and foremost your own responsibility. I know some did not have the means; Iím speaking of those that did.

So to answer your question the accountability ends with those in charge be it the President, Mayor or Governor.

GarfieldJL
07-15-2007, 11:50 PM
Okay if the media isn't supporting terrorists why isn't the good news being reported

Another Op ed:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287244,00.html

mimartin
07-16-2007, 12:46 AM
If you don't mind vague responses to vague question I will say because there isn't much good news to report.

I love how FoxNewsí Oliver North lamb blast Congress for taking the forth of July break, but does not write anything about the President's annual month long vacation to Crawford.

I wish the media would show more positive from Iraq, but Iím weird in Iíd like to hear the good and the bad news and not just the propaganda from either side.

Totenkopf
07-16-2007, 06:42 AM
Only problem, Mimartin, is that Congress seems to take more breaks than a teacher. If the US Congress actually worked as long as a school teacher (or at least the perception thereof), there'd be a lot less to complain about (ok, hell, maybe a lot more as well :D), but you'd feel like they were at least EARNING the 6 figure salaries (don't even think about the perks they might be getting) they receive.

Problem here in western countries is the whole immediate gratification impulse. We want to see results yesterday, especially re things there's ambivalence about in the first place. If the news were more balanced (on more things than Iraq even), we'd probably have a different reaction to many of the things we see going on around us. But, in all fairness, it's as much a function of people being too lazy or apathetic with regard to getting info about events that make any "propoganda" effective in the first place.

Corinthian
07-16-2007, 08:58 AM
Besides, Mimartin, the President gets bashed enough as is. When it's not uncommon to hear suggestions that Bush be imprisoned or executed, you don't really need to get after him for taking vacations.

mimartin
07-16-2007, 11:42 AM
Iím not against all of Congress taking a long vacation. After all every minute theyíre out of Washington is one minute they canít screw something up. The breaks were originally designed to keep member in touch with their local constituents, but now it gives most a chance to be wined and dined by ďbig businessĒ and/or ďspecial interestĒ.

Corinthian
07-16-2007, 12:40 PM
Yeah, that's how lobbying works. Well, part of it, anyway.

Prime
07-16-2007, 12:53 PM
Prime, it's the wording of the article that can make it sound better or worse than it is while still telling the truth.And both sides are equally "guilty" of that. You seem to be mad when any media organization implies that what is going on in Iraq is anything less than moving along smoothly.

Okay then let me say it in a different way:

The Iraqi Government has made some progress towards fulfilling goals for political, military and economic reform, the Bush administration said Thursday...


See the difference, it's basically the same thing but with a word being removed and some grammar difference, but it now sounds different doesn't it.But why do you get so upset when one side does it but not the other? One could easily claim that your statement above does the same thing.

Also Retired Colonel Oliver North sums up the situation in his op-ed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289142,00.htmlThis is editorial commentary. What does it have to do with the discussion here?

Totenkopf
07-16-2007, 12:59 PM
Problem with slanting the news in either direction is that the formerly so-called "hard news" has now really become editorial in nature. Afterall, what is an op-ed piece but the assembling of facts and information to buttress a particular pov in the 1st place.

Prime
07-16-2007, 03:07 PM
Is that a mostly American phenomenon?

GarfieldJL
07-16-2007, 03:21 PM
Is that a mostly American phenomenon?


In all honesty, there are indications that many non-US media outlets are even more biased than US outlets.

CBC and the BBC both have a very bad reputation for biased journalism.

Btw, Prime the editorial has merit for the discussion since it's concerning the discussion we're having.

mimartin
07-16-2007, 06:23 PM
Is that a mostly American phenomenon?

For the most part it is an American phenomenon, weíve gotten to the point that both side of the political spectrum believe they have to tell us what to think. Then if anyone reports something that makes the their side look bad or incompetent they scream to high heaven about media bias. Even reporting the facts is considered media bias these days. Walter Cronkite would be rolling over in his grave (that is if he were dead).

And yes, they all do it.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072

GarfieldJL
07-16-2007, 06:51 PM
I'm aware about the American Media mimartin, and some media outlets are worse than others, however the American media tends to be a lot better than many foreign outlets.

The CBC for instance makes CBS look conservative for instance.

Totenkopf
07-16-2007, 10:57 PM
Is that a mostly American phenomenon?

Do you mean slanting the news or that there's a fight over who is doing it?

John Galt
07-17-2007, 01:35 AM
Everyone has an ax to grind, remember that. Of course, it seems as if some time in the last few years journalists have forgotten how to put the ax-grinding on hold for a bit, and are more than content to tell us what they think we ought to think, instead of objectively reporting facts. Just look at who the "experts" are that the network news agencies call in to "analyze" emerging news.

The way news is reported nowadays: report in a manner favorable to a point of view, "analyze" the facts until they agree with your viewpoints, boil them down to memorable slogans and catchphrases, then repeat.

Prime
07-17-2007, 11:07 AM
CBC and the BBC both have a very bad reputation for biased journalism.Bad reputation with who?

Btw, Prime the editorial has merit for the discussion since it's concerning the discussion we're having.You made a comment about using different wording to convey a slanted view. Then you put up someone's opinion piece, and I was not sure what the point was you were trying to make.

Do you mean slanting the news or that there's a fight over who is doing it?I mean attempting to make news more ratings friendly by making it more entertainment oriented.

GarfieldJL
07-17-2007, 02:39 PM
Okay for starters the BBC is considered to be the English version of Al-Jazeerez to the Israelis.

The CBC has been complained about constantly by conservatives in Canada, and the CBC gets funding from the Canadian Government.


Prime, I brought up the opinion piece because it was related to the subject and was by someone whom knows what they are talking about, because he has been embedded with the troops in Iraq and is a retired Colonel in the US military. When I was referring to people using wording to slant things in the news, I was referring to people changing wording to slant things while reporting it as news. An op ed, is an opinion column and clearly labeled to be an opinion column. In other words they're being honest that it is their opinion and not claiming to be an unbiased report of the facts.

Prime
07-17-2007, 05:11 PM
Okay for starters the BBC is considered to be the English version of Al-Jazeerez to the Israelis.Again, considered by who?

The CBC has been complained about constantly by conservatives in Canada, and the CBC gets funding from the Canadian Government.So what if it gets funding by the government? Funding can't be turned on and off by the government over things it doesn't like. To my knowledge there have never been any claims that the government tampers or sensors what the CBC has to say, and it certainly has been critical of the government on countless occasions.

I agree that you would probably find them leftist, but then again you would probably find Canada quite leftist overall (although we have a "conservative" government currently). But there are definitely segments and opinions from what we would call the right on the CBC.

As for conservatives complaining, or any side for that matter, they tend to do so not that an organization will be unbiased, but so they will promote their point of view.

An op ed, is an opinion column and clearly labeled to be an opinion column. In other words they're being honest that it is their opinion and not claiming to be an unbiased report of the facts.Fair enough. I wasn't clear what your point was by posting that think.

GarfieldJL
07-17-2007, 05:45 PM
Prime, I just said who considered the BBC to be the English version of Al Jazeerez. The Israelis do.

mimartin
07-17-2007, 06:44 PM
I donít know about all the Israeli people, but I think it pretty clear that GarfieldJL is correct and the Israeli Government at least feels that the BBC is clearly bias against the Jewish Nation.

From the little reading I've done I would say that they do seem very bias at first glance.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article715471.ece

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525841951&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1183312,00.html

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Documenting_BBC_Documentaries.asp

GarfieldJL
07-17-2007, 07:06 PM
mimartin, it isn't just the BBC though, the Guardian also has a bad reputation in Israel as well and your links show that as well.

Dagobahn Eagle
07-17-2007, 07:06 PM
Are you saying invading Iraq was anything but? He insulted whoever disagreed with his stance on war, fabricated evidence, and went over the head of the UN - all to get his precious Operation Iraqi Wrecking. For no good reason, as I have demonstrated.
In case you haven't heard, Saddam was bribing members of the security council, members like France, Russia, and China. Remember the Oil for Food Scam?Are you implying that the Security Council refused the US to go into Iraq because of the said scam and the alleged bribery? Prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.

Or are you implying that because the UN is corrupt, it should not be followed? What if I live in a shantytown with a corrupt police - is it suddenly OK to murder and rape and rob and then go, 'well, the cops can't exactly tell me to stop, can they, they're not following the law themselves'? Nope.

Oh, and if the US doesn't have to abide by the UN's wishes, this surely implies the rest of the world doesn't have to either, right? North Korea is free to make nukes and use them on the South in a full-scale invasion? China is free to start bombing Taiwan? Iran is free to lob missiles into Israel? Iraq would have been fully within its rights to get its hands on WMDs?

Yeah right, Bush isn't a warmonger, we were attacked on 9/11, and the Taliban weren't handing over Bin Laden they were trying to turn this into a negotiation.What about rushing into an illegal preemptive attack on Iraq based on no evidence, then?

Let me spell it out to you, no matter what we showed them, they would have ruled that Bin Laden wasn't guilty.

Furthermore, Bush made it perfectly clear this wasn't up for negotiation.You don't know that before you try. And as for it not being up for negotiation, that's the problem exactly: Dubya made it very clear from Day I on that he wouldn't even try any other alternative than war. He was going to ride with his gang into Dawson with guns drawn and smoke the enemy cowboys of their holes like the good Texan cowboy he was. While it may have felt good to the enraged people of the USA, including myself, in hindsight it was out of line. It's akin to a rogue SWAT leader having his teams storm the occupied hotel without even trying to negotiate with the hostage-keepers because 'ah, them darn'd thugs wouldn'ah listen'd anywaysh'. We'd be fighting World War XI by now if every leader of the civilized world acted as childishly as Dubya.

It would've been a far smarter move to talk to the Talibans - without simultaneously bombing them- and then, when or if they stonewalled in the face of evidence, go into Afghanistan in force. Bush's cowboy decision to start bombing before the half-hearted talks were even finished brought about massive international animosity and ruined the unparalleled sympathy given to the US by the entire world after 9/11 - the rest of the sympathy Bush would ruin when he bullied and insulted and elbowed his way into Iraq's oil fields.

We were attacked on 9/11, and unlike Bill Clinton, Bush wasn't going to lob a few missiles into a village, whine to the UN and call it a day.I'm not going to dignify you by replying to your childish presumptions of what Clinton would've done if he had faced 9/11 on his watch.

Interestingly, You want to see reasons and evidence before Bush is impeached.
You'll probably want to see reasons and evidence before you support sending Rumsfeld off to Europe for trial.
But when the Talibans ask for reasons and evidence, you go to war against them. No, screw that, you started bombing them before they had a chance to even do that.
Okay, so what are you going to blame Bush for next, the Holocaust? What you're proposing is the US not to do anything after 9/11.I don't understand how your reply applies to my post. Please explain.

But to answer your question, I blame the Dubya administration for quite a lot, and, unlike you, provided evidence for my statements. I provided you with the Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com), which you have yet to address. And yes, as the quote above implies, I blame Rumsfeld for the torture of detainees. Why? Because he authorized and vehemently defended it (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/09/iraq.abuse.main.int/).

And my point remains: I've heard of very few, if any, cases where nations just agree to send high-ranking people out of country for trial without some sort of discussion. To demand that they do is simply unrealistic, no matter who attacks who.

[First] We're fighting fanatics, we don't allow people to drill holes in people's hands, break their fingers, etc.

[Then]
Let me just first say, I'm against torture that being said the President is a catch 22 situation here. The captured terrorists often have information of plots to attack our troops or here in the US. Many of the torture cases have been proven to be just the CIA gone overboard or a group of soldiers that ended up being court martialed.Make up your mind. Are you in favor of torture or are you not? And since the troops got court martialed, isn't it logical that Rumsfeld and the others who authorized and supported the torture should be brought to justice, too? Even mild torture is going completely overboard and breaking multiple human rights conventions.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. --UN Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

I'd rather have my fingers broken than suffer mental torture like what is being carried out by the USA.

BTW, the reasons to impeach Bush are faulty at best, more like a witch hunt. I'm glad we didn't have the press like we do now during WW 2, or Hitler would have won the war.I registered your desire to return to a state of Imperial-style censorship the first time you uttered it. And the second through the tenth. You can stop now.

Furthermore let me spell out how the media is supporting the terrorists. The terrorists believe it or not watch our news they watch us reporting the troops getting killed day to day, the lack of support for the war, about how congress wants out on and on and on. This emboldens them leading them to attempt more and more attacks, the more spectacular and bloody the better to dishearten the American people even more.And let me spell this out to you: Cite sources for your statements. Give me a verifiable, objective, believable source that says that terrorist attacks are increasing in intensity and numbers as result of 'terrorist-friendly' media. Or desist.

Also Wikipedia even states that your article as far as grounds for impeachment's neutrality is in dispute.Yes, it's neutrality is in dispute. As opposed to its factual accuracy.

One of which is reducing Libby's sentence, which is a power spelled out in the United States Constitution! [...]So it's OK to you that he's pardoning convicted criminals? I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they spelled out whatever part of the Constitution it is you're referring to (read: show me where in the Constitution this is spelled out).

The Dems never made any fuss over Clinton pardoning terrorists for his wife to get campaign money.OK, please stop the 'well, look at what x did!' tactic. I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Clinton-supporter, and either way, others' crimes do not excuse those of Bush.

NSA Wiretapping: Contrary what the mainstream media and the Democrats have tried to lead people to believe, the wiretapping without a warrent did not occur with phone conversations where both parties were within the United States.And why on Earth does that matter?

The wiretapping occurred when it was a phone call from a country like say Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan into the US and vice-versa often when the party outside the United States was a known terrorist.Fine. Then get a warrant. If someone's a 'known terrorist', it should be very easy for the feds to do so, would it not?

Oh, and again, what makes this war and these terrorists so darned special? Ordinary criminals take more lives and cause more material damage to the States annually than terrorists, yet no one is asking for us to throw the Constitution out the window on their behalf.
Oh, and just who is the US at war with again? Iraq is occupied, Afghanistan is occupied. The terrorists are not a nation and can't be declared war upon: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war) A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. --Wikipedia

You can't declare war on obscure phenomenas such as terrorism, crime, drunk driving, obesity or global warming and suddenly be allowed to throw the rulebook out the window. Nice try, though.

Are you saying the NSA should have just hung up and stopped listening because the phone call was to someone in the United States?Please cut the strawmen. I'm saying they should follow the law and get a warrant.

Also Congress knew about it beforehand [quote form Wiki]So Congress is part of committing the crime. This clears Dubya how?

Contrary to the Wikipedia article, Congress authorized the invasion into Iraq, the attempt to rewrite history is just plain sad.I've pointed out to you already that this is a red herring. Breach of International Law is breach of International Law. The Bush Adminsitration has shown a total disregard for the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and the Declaration of Human Rights. Don't even try to make the invasion of Iraq look legal just because the aggressor authorized it. To put it another way, was it OK and legal for Iraq to invade Kuwait in 1991? After all, I'm sure that whatever checks and balances were in place in Saddam's party had been met, and by your opinion, the UN doesn't count, right?

So there is another reason for impeachment debunked. Only way congress can unauthorize it is to cut off funding for the troops... [yet another red herring omitted]Cutting funding? You mean like this (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0815-09.htm)? Support the troops indeed.

Okay despite what many people are now trying to claim, the information Bush had at the time did seem to indicate Saddam was developing Nukes.Again, read the Downing Street Memo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_Memo), which I provided to you in an earlier post, and please - be the first Bush-supporter I've showed it to to actually address it. Yes, you'd be the first to do so, out of quite a number - they all went mysteriously silent when I present it to them. Wonder why:D.

As far as WMDs are concerned none have been currently found. However, if there wasn't any WMDs there, why was Saddam so adamently opposed to the weapons inspectors or giving them a run-around.They weren't. Read the interview with Ritter I provided you.

Fact is there was a lot of traffic along the Syrian-Iraqi border. Who is to say the WMDs weren't smuggled out while we were busy trying to get UN support.First of all, I don't believe nonexistent Weapons of Mass Deception are that easy to smuggle anywhere. Downing Street Memo, pal.

Second of all, you can't invade countries based on speculation. Do you know for sure that North Korea doesn't possess 100 nukes brought in from Russia? Nope. But on the other hand, there's no evidence to suggest they have bought themselves nuclear weapons from Russia, so no invasion is warranted. Get my point? You don't have to prove people and nations innocent to go against them - you have to prove them guilty.

Third of all, the bulk of his WMDs were chemical weapons, which have a very short shelf life. One of the weapons it was implied that Saddam possessed was Sarin gas - which has a shelf life of weeks to months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Shelf_life). The fact that the general public of the US has somehow avoided having this pointed out to them is simply frightening.

And finally, it's incredibly far-fetched that Saddam should ship out his weapons when he faced a full-scale invasion. How can you claim he was a trigger-happy monster ready to use NBCs at us or Israel and thus should be invaded - and at the same time claim he got rid of them and thus should be invaded? Make up your mind, please.

Excuse me but we captured them in Afghanistan, in many cases we asked their countries of origin to take them back and their own home country refused to take them back. What is being proposed is just letting them go, where they'll end up attacking us again.What is being proposed is that they're given a free trial and then either punished (if found guilty) or freed (if not found guilty). That's how this annoying pinky-liberal phenomenon of 'justice' works. You've probably heard of it.

Back in World War 2...Again:eek:? You really miss that age of semi-democracy and Imperialism, don't you?

Okay if the media isn't supporting terrorists why isn't the good news being reported?For the last time, this would be because the media almost never reports the good news on anything.

As a matter of fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that they also report on car accidents every day. By your reasoning, this means that they support car accidents, right, since they only report the bad news on them, day in and day out?

GarfieldJL
07-17-2007, 08:22 PM
Are you implying that the Security Council refused the US to go into Iraq because of the said scam and the alleged bribery? Prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.


You want information on this you got it in spades.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132832,00.html

http://slate.com/id/2111195/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-17-oil-for-food_x.htm
The $64 billion oil-for-food program operated under U.N. oversight from 1996 to 2003. According to the Volcker report, it attracted a large and unusual cast of participants, from Australian wheat farmers to Russian politicians, former French diplomats, U.S. oilmen and Iranian terrorists. Some of the money paid to Iraq in kickbacks and bribes may be funding insurgents who are killing U.S. troops in Iraq, the report says.

The scandal tarnished Annan, whose son, Kojo, worked for a Swiss company that obtained a contract from the program. A poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center found that 48% of Americans have a positive view of the United Nations, down from 77% four years ago.


http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rosett200404182336.asp


http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/bg1748.cfm
The list includes former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, the "director of the Russian President's office," the Russian Communist Party, the Ukraine Communist Party, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the son of Lebanese President Emile Lahud, the son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass, and George Galloway, a British Member of Parliament.

Ominously, the list also implicates U.N. Assistant Secretary General Benon V. Sevan, executive director of the Oil-for-Food program, who has stringently denied any wrongdoing. Sevan, a longtime U.N. bureaucrat with close ties to Kofi Annan, has taken an extended vacation, pending retirement later this month.


More from same article:
No fewer than 46 Russian and 11 French names appear on the Iraqi Oil Ministry list. The Russian government is alleged to have received an astonishing $1.36 billion in oil vouchers from Saddam Hussein.

The close ties between French and Russian politicians and the Iraqi regime may have been an important factor in influencing their governments' decision to oppose Hussein's removal from power. They also highlight the close working relationships between Moscow and Baghdad and between Paris and Baghdad, and the huge French and Russian financial interests in pre-liberation Iraq.

Prior to the regime change in April 2003, French and Russian oil companies possessed oil contracts with the Saddam Hussein regime that covered roughly 40 percent of the country's oil wealth. French oil giant Total Fina Elf had won contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq, which contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil (25 percent of Iraq's oil reserves). Russian company Lukoil had won the contract to develop the West Qurna field, also in southern Iraq, which has an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil.

Political and military ties between Moscow and Baghdad were extensive. Documents found in the bombed-out headquarters of the Mukhabarat (the Iraqi intelligence service under Hussein) reveal the full extent of intelligence cooperation between the Russian and Iraqi governments. According to reports in the London Sunday Telegraph:

Russia provided Saddam Hussein's regime with wide-ranging assistance in the months leading up to the war, including intelligence on private conversations between Tony Blair and other Western leaders. Moscow also provided Saddam with lists of assassins available for "hits" in the West and details of arms deals to neighbouring countries.
The Russians are also believed to have sold arms to Iraq illegally right up until the outbreak of war with the United States in March 2003. The Bush Administration has accused Russian arms dealers of selling anti-tank guided missiles, electronic jamming equipment, and thousands of night vision goggles to the Iraqis in open violation of U.N. sanctions.13 During Hussein's dictatorship, Russia reportedly provided him with $14 billion worth of arms shipments.

Evidence has also come to light of intimate political cooperation between Paris and Baghdad in the period leading up to the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein. Documents found in the wreckage of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry reveal that "Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private transatlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington."

Officials in the French Foreign Office reportedly shared information with their Iraqi counterparts on a sensitive meeting between former French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell following the terrorist attacks on September 11. Details of talks between French President Jacques Chirac and President George W. Bush were also reportedly passed on to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry by the French ambassador in Baghdad.


I've just gotten started on finding things btw.


Or are you implying that because the UN is corrupt, it should not be followed? What if I live in a shantytown with a corrupt police - is it suddenly OK to murder and rape and rob and then go, 'well, the cops can't exactly tell me to stop, can they, they're not following the law themselves'? Nope.


I'm implying that members of the UN security council was on Saddam's payroll, that said members were not complying with the UN resolutions.
http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

The UN just wasn't going to enforce their own resolution, so we decided to enforce it.


Oh, and if the US doesn't have to abide by the UN's wishes, this surely implies the rest of the world doesn't have to either, right? North Korea is free to make nukes and use them on the South in a full-scale invasion? China is free to start bombing Taiwan? Iran is free to lob missiles into Israel? Iraq would have been fully within its rights to get its hands on WMDs?


Read Resolution 1441, it's not our fault the UN wasn't going to back us when we enforced their own Resolution.


What about rushing into an illegal preemptive attack on Iraq based on no evidence, then?


We had multiple legitimate reasons to invade.

1. Saddam providing money to families of suicide bombers to encourage more suicide bombing in Israel whom is a US ally.

2. Firing on United States Military Aircraft that were enforcing the no-fly zone.

3. Resolution 1441 which required him to prove that he didn't have WMDs and/or allow inspectors in with unrestricted access to destroy any WMDs or suffer serious consequences.


You don't know that before you try. And as for it not being up for negotiation, that's the problem exactly: Dubya made it very clear from Day I on that he wouldn't even try any other alternative than war. He was going to ride with his gang into Dawson with guns drawn and smoke the enemy cowboys of their holes like the good Texan cowboy he was. While it may have felt good to the enraged people of the USA, including myself, in hindsight it was out of line. It's akin to a rogue SWAT leader having his teams storm the occupied hotel without even trying to negotiate with the hostage-keepers because 'ah, them darn'd thugs wouldn'ah listen'd anywaysh'. We'd be fighting World War XI by now if every leader of the civilized world acted as childishly as Dubya.

Very funny, we were attacked on 9/11 and the Taliban gave Bin Laden sanctuary. Bush made it clear it wasn't up for negotiation Bush isn't like Clinton whom let Saddam go multiple times. He gave them time to fork over Bin Laden, they refused Bush had the troops go in.


It would've been a far smarter move to talk to the Talibans - without simultaneously bombing them- and then, when or if they stonewalled in the face of evidence, go into Afghanistan in force. Bush's cowboy decision to start bombing before the half-hearted talks were even finished brought about massive international animosity and ruined the unparalleled sympathy given to the US by the entire world after 9/11 - the rest of the sympathy Bush would ruin when he bullied and insulted and elbowed his way into Iraq's oil fields.

It's starting to sound like you're just out to blame Bush. The UN wasn't going to enforce its own resolution in fact it could be argued that due to Bush trying to go through the UN we lost more American lives than if he had just decided to go into Iraq from the get-go.


I'm not going to dignify you by replying to your childish presumptions of what Clinton would've done if he had faced 9/11 on his watch.


It's not childish to predict how someone would react based on past behavior.

Terrorist attacks Clinton failed to or inadequately responded to (not in order)
1st World Trade Center Bombing
USS Cole
US Embasy bombings

Judging from those past instances of inaction one can probably predict how Bill Clinton would have reacted if 9/11 had been on his watch.


But to answer your question, I blame the Dubya administration for quite a lot, and, unlike you, provided evidence for my statements. I provided you with the Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com), which you have yet to address. And yes, as the quote above implies, I blame Rumsfeld for the torture of detainees. Why? Because he authorized and vehemently defended it (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/09/iraq.abuse.main.int/).

The downingstreetmemo site is a left wing anti-war activist site, it's hardly reputable source.

Also, I'd like to see what Rumsfeld said word for word, rather than read what a bunch of commentators at CNN said he said.

[quote=Dagobahn Eagle]
And my point remains: I've heard of very few, if any, cases where nations just agree to send high-ranking people out of country for trial without some sort of discussion. To demand that they do is simply unrealistic, no matter who attacks who.


Bin Laden wasn't a member of their government, and the Taliban did know Bin Laden had conducted through his organization attacks on the US in the recent past.

1st World Trade Center bombing
Bombings of US Embasies
USS Cole


Make up your mind. Are you in favor of torture or are you not? And since the troops got court martialed, isn't it logical that Rumsfeld and the others who authorized and supported the torture should be brought to justice, too? Even mild torture is going completely overboard and breaking multiple human rights conventions.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. --UN Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)


Again I would like to see what was actually said, because I pay close attention to politics and I know how the media distorts what people say.


I'd rather have my fingers broken than suffer mental torture like what is being carried out by the USA.

So you think we should provide them with things they can and have used on our soldiers as weapons and you consider that to be torture. Some things that happened like at Abu Grabe (sp?) was wrong and the people involved were punished.


I registered your desire to return to a state of Imperial-style censorship the first time you uttered it. And the second through the tenth. You can stop now.


You can stop implying that I'm trying to do anything of the sort, you can also stop trying to twist my words to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not. When I'm saying that the media shouldn't provide aid and comfort to the enemy, like how the media was censored (for good reason) in World War 2, it's common sense, you don't provide information that your enemy that you're fighting can use against you.


And let me spell this out to you: Cite sources for your statements. Give me a verifiable, objective, believable source that says that terrorist attacks are increasing in intensity and numbers as result of 'terrorist-friendly' media. Or desist.


mimartin has provided some, I've provided some, I've provided some in multiple threads actually. I'm sorry that you consider some heavily biased places to be objective.


So it's OK to you that he's pardoning convicted criminals? I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they spelled out whatever part of the Constitution it is you're referring to (read: show me where in the Constitution this is spelled out).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1
The President, furthermore, may grant pardons or reprieves. Pardons may not be granted in cases of impeachment. Originally, the pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Biddle v. Perovich, however, the Supreme Court reversed the doctrine, ruling that "a pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."



Fine. Then get a warrant. If someone's a 'known terrorist', it should be very easy for the feds to do so, would it not?

Because the guy whose phone they are originally trying to intercept the communications from in the first place isn't in the United States. The Feds didn't know anything about the person on the other end that happened to be in the US until the phone conversation. So you're saying they should have just hung up on that?


Oh, and again, what makes this war and these terrorists so darned special? Ordinary criminals take more lives and cause more material damage to the States annually than terrorists, yet no one is asking for us to throw the Constitution out the window on their behalf.
Oh, and just who is the US at war with again? Iraq is occupied, Afghanistan is occupied. The terrorists are not a nation and can't be declared war upon: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war) A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. --Wikipedia


We can declare war on the countries that support terrorism though.


First of all, I don't believe nonexistent Weapons of Mass Deception are that easy to smuggle anywhere. Downing Street Memo, pal.


Oh so you mean you don't believe in the several tons of Anthrax the purchased by Iraq because someone in the US state dept. stupidly sold to Iraq back during the Iran/Iraq war.


Second of all, you can't invade countries based on speculation. Do you know for sure that North Korea doesn't possess 100 nukes brought in from Russia? Nope. But on the other hand, there's no evidence to suggest they have bought themselves nuclear weapons from Russia, so no invasion is warranted. Get my point? You don't have to prove people and nations innocent to go against them - you have to prove them guilty.


Have we invaded North Korea recently? There was more than one reason to go into Iraq. Many of those reasons (and I'm not talking about oil) were already proven to be happening and at least one of them Saddam was boasting about.


Third of all, the bulk of his WMDs were chemical weapons, which have a very short shelf life. One of the weapons it was implied that Saddam possessed was Sarin gas - which has a shelf life of weeks to months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Shelf_life). The fact that the general public of the US has somehow avoided having this pointed out to them is simply frightening.


Based on what Saddam was able to get from France and Russia in violation of UN resolutions, it's not unreasonable to assume he could make more relatively quickly.


And finally, it's incredibly far-fetched that Saddam should ship out his weapons when he faced a full-scale invasion. How can you claim he was a trigger-happy monster ready to use NBCs at us or Israel and thus should be invaded - and at the same time claim he got rid of them and thus should be invaded? Make up your mind, please.

He did use chemical weapons on his own people, I don't recall the US deliberately dropping Nukes on towns in the United States.


Again:eek:? You really miss that age of semi-democracy and Imperialism, don't you?


Again quit your character assassination attempts, it's annoying.


As a matter of fact, I've repeatedly pointed out that they also report on car accidents every day. By your reasoning, this means that they support car accidents, right, since they only report the bad news on them, day in and day out?

Last time I checked we weren't at war with automobiles or the automotive industry.

Prime
07-17-2007, 09:05 PM
Prime, I just said who considered the BBC to be the English version of Al Jazeerez. The Israelis do.Ah. When I read it I took it to mean that certain parties looked at the BBC the way Israelis view Al Jazeerez. My mistake.

mimartin
07-17-2007, 10:05 PM
mimartin, it isn't just the BBC though, the Guardian also has a bad reputation in Israel as well and your links show that as well.

And that has to do with what? I don't follow you.

I was agreeing with you on the BBC, I thought the discussion was about the BBC. I was trying not to turn this into another "the media is bias thread", but wanted to add what I read that supported your side of the debate about the BBC. Iím sure people think the Guardian is, I know people think Fox News is, but that has nothing to do with the BBC.

Jae Onasi
07-17-2007, 10:13 PM
I'm not going to dignify you by replying to your childish presumptions
Then don't bother mentioning it in the first place, especially if you're going to skate the flame line.

Again:eek:? You really miss that age of semi-democracy and Imperialism, don't you?
That's not necessary, and certainly isn't in the spirit of this forum. I recognize you feel very strongly about this issue, but keep it in the civil realm.

Garfield, likewise, make sure you keep the discussion civil.

Totenkopf
07-18-2007, 01:05 AM
Are you implying that the Security Council refused the US to go into Iraq because of the said scam and the alleged bribery? Prove it. Innocent until proven guilty.Or are you implying that because the UN is corrupt, it should not be followed? What if I live in a shantytown with a corrupt police - is it suddenly OK to murder and rape and rob and then go,
'well, the cops can't exactly tell me to stop, can they, they're not following the law themselves'? Nope.

Oh, and if the US doesn't have to abide by the UN's wishes, this surely implies the rest of the world doesn't have to either, right? North Korea is free to make nukes and use them on the South in a full-scale invasion? China is free to start bombing Taiwan? Iran is free to lob missiles into Israel? Iraq would have been fully within its rights to get its hands on WMDs?

In a word, yes. To all of the above even. Last I checked, the UN hadn't yet become the One World Government with authority over all nations. It's still largely a (bloated and hopelessly corrupt) deliberative body with no effective means of imposing its will over anyone. If you have no power to enforce your will, you have no real authority, hence I'm not legally obliged to pay you any heed. Also, as in the case of your shanty town example, you confuse moral imperatives with legal ones. Just b/c the "legal authorities" are unjust, doesn't make it ok for you, but then neither are they in any real position to punish you as they've already made a mockery of the law and invalidated themselves. This generally tends to lead to revolution if the "criminal" becomes more powerful than the government in question. As to your point about the UNSC, I'm not sure that the allegation is that the SC itself was "corrupted", but that members of key nations (ie w/veto powers) were compromised. The guys voting on the council, like good little nazis/bureaucrats ;) (ve have our orders) just vote as they are instructed. BTW, NK and SK are officially still at war (on paper anyway, much like w/Iraq, if you recall). I'm not aware of any statute of limitations that allows that to run out if the option is not exercised w/in a specified period. But, I must say that you are hopelessly naive if you believe that opposition to the Iraq war was based on anything other than the principle of greed (I'm speaking of nations here, btw).



What about rushing into an illegal preemptive attack on Iraq based on no evidence, then?

As there was a cease fire, albeit 12 years old, in place, it was not an illegal attack, just a resumption of hostilities.

You don't know that before you try. It would've been a far smarter move to talk to the Talibans - without simultaneously bombing them- and then, when or if they stonewalled in the face of evidence, go into Afghanistan in force. Bush's cowboy decision to start bombing before the half-hearted talks were even finished brought about massive international animosity and ruined the unparalleled sympathy given to the US by the entire world after 9/11 - the rest of the sympathy Bush would ruin when he bullied and insulted and elbowed his way into Iraq's oil fields.

Seriously, DE, you really believe this corny drivel? I know that it's the delusion on what much of diplomacy (such as it is) is based, but these beliefs have pretty much been shattered by history over and over again. The idea that somehow, if we just talk, we can iron things out, is plainly silly. Oh, it works (somewhat) if you have "mature" governments working out trade disputes and the like. It does NOT work with terrorists and their backers, who only use such attempts to replenish their coffers and warchests till the next series of incidents. The only reason Ghadaffi even turned over his materials was b/c he knew what might be in store if he didn't. Don't think he was looking for a repeat of 1986. Look what all the diplomatic hot air has accomplished w/Iran. Zippo. Syria. Bupkiss As for the world's sympathy, they can cram it. That and a quarter won't even get you a **** cup of coffee anymore. :D


Why? Because he authorized and vehemently defended it (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/09/iraq.abuse.main.int/).

I think I missed the part in the article where Rummy "vehemently" defends anything.


Make up your mind. Are you in favor of torture or are you not? And since the troops got court martialed, isn't it logical that Rumsfeld and the others who authorized and supported the torture should be brought to justice, too? Even mild torture is going completely overboard and breaking multiple human rights conventions.No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. --UN Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

Is this the same UN that has it's Human Rights Committee helmed by a bunch of human rights abusers? Apparently it doesn't take its own stance on human rights too seriously either.


I'd rather have my fingers broken than suffer mental torture like what is being carried out by the USA.

You do realize that breaking your fingers would be the equivalent of an ourderve (sp?)?


And let me spell this out to you: Cite sources for your statements. Give me a verifiable, objective, believable source that says that terrorist attacks are increasing in intensity and numbers as result of 'terrorist-friendly' media. Or desist.

Raises the question of bias. What you would consider "objective/believable" may vary radically from someone else. Second, insurgencies and insurrections eventually die off without the oxygen of attention. Like a tree in the forest, if no one hears it fall, did it effectively make any noise?


So it's OK to you that he's pardoning convicted criminals? I doubt the founding fathers had this in mind when they spelled out whatever part of the Constitution it is you're referring to (read: show me where in the Constitution this is spelled out).

Maybe one should ask if a governor should even be able to commute a death sentence for a convicted criminal. As I understand it, the use of the pardon, while controversial, is allowed.


Fine. Then get a warrant. If someone's a 'known terrorist', it should be very easy for the feds to do so, would it not?

Much depends on the type of judge you have to rely on. I'm sure if it were you, it would be extremely hard to get that warrant.


Oh, and again, what makes this war and these terrorists so darned special? Ordinary criminals take more lives and cause more material damage to the States annually than terrorists, yet no one is asking for us to throw the Constitution out the window on their behalf.
Oh, and just who is the US at war with again? Iraq is occupied, Afghanistan is occupied. The terrorists are not a nation and can't be declared war upon: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war) A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others. --Wikipedia

"Ordinary criminals" don't tend to attack the armed forces of another nation or inflict 10s of billions of dollars of damage on their victims in a small handful of attacks.


You can't declare war on obscure phenomenas such as terrorism, crime, drunk driving, obesity or global warming and suddenly be allowed to throw the rulebook out the window. Nice try, though.


I guess that pretty much explains the war against piracy in the 17th/18th centuries or the use of the US Marines against the Barbary piratres in the early 19th century. Nice oversight.


Breach of International Law is breach of International Law. The Bush Adminsitration has shown a total disregard for the UN, the Geneva Conventions, and the Declaration of Human Rights. Don't even try to make the invasion of Iraq look legal just because the aggressor authorized it. To put it another way, was it OK and legal for Iraq to invade Kuwait in 1991? After all, I'm sure that whatever checks and balances were in place in Saddam's party had been met, and by your opinion, the UN doesn't count, right?

The ruling members, as well as many of the members, of the UN practice a high degree of exceptionalism in observing the wishes and dictates of the UN. Seeing as how Iraq is not ruled by the UN, it matters little what the UN has to say about anything. But I've already covered this above.


They weren't. Read the interview with Ritter I provided you.

Isn't this the same Ritter who then went on to take $$ from Iraqi interests? Kind of deflates his objective status.


First of all, I don't believe nonexistent Weapons of Mass Deception are that easy to smuggle anywhere. Downing Street Memo, pal.

DSM is a somewhat overhyped piece of analysis. The DSM doesn't even address how easy or hard it would be to shuttle things around. All the more so if one is discussing chemical weapons (the poor man's nuke) and biological agents. The DSM is still only the analysis of a group of people and not an unimpeachable document.


Second of all, you can't invade countries based on speculation.

It would be somewhat imprudent, but not unheard of.



Third of all, the bulk of his WMDs were chemical weapons, which have a very short shelf life. One of the weapons it was implied that Saddam possessed was Sarin gas - which has a shelf life ofweeks to months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin#Shelf_life). The fact that the general public of the US has somehow avoided having this pointed out to them is simply frightening.

It is the relative ease with which chemical weapons can be produced that's their most alarming characteristic. Also, if the weapons are binary in form, their shelf life is much greater. And it's not as if sarin were the only option out there.


And finally, it's incredibly far-fetched that Saddam should ship out his weapons when he faced a full-scale invasion. How can you claim he was a trigger-happy monster ready to use NBCs at us or Israel and thus should be invaded - and at the same time claim he got rid of them and thus should be invaded? Make up your mind, please.

I don't believe that the fear was as much that they might be used against the invading forces as that they might be used against Israel. Couple that with the knowledge that use of those weapons in the field would've sealed his doom, or certainly his military's demise. He may well have thought that if he were captured, he'd be "rescued" from any fate by the UN. But, he's dead now, so speculation on his motives is moot.


What is being proposed is that they're given a free trial and then either punished (if found guilty) or freed (if not found guilty). That's how this annoying pinky-liberal phenomenon of 'justice' works. You've probably heard of it.

Wow, do free trials really exist (I thought that was only a marketing concept. :p )

GarfieldJL
07-18-2007, 09:29 PM
Oh more good news, another Al-Qaeda leader has been captured.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289727,00.html

Prime
07-19-2007, 11:51 AM
That is good news.

mimartin
07-19-2007, 01:55 PM
Oh more good news, another Al-Qaeda leader has been captured.

Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani now that is indeed a mouthful. Very good news, but another will soon take his place. Unless we can stop the flow of weapons and money there will always be another ready to assume leadership. Anyway I just hope this helps the moral of the troops and shows America that the our troops are not the reason thing have gone badly in Iraq. Without our dedicated well trained troops things would be a lot worst over there.

GarfieldJL
07-19-2007, 02:23 PM
Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani now that is indeed a mouthful. Very good news, but another will soon take his place. Unless we can stop the flow of weapons and money there will always be another ready to assume leadership. Anyway I just hope this helps the moral of the troops and shows America that the our troops are not the reason thing have gone badly in Iraq. Without our dedicated well trained troops things would be a lot worst over there.


Well, problem is that the money and stuff is probably coming from Iran and Syria, as well as Islamic Charities.

mimartin
07-19-2007, 02:52 PM
Well, problem is that the money and stuff is probably coming from Iran and Syria, as well as Islamic Charities.
The Government knows where the money is coming from the problem is how do we stop, the money, the men, and weapons from getting into Iraq. Until we figure that out the death toll will continue to rise.

I am not comparing the battles or the outcome, but just from a supply stand point this is starting to look a lot like Vietnam. The American military is designed to cut off the enemyís supply lines, the problem here like Vietnam the enemyís supply lines are so low tech they are impossible to cut off. Iím sure it is just as difficult to find and stop a couple men traveling through desert at night as it was to stop them walking through the jungle at night. Even if you do find them tomorrow there will be two more traveling a different route.

GarfieldJL
07-19-2007, 03:04 PM
There are several key differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

1. If we leave the enemy will follow us home, because the people we are fighting are fanatics.
2. Many groups we were fighting not too long ago are now joining our troops in fighting Al Qaeda, having had enough of their tactics.
3. Advances in technology allow satellites to watch the borders if need be.
4. A large number of the people we are fighting now are not even Iraqis, they are led by people whom aren't Iraqis etc.

Similarities to Vietnam:
1. the News media reporting to try to stir opposition to the troops and pull our forces out.
2. Antiwar activists that don't care what the consequences will be.
3. It's a tough fight where the enemy tries to hide behind civilians.

mimartin
07-19-2007, 03:16 PM
There are several key differences between Iraq and Vietnam.
I am not comparing the battles or the outcome, but just from a supply stand point

As I wrote I was not comparing anything, but the supply lines.

But since you brought it up the major similarity (and the only one that matter) many young Americans are coming home in body bags or with wounds they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

GarfieldJL
07-19-2007, 03:49 PM
But since you brought it up the major similarity (and the only one that matter) many young Americans are coming home in body bags or with wounds they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.


Doesn't that happen in any war we've been in, clear back to the Revolutionary War? Heck it happens to any country in a war.

mimartin
07-19-2007, 06:22 PM
I don't know did they have body bags during the Revolutionary War?

There are several key differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

If we leave the enemy will follow us home, because the people we are fighting are fanatics.

Youíve said this numerous times, but my question is if our borders where shut down like they should be, how would they get here?

You are right about the Muslims we are fighting being fanatics; do you think our occupying their holy land is causing more to become ďfanaticsĒ?

Many groups we were fighting not too long ago are now joining our troops in fighting Al Qaeda, having had enough of their tactics.
Or could it be that we are training and supplying the very people that our soldiers will be fighting again next week? Could it be that they are learning our tactics in order to become more proficient at killing our own troops? That is the difficulty in fighting a guerrilla war, you never really know who the enemy is, but they know what the Americans look like.

Advances in technology allow satellites to watch the borders if need be.
Then we must have a very big blind spot! If we have the technology to prevent the insurgence from being re-supplied with weapons, man power and money why havenít we stop them? If we could do that then most of the troops could be home by Christmas and we would have won the war. Or is it National Security preventing us from using this technology in that we donít want to give away what our capability is?

A large number of the people we are fighting now are not even Iraqis, they are led by people whom aren't Iraqis etc.
Agreed, but they are Middle Eastern and they are getting into the country and killing our troops. Until we stop that our troops will continue to suffer.

Similarities to Vietnam:
the News media reporting to try to stir opposition to the troops and pull our forces out.
I have not seen any reporting of that type at least from the main stream media. Iíve seen them cover the news and articles that were slightly off center to the left and the right, but not to the point of stir opposition to the troops. I have seen them stir some opposition to the Commander and Chief, but not the troops. I have seen Blogs that attempted to do this however.

Antiwar activists that don't care what the consequences will be.

Proof? Iím antiwar and I care about not only what happens to our troops, but what happens to the people of Iraq. Donít you really mean some antiwar activists donít care about the consequences of a US withdrawal?

It's a tough fight where the enemy tries to hide behind civilians.

True again and just why the greatest military in the history of this planet did not foresee this happening escapes me. It could be because those in charge criminally miscalculated the insurgence in it infancy and disregard the advice of military commanders on the ground when we could have stopped the insurgence in its tracks.

In Vietnam there was a back lash against American troops in this country. What the American people did and said about troops that fought and died for their country is unforgivable. Just because someone disagree with the war in Iraq does not mean they do not support the troops and I find it offensive that you would suggest that someone antiwar (such as myself) is against the troops.

Achilles
07-19-2007, 07:29 PM
There are several key differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

1. If we leave the enemy will follow us home, because the people we are fighting are fanatics. I fail to see how this is significantly different than the "domino effect" that was frequently referenced during the vietnam conflict. The policy makers had us convinced that if Vietnam fell to the communists then world-wide domination of the communist regime would be inevitiable. Clearly it was not.

This is not to say that the present concerns about Iraq are unfounded, however I see history repeating and need a little more convincing.

2. Many groups we were fighting not too long ago are now joining our troops in fighting Al Qaeda, having had enough of their tactics. The US gov't via the CIA (and/or OSS depending on which era we're referencing) helped to train indigenous people in Laos and Cambodia to help fight against the Northern Vietnamese.

3. Advances in technology allow satellites to watch the borders if need be. Watch stations and regular patrols did nothing to prevent the vietnamese from creating intricate underground tunnels and living spaces. Putting hundreds of geosychronous spy satelittes over the mid-east isn't going to help us indentify which Syrian vistors are students and which are terrorist, etc. We can't use techology to monitor a few hundred miles of southern US border in our own country, but we can rely on satelittes to monitor the entire perimeter of Iraq? And what happens at night?

4. A large number of the people we are fighting now are not even Iraqis, they are led by people whom aren't Iraqis etc. Source please? Assuming for a moment that your point is accurate, how does this make it a "key" difference between Iraq and Vietnam? The Vietnam conflict was about freedom from western oppressors. The insurgents in Iraq (whether they were born their or not) are fighting for the exact same thing.

Similarities to Vietnam:
1. the News media reporting to try to stir opposition to the troops and pull our forces out. I haven't seen any news media outlet trying to stir opposition against our troops. I've seen a great deal of opposition being raised against our policies and our being there, but the support for our troops seems to be unanimous (except, arguably, from the gov't).

2. Antiwar activists that don't care what the consequences will be.I suppose that depends a great deal upon your persepective. I care a great deal that our being there is could potentially create 2 or 3 future generations of people that hate us and want to fly planes into our buildings. It concerns me a great deal that 2 or 3 or more factions seem to be dead-set on killing one another regardless of our presence, therefore it stands to reason that our presence is a non-point. Which then makes our continued presence a curiousity.

It concerns me a great deal that I cannot think of a single instance in which a native, organized rebel force was successfully repressed by a foreign military with superior technology. I'm sure Nancy Allen might want to jump in with a star wars reference, however I'm thinking more along the lines of Brits vs. the American colonists, the French vs. the Vietnamese, the Americans vs. the Vietnamese, the Soviets vs. the Afghans, and the Americans vs. the Iraqis.

It seems to me that there is a substantial history of rag-tag, but dedicated and organized rebel fighters rising up to defeat "invaders" that boast superior military forces. In other words, I care a great deal that more of my countrymen might die in a conflict they can't win.

If Iraq wants to tear itself apart, I say we try to find a way to get the non-combatants out and then let them go nuts. We're so concerned that they want to fight us, but it appears that they only want to fight each other.

3. It's a tough fight where the enemy tries to hide behind civilians. Yep sure is.

Thanks for reading.

GarfieldJL
07-19-2007, 09:03 PM
I fail to see how this is significantly different than the "domino effect" that was frequently referenced during the vietnam conflict. The policy makers had us convinced that if Vietnam fell to the communists then world-wide domination of the communist regime would be inevitiable. Clearly it was not.

This is not to say that the present concerns about Iraq are unfounded, however I see history repeating and need a little more convincing.

The US gov't via the CIA (and/or OSS depending on which era we're referencing) helped to train indigenous people in Laos and Cambodia to help fight against the Northern Vietnamese.


Okay the difference here is the people we're fighting are religious fanatics that think if they blow up nonmuslims or muslims that don't agree with them they go to paradise with 50 virgins to serve their every whim.


Watch stations and regular patrols did nothing to prevent the vietnamese from creating intricate underground tunnels and living spaces. Putting hundreds of geosychronous spy satelittes over the mid-east isn't going to help us indentify which Syrian vistors are students and which are terrorist, etc. We can't use techology to monitor a few hundred miles of southern US border in our own country, but we can rely on satelittes to monitor the entire perimeter of Iraq? And what happens at night?


Iraq's location in the world makes it hard to set up a satelite with a geosynchronous orbit.


Source please? Assuming for a moment that your point is accurate, how does this make it a "key" difference between Iraq and Vietnam? The Vietnam conflict was about freedom from western oppressors. The insurgents in Iraq (whether they were born their or not) are fighting for the exact same thing.


Try the guy from Hezbollah we captured recently, or the Iranians, etc. I've posted numerous sources concerning this, not only in this topic but in others.

Btw, they are not fighting to free Iraq, they're fighting to set up an Islamofacist state that harbors and supports terrorism.


I haven't seen any news media outlet trying to stir opposition against our troops. I've seen a great deal of opposition being raised against our policies and our being there, but the support for our troops seems to be unanimous (except, arguably, from the gov't).


Try any of the following CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, BBC, etc.


I suppose that depends a great deal upon your persepective. I care a great deal that our being there is could potentially create 2 or 3 future generations of people that hate us and want to fly planes into our buildings. It concerns me a great deal that 2 or 3 or more factions seem to be dead-set on killing one another regardless of our presence, therefore it stands to reason that our presence is a non-point. Which then makes our continued presence a curiousity.

There are several reasons including Al Qaeda trying to get a new base to replace Afghanistan and they're currently trying to get Iraq.


It concerns me a great deal that I cannot think of a single instance in which a native, organized rebel force was successfully repressed by a foreign military with superior technology. I'm sure Nancy Allen might want to jump in with a star wars reference, however I'm thinking more along the lines of Brits vs. the American colonists, the French vs. the Vietnamese, the Americans vs. the Vietnamese, the Soviets vs. the Afghans, and the Americans vs. the Iraqis.


This isn't a native force though people from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc. are foreigners. Also a lot of the Iraqi tribes are actually helping US forces now.


It seems to me that there is a substantial history of rag-tag, but dedicated and organized rebel fighters rising up to defeat "invaders" that boast superior military forces. In other words, I care a great deal that more of my countrymen might die in a conflict they can't win.


So you're saying we just hand Iraq over to Iran and Al Qaeda? A lot of the natives that have been fighting us have actually joined US forces in kicking out foreign insurgents now, see Anbar.

A lot of the attacks that have occurred are the result of attacks by Iranian special forces and Al Qaeda to try to spark a civil war. A lot of Iraqis are now fighting on the side of US forces to kick Al Qaeda and Iranian forces out of Iraq. If it were just Iraqis trying to kill each other I'd say let em cause we can't referee a civil war, but when other countries are doing things to cause fighting, then it's no a matter of natives fighting it's a matter of other countries trying to start things.

mimartin
07-19-2007, 09:27 PM
Try any of the following CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, BBC, etc.

Of the American Media (which I believe the BBC is not a part of) please site one story that has attempted to stir opposition against our troops. I would really like to see the article so that I can judge it for myself (I donít trust Bill OíReilly, Oliver North or Jack Hanna enough to take their word concerning anything this serious.).

This is a very serious accusation and if true will change my opinion of that media outlet. If what you are condemning these media outlets for is the one Blog that military annalist from MSNBC wrote donít bother, I agree he should be fired and even drawn and quartered, but a Blog has nothing to do with any media outlets. The Blog was his personal views and had nothing to do with any of his employers.

Achilles
07-19-2007, 09:59 PM
Okay the difference here is the people we're fighting are religious fanatics that think if they blow up nonmuslims or muslims that don't agree with them they go to paradise with 50 virgins to serve their every whim. You seems to see a difference but I do not. In both cases, a charasmatic leader obtained a fanatical following while purging their lands of foreign occupiers. It matters little to me that one of these leaders was a communist and the other is a muslim. Religious belief (or lack thereof) would seem to be a non-issue.

Iraq's location in the world makes it hard to set up a satelite with a geosynchronous orbit. Which means that your satellite solution just became more expensive, more difficult to coordinate (and therefore manage), thereby making it less likely.

Try the guy from Hezbollah we captured recently, or the Iranians, etc. I've posted numerous sources concerning this, not only in this topic but in others. They capture a high-profile leader and you want to cite that as source for your argument that "a large number" of the foot soldiers aren't Iraqis? You point may be true, but unless someone is running a census and publishing the numbers somewhere, your argument is highly speculative....which was my point.

Btw, they are not fighting to free Iraq, they're fighting to set up an Islamofacist state that harbors and supports terrorism. Really? Everything I've read and watched about Al-Qaeda seems to indicate that UBL broke away from the Saudi gov't after the king allowed US troops into the region during Desert Storm/Desert Shield (instead of allowing his army to fight Hussein). He then declared jihad against americans and american supporters for occuping the islamic holy lands (not a specific country, like say Iraq). He then proceeded to carry out terrorist acts against US targets in the region (the counsulate in Africa, the uss cole in yemen, etc) in the hopes of drawing arab attention to the fact that their lands were being occupied.

In other words, al-qaeda fights to get, what they perceive to be, an occupying force out of islamic holy lands. They are fighting in Iraq because that happens to be where a lot of american soldiers are. In other words, there is a great deal about this conflict that you might not be aware of.

Just like most americans didn't know during vietnam that ho chi minh sought US sponsorship of a democracy in vietnam but was turned away because of our alliance with france (their occupiers at the time). Russia agreed to help him fight the french if he agreed to set up a communist state instead. Seems americans have a habit of not fully understanding the wars we involve ourselves in.

Try any of the following CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, BBC, etc. All of these sources are guilty of targeting US troops? Are you sure you're not missing the distinction? How about a specific article from 2 or 3 of these sources, just so I don't think you're making this up?

There are several reasons including Al Qaeda trying to get a new base to replace Afghanistan and they're currently trying to get Iraq. That doesn't even make sense. Their infrastruture is in afghanistan. They have a sympathetic government in afghanistan. The smaller US military force is in afghanistan. They fight in Iraq because that's where the US soldiers are. They fight there because that's where they get to do all the killing. They don't need to replace "afghanistan" because it hasn't been compromised. If it was, we would have captured UBL already.

This isn't a native force though people from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, etc. are foreigners. Also a lot of the Iraqi tribes are actually helping US forces now. You're thinking in the wrong terms. This is jihad...holy war. The native force isn't broken into geographic areas.

Some Iraqi tribes are helping the US while others continue to work against us. This is hardly news. Some people want a pro-western gov't while others don't while others still have completely different agendas.

So you're saying we just hand Iraq over to Iran and Al Qaeda? A lot of the natives that have been fighting us have actually joined US forces in kicking out foreign insurgents now, see Anbar. I'm saying we'll see another "fall of saigon" in our lifetimes. We can do it smart or we can do it like we did before.

A lot of the attacks that have occurred are the result of attacks by Iranian special forces and Al Qaeda to try to spark a civil war. A lot of Iraqis are now fighting on the side of US forces to kick Al Qaeda and Iranian forces out of Iraq. If it were just Iraqis trying to kill each other I'd say let em cause we can't referee a civil war, but when other countries are doing things to cause fighting, then it's no a matter of natives fighting it's a matter of other countries trying to start things. Again, hardly news. Your have different groups with different agendas. The pro-westerners in Iraq are up against the Iranians who probably still hold a grudge from the Iran-Iraq war plus the jihadist who are there to kill infidels, not to mention the Kurds who have their own agenda as well.

Nancy Allen``
07-19-2007, 10:20 PM
It concerns me a great deal that I cannot think of a single instance in which a native, organized rebel force was successfully repressed by a foreign military with superior technology. I'm sure Nancy Allen might want to jump in with a star wars reference, however I'm thinking more along the lines of Brits vs. the American colonists, the French vs. the Vietnamese, the Americans vs. the Vietnamese, the Soviets vs. the Afghans, and the Americans vs. the Iraqis.

I could but there's no need. We only need to look at when we stomped a mudhole into the Taliban forces that took over Afghanistan and walked it dry.

You seems to see a difference but I do not. In both cases, a charasmatic leader obtained a fanatical following while purging their lands of foreign occupiers. It matters little to me that one of these leaders was a communist and the other is a muslim. Religious belief (or lack thereof) would seem to be a non-issue.

"The target is the village of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated. They are unarmed". Never happened in the Western world. Terrorist targets on the other hand are almost universially civillian rather than military. The Bali nightclub that was bombed a few years ago, what tactical worth did it hold? No, this was simply an act of mass murder.

Achilles
07-19-2007, 11:32 PM
I could but there's no need. We only need to look at when we stomped a mudhole into the Taliban forces that took over Afghanistan and walked it dry. We did not "stomp a mudhole" in the taliban. They are still around. We may have succeeded in removing them from the gov't, but the organization still exists.

"The target is the village of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be eliminated. They are unarmed". Never happened in the Western world. Ok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre). This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5039420.stm) one doesn't boast the same body count, but it's a little more recent.

I think your point though was that most western gov't don't have a policy of killing civilians...to which I would draw your attention to the shadier parts of latin america or africa. Tis the folly of "never".

I'll address your points below before I question how this relates to the part of my message that you quoted.

Terrorist targets on the other hand are almost universially civillian rather than military. Yep, they sure are.

The Bali nightclub that was bombed a few years ago, what tactical worth did it hold? No, this was simply an act of mass murder. Yep, it sure was.

How does this have anything to do with the part of my message that you quoted? The viet cong were guilty of acts of terrorism too. How does al qaeda's religious-driven terrorism seem more...important (?)...than the viet cong's politically-driven terrorism. I anxiously await your reply.

Thanks.

Nancy Allen``
07-20-2007, 12:25 AM
We did not "stomp a mudhole" in the taliban. They are still around. We may have succeeded in removing them from the gov't, but the organization still exists.

And since when has any attempt at genocide been completely successful? The people of Afghanistan are free to vote, free to express themselves and the liberating forces are not bogged down in a quadmire like they are in Iraq.

I think your point though was that most western gov't don't have a policy of killing civilians...to which I would draw your attention to the shadier parts of latin america or africa. Tis the folly of "never".

War is hell and Vietnam would be the pit of it. In this instance there's a lot of blame to share around. The intelligence getting it wrong that there wouldn't be civillians there, Medina for what he may or may not say, and the soldiers themselves. I've heard stories of soldiers in Vietnam who shot and kill a little girl armed with an AK before they turned them and the platoon into hamburger. That however is a very weak arguement when faced with soldiers rounding up civillians and executing them.

How does this have anything to do with the part of my message that you quoted? The viet cong were guilty of acts of terrorism too. How does al qaeda's religious-driven terrorism seem more...important (?)...than the viet cong's politically-driven terrorism. I anxiously await your reply.

Big fat deal, all of it bites. Vietcong, Al Qaeda, rank and file soldiers, doesn't matter. Those who seek to harm others ought to be strung up.

Achilles
07-20-2007, 12:38 AM
And since when has any attempt at genocide been completely successful? The people of Afghanistan are free to vote, free to express themselves and the liberating forces are not bogged down in a quadmire like they are in Iraq. Red herring. The topic is organized native forces and their ability to resist technologically superior invading armies. You offered the Taliban as an example of that not happening and I showed the it doesn't apply.

War is hell and Vietnam would be the pit of it. In this instance there's a lot of blame to share around. The intelligence getting it wrong that there wouldn't be civillians there, Medina for what he may or may not say, and the soldiers themselves. I've heard stories of soldiers in Vietnam who shot and kill a little girl armed with an AK before they turned them and the platoon into hamburger. That however is a very weak arguement when faced with soldiers rounding up civillians and executing them. Red herring. The topic is similarities between vietnam and iraq, specifically the leadership of ho chi minh and usama bin laden. I entertained your previous red herring by showing that terrorism does happen in the west.

Big fat deal, all of it bites. Vietcong, Al Qaeda, rank and file soldiers, doesn't matter. Those who seek to harm others ought to be strung up. Red herring. The topic is similarities between vietnam and iraq, specifically the leadership of ho chi minh and usama bin laden.

I will take a moment to point out that by wishing others to be strung up, you display a willingness to harm others, which by your rules means you yourself should be strung up.

Nancy Allen``
07-20-2007, 12:44 AM
What do you want to hear then?

Achilles
07-20-2007, 12:48 AM
Whatever you have to say that pertains to the topic.

Nancy Allen``
07-20-2007, 12:59 AM
Are these things red herrings and do not apply because they are points of view that conflict with yours?

Achilles
07-20-2007, 01:08 AM
They are red herrings because they are being presented as arguments related to the topic when they are not. For instance, introducing genocide when the topic is native forces vs occupying forces. If you would like to present an argument related to native forces vs occupying forces, I would very much like to read it, especially if it opposes mine, because it might afford me the opportunity to learn something new or to look at the topic in a way that I have not before. It also prevents me from being able to point out logical fallacies :D

Nancy Allen``
07-20-2007, 01:20 AM
Alright. The Taliban were driven out from Afghanistan, whatever remnents were not able to drive out the liberating forces. Terrorism happens in the West and it's just as wrong as when the perpetrators are Al Qaeda. Who does what doesn't make it any more or less important, or wrong. We do not however or should not comdemn the Muslim world or every person who follows Islam, neither should every American be held personally responsible for what happened in Vietnam. The people directly involved should be strung up, and anyone who enjoys doing that is on mentally the same ground as any Vietnamese butcher you care to mention.

GarfieldJL
07-20-2007, 01:26 AM
They are red herrings because they are being presented as arguments related to the topic when they are not. For instance, introducing genocide when the topic is native forces vs occupying forces. If you would like to present an argument related to native forces vs occupying forces, I would very much like to read it, especially if it opposes mine, because it might afford me the opportunity to learn something new or to look at the topic in a way that I have not before. It also prevents me from being able to point out logical fallacies :D


In other words her argument has no flaws that you can find so you're trying to act like she's trying to change the subject.

Totenkopf
07-20-2007, 02:27 AM
Technically, the whole Vietnam/Iraq strain in this thread is a sidebar. Hence the subject matter is NOT as tightly focused as Achilles would wish. However, I tend to agree with some of his conclusions. Specifically, that given sufficient time and other pressing demands, most "conquerors" fail to permanently subdue indigenous populations
if they don't resort to near genocidal tactics. The American Revolution succeeded in no small part to England being unable or unwilling to use enough force to destroy the rebellion. Ditto for most of the other examples. The Taliban example doesn't work as well b/c what you find is that they basically seem to control the rural areas. Yes, they've officially been removed from power, but not conclusively. However, it's erroneous to conclude that "securing" Afghanistan would have meant that UBL would now be in our hands. As no one really knows where he is at any given time, or at least aren't saying, that's highly speculative.

Also, the difference between the domino theory proposition and al queda is that the communists weren't openly threatening to blow things up in America as the militants are today. Seems the communists were a little more rational than the islamicists. Also, he's equally correct in pointing out the flaws in an overreliance on technical intelligence. As sophisticated as modern tech has become, it's still no substitute for a good set of eyes and ears on the ground. And while I agree that we should try to seal the borders, it is a herculean task. Both b/c the length of the borders (1000s of miles--Mex/Can/oceans) and manpower issues. Nevermind the lack of political will.

Vietnam was also different from Iraq in one important way. The "indigenous" forces in South Vietnam (yes, a seperate country at that point) were defeated by 1969. Had that not been neglected in the media, it's possible that Vietnam would exist much as Korea does today. Furthermore, even if one wants to contend that the seperation was so artificial as to make no real difference, it still stands that the country wasn't "reunited" untill several years AFTER America w/drew it's ground forces. So, if "saigon" falls again, it will be b/c we tucked tail and ran, much as we did 30+ years ago. But it is funny, either way, in this modern age, that the most powerful armies aren't necessarily prepared to go for the kill. That alone should make us wary of getting involved elsewhere. If you're going to "play", do so for keeps. Anything else is just a waste (of time, $$, people, resources, etc...).

Achilles
07-20-2007, 03:24 AM
Alright. The Taliban were driven out from Afghanistan, whatever remnents were not able to drive out the liberating forces. That might be one way of looking at it. Another might be that the Taliban withdrew so that they could adopt a strategy of guerilla-warfare. This 2nd possible explanation might also help to explain the Taliban resurgence that began in 2006 and why they continue to have popular support in the region (kinda hard if they're all gone afterall).

For the sake of argument though, I'll concede your point. I will completely ignore the fact that the conflict is on-going and admit that you've been able to provide one relatively weak example of where an organized, native force was not able to repel a technologically superior military force. I think I provided 4 or 5 examples to support my point. Would you care to provide any more in the defense of your's are we going to leave it there?

Terrorism happens in the West and it's just as wrong as when the perpetrators are Al Qaeda. The first part is all that was necessary. The second point is a different conversation altogether (no one was advocating that terrorism is ever right).

Who does what doesn't make it any more or less important, or wrong. So terrorism is terrorism and you support my point that UBL carrying out terrorism in the name of islam and HCM doing it in the name of political reform does not make it a "key difference" between vietnam and iraq. Done and done.

We do not however or should not comdemn the Muslim world or every person who follows Islam, neither should every American be held personally responsible for what happened in Vietnam. The people directly involved should be strung up, and anyone who enjoys doing that is on mentally the same ground as any Vietnamese butcher you care to mention.I'm sure these are all great points, but again, they have nothing to do with the conversation (see post #65)

In other words her argument has no flaws that you can find so you're trying to act like she's trying to change the subject. You mean aside from the fact that they are red herrings. If the topic was genocide (or any of the other irrelevant points that she raised) then her arguments would not be red herrings and I would be incorrect to insinuate that they were so. Perhaps you're confused as to what a red herring is? I can help clarify if you think you might be unclear. Here you go:

The name of this fallacy comes from the sport of fox hunting in which a dried, smoked herring, which is red in color, is dragged across the trail of the fox to throw the hounds off the scent. Thus, a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy. This frequently occurs during debates when there is an at least implicit topic, yet it is easy to lose track of it. By extension, it applies to any argument in which the premisses are logically irrelevant to the conclusion.

In the mean time, I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts about post #72.

Jae Onasi
07-20-2007, 10:20 AM
Moderating note....The staff prefers to keep things in sight distance of the topic, and this is more a general note since the discussion on going off in a new discussion direction came up here. I don't mind splitting threads off if you all want to bifurcate to another topic in any given thread, just let me or one of the other moderators know, or feel free to start a new thread. Also, since this is a discussion forum rather than a pure debate forum, we're not going to hold everyone to any kind of debate technique standards, though we'd like your discussions to a. address the topic and b. make sense. Achilles, I know you want high standards in debate and I do appreciate your efforts in teaching about different fallacies, and a post or two on that in the 'how to structure your arguments and discussions' sticky would be very helpful since even more people would see it.

This is meant to be a more relaxed setting than a debate tournament, so we're not holding people to a debate tournament argument standard. While your posts will be taken more seriously by other readers here if you structure them well, we're happy if there's a healthy discussion going on a given topic.

ET Warrior
07-20-2007, 11:51 AM
Iraq's location in the world makes it hard to set up a satelite with a geosynchronous orbit.Did you just make this up? Admittedly I'm no expert on orbital mechanics, but Iraq is closer to the equator than a great majority of the United States, which would mean the orbital plane would be closer to the equator, creating a more steady geosynch.

So why is it difficult?

Achilles
07-20-2007, 01:49 PM
Moderating note....The staff prefers to keep things in sight distance of the topic, and this is more a general note since the discussion on going off in a new discussion direction came up here. I don't mind splitting threads off if you all want to bifurcate to another topic in any given thread, just let me or one of the other moderators know, or feel free to start a new thread. Also, since this is a discussion forum rather than a pure debate forum, we're not going to hold everyone to any kind of debate technique standards, though we'd like your discussions to a. address the topic and b. make sense. Achilles, I know you want high standards in debate and I do appreciate your efforts in teaching about different fallacies, and a post or two on that in the 'how to structure your arguments and discussions' sticky would be very helpful since even more people would see it.

This is meant to be a more relaxed setting than a debate tournament, so we're not holding people to a debate tournament argument standard. While your posts will be taken more seriously by other readers here if you structure them well, we're happy if there's a healthy discussion going on a given topic. Logical fallacies have absolutely nothing to do with "formal debate strategies". They are what they are. Humans don't only require oxygen on Tuesdays, gravity doesn't stop working when the sun goes down, and logical fallacies are not only applicable to formal debates. If you would like further clarification, please feel free to PM me and I can explain further. Thanks.

"This is meant to be a more relaxed setting than a debate tournament...."This is the main point of that paragraph. If there's anything unclear about that, feel free to PM me and I'll clarify. Thanks. --Jae

Prime
07-20-2007, 04:12 PM
And since when has any attempt at genocide been completely successful? The people of Afghanistan are free to vote, free to express themselves and the liberating forces are not bogged down in a quadmire like they are in Iraq.On the contrary, Canadian and other forces are still very much battling taliban on a day to day basis. Almost dayly we hear about our troops getting killed by bombs and taliban soldiers. There are many stuggles in day to day life for the people there. It may not be on the same level as Iraq, but there are a lot of similar issues.

Big fat deal, all of it bites. Vietcong, Al Qaeda, rank and file soldiers, doesn't matter. Those who seek to harm others ought to be strung up.Isn't that a little hypocritical?

We do not however or should not comdemn the Muslim world or every person who follows Islam, neither should every American be held personally responsible for what happened in Vietnam.I remember seeing an interview with Bin Ladin where the reporter asked why he is targeting American civilians. What struck me is that he said that the American people are responsible, because they voted to put that government in place, and they claim that their government is a representative of the people. Therefore, if the government takes preemptive action or otherwise "invades" their country, it is because the American people will it. If they did not, they would surely vote out that government at the next opportunity.

I found that to be a very interesting point of view...

Achilles
07-20-2007, 04:19 PM
I remember seeing an interview with Bin Ladin where the reporter asked why he is targeting American civilians. What struck me is that he said that the American people are responsible, because they voted to put that government in place, and they claim that their government is a representative of the people. Therefore, if the government takes preemptive action or otherwise "invades" their country, it is because the American people will it. If they did not, they would surely vote out that government at the next opportunity.

I found that to be a very interesting point of view... I recall some commentator pointing out that we lost all hope of rebuilding short term good will by re-electing Bush. "Hey, he was already in office when 9/11 happened, so...". But by giving him a second term, we showed that we agreed with what he was doing.

Totenkopf
07-20-2007, 06:16 PM
It also shows, Prime, that OBL has a poor understanding of how "democracies" work. As to the whole bit from the second commentator, sounds like baseless speculation. More importantly, though, it does seem to reflect that OBL/UBL adheres to the concept of total war (where civilians are deemed legitimate intentional targets).

Also...
It concerns me a great deal that I cannot think of a single instance in which a native, organized rebel force was successfully repressed by a foreign military with superior technology. I'm sure Nancy Allen might want to jump in with a star wars reference, however I'm thinking more along the lines of Brits vs. the American colonists, the French vs. the Vietnamese, the Americans vs. the Vietnamese, the Soviets vs. the Afghans, and the Americans vs. the Iraqis.


I think a rather significant oversight here would be the period of "manifest destiny" in US history. The Sioux, Apache, Commanche, etc.. might take issue w/your conclusion. Not really sure about the aborigine response to western "encroachment" in Australia. There's also the case of the PRC and Tibet or the consolidation of the USSR, which lasted some 70+ years. As I'm not really sure just how large a timeline you're playing with, Achilles, re the "eventual" success of indigenous opposition to foreign powers (also think colonial control of places like SA or India), it's not necessarily inevitable that a foreign power will be defeated by home grown opposition, certainly not in the short term.

mimartin
07-20-2007, 06:43 PM
I found that to be a very interesting point of view...

But by giving him a second term, we showed that we agreed with what he was doing.

Dark humor mode first: We only gave Bush one term the Supreme Court gave him the first term. So why did didnít bin Ladin go after the Justices instead of the innocent victims within the Twin Towers?

Serious:

It is a very interesting point of view, but we must remember it is only the rational of a mass murder trying to justify his actions. Iíd really like bin Ladin to explain his justification for the bombings in Tazania and Nairobi then. Of the 224 people killed and an estimated 4085 injured in the two bombings only 12 were Americans and 40 native US employees were killed. I wonder what bin Ladinís justification would be for 72% of the kills being innocent East Africans ďthey allowed the imperialist swine to build an embassy in their land so they deserve to die.Ē

I recall some commentator pointing out that we lost all hope of rebuilding short term good will by re-electing Bush. "Hey, he was already in office when 9/11 happened, so..."

I donít agree with President Bushís politics and would never (again) vote for him, however Iím not going to vote for or against anyone based on rebuilding relationships with mass murders. The terrorist plan is scare us into succumbing to their will. They are attempting to force us to forgo our freedoms and values in the name of fear.

Achilles
07-20-2007, 07:44 PM
It is a very interesting point of view, but we must remember it is only the rational of a mass murder trying to justify his actions. Iíd really like bin Ladin to explain his justification for the bombings in Tazania and Nairobi then. Of the 224 people killed and an estimated 4085 injured in the two bombings only 12 were Americans and 40 native US employees were killed. I wonder what bin Ladinís justification would be for 72% of the kills being innocent East Africans ďthey allowed the imperialist swine to build an embassy in their land so they deserve to die.Ē bid Laden was counting on drawing muslim support by highlighting U.S. presence in muslim countries. The concern was that not enough people were aware of what was going on, therefore he would use terrorism to a) show that the americans could be hurt and b) show the americans were in their back yard and c) remind supporters that al-qaeda was capable of engaging superpowers.

Frontline put together a 7-part series on DVD that details all of this. You can pick up the 2-disc set for a decent price in most places.

I donít agree with President Bushís politics and would never (again) vote for him, however Iím not going to vote for or against anyone based on rebuilding relationships with mass murders. The terrorist plan is scare us into succumbing to their will. They are attempting to force us to forgo our freedoms and values in the name of fear. Yep.

Nancy Allen``
07-20-2007, 08:53 PM
Isn't that a little hypocritical?

The key diffirence being you wanting to do it, whether it's something you'd enjoy. I'm sure police officers hate the part of the job where they have to tell some poor kid's parents their son or daughter was killed on the roads for example but it's a job that needs to be done.

More importantly, though, it does seem to reflect that OBL/UBL adheres to the concept of total war (where civilians are deemed legitimate intentional targets).

QFT. You NEVER, EVER target civillians. Collateral damage in war is bad enough but to intentionally target non combatents, no punishment imagineable is worthy of such a heinous act.

Not really sure about the aborigine response to western "encroachment" in Australia.

Members of the Aboriginal community in Australia are outraged over the European settlement, comparisons to Nazis are not uncommon. Acts such as the 'Stolen Generation' (where Aboriginal children were taken from their parents) and the recent laws that take away benefits from those who do not use it on their children have had them renage on the notion of reconciliation, and while I'm not sure how much of the Aboriginal community is represented by the vocal members the push seems to be that black people and white people cannot live together, that white people are to have nothing to do with their affairs. While at the same time there is a call for compensation and to give the country back to the Aboriginies.

Prime
07-21-2007, 12:45 AM
The key diffirence being you wanting to do it, whether it's something you'd enjoy. It might not necessarily be true that they want to do it for enjoyment. In any event, I still find it somewhat hypocritical to say that anyone seeking to harm others should be killed, tied up and put on public display.

Nancy Allen``
07-21-2007, 12:49 AM
Figure of speech. They should, and you can take this as you read it, those who want to harm others are to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Totenkopf
07-21-2007, 03:17 AM
Members of the Aboriginal community in Australia are outraged over the European settlement, comparisons to Nazis are not uncommon. Acts such as the 'Stolen Generation' (where Aboriginal children were taken from their parents) and the recent laws that take away benefits from those who do not use it on their children have had them renage on the notion of reconciliation, and while I'm not sure how much of the Aboriginal community is represented by the vocal members the push seems to be that black people and white people cannot live together, that white people are to have nothing to do with their affairs. While at the same time there is a call for compensation and to give the country back to the Aboriginies.

Oh, I was aware of that much, just wasn't sure as to what degree the aborigines tried to engage in violent resistance to Euro encroachment. Using the US example, the "natives" I mentioned previously fought the "white man" and lost in the end. I think the success of an insurgency movement is in direct relation to the amount of force and willpower the other side is willing to exhibit to achieve its goals.

Also, the problem with targeting civilians intentionally is that even that is NOT cut and dried. If you work in the munitions plants (or any other war related industry) that supply your forces, are you not then legitimate targets? Afterall, w/o the requisite supplies, no army can fight a war in the first place.

mimartin
07-21-2007, 01:39 PM
bid Laden was counting on drawing muslim support by highlighting U.S. presence in muslim countries. The concern was that not enough people were aware of what was going on, therefore he would use terrorism to a) show that the americans could be hurt and b) show the americans were in their back yard and c) remind supporters that al-qaeda was capable of engaging superpowers.

Frontline put together a 7-part series on DVD that details all of this. You can pick up the 2-disc set for a decent price in most places.



Well it worked at least in the terms you described. I guess it is the thought of killing innocents to prove your point is a little foreign to me, but then again so killing anyone over an idea, faith or a point of view. It does not seem logical to me. I know it has been done throughout history for faith and/or ideas, but does not seem to work and usually back fires in the long term.

Thanks I will see if I can find the DVD.

Achilles
07-21-2007, 01:59 PM
Well it worked at least in the terms you described. Indeed. From al-qaeda's perspective, this war is a huge success for them. Sadly, we don't seem to understand that and seems that we're more then ready/willing to continue playing into their hands.

I guess it is the thought of killing innocents to prove your point is a little foreign to me, but then again so killing anyone over an idea, faith or a point of view. It does not seem logical to me. If such action is promoted by your religion it makes perfect sense. Killing your children with rocks because they are disobedient doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you are true to the christian bible. The quran makes it very clear that the lives of non-believers are forfeit.

I know it has been done throughout history for faith and/or ideas, but does not seem to work and usually back fires in the long term. I guess I would have to know what you are referring to specifically. And we would have to operationally define "long-term" :D

mimartin
07-21-2007, 04:38 PM
I am going to go backward on my replies as I want to choice my words carefully as to not get into any kind of religious debate with you. I respect your views and know I will never change your minds. My faith is my own and it will not changed (modified perhaps but not changed) however logical your response.
I guess I would have to know what you are referring to specifically. And we would have to operationally define "long-term" :D

I was speaking more general as to not enter a religious debate. So generally I was speaking to things such as the crusades, inquisitions and even Nazi Germany to some degree. I also for some reason was thinking of Salem at the time I wrote that.

I was actually speaking to people killing and torturing in the name of Christianity. Men have used their purposely misinterpretation of holy books to kill in the name of their so called God long before bin Ladin. They do this for power, wealth and to force their ideology down the masses throats.

Defining ďlong-termĒ today is another matter. In the time before copy machines, computers, telephones and a variety of other technology it was easier for those in power to control information. Add to that the masses being uneducated and illiterate and it could take a century or more for the truth to be assimilated by said masses.

Unfortunately in the Middle East (and the U.S. to some degree) lack of education and illiteracy is still an issue. Still with telephones, radio and television the information is availably even to the uneducated and illiterate. So in truth I really donít know how to define ďlong termĒ in todayís day and age. On one hand we have the ability to get the truth to the masses quicker, but on the other you still have uneducated suspicious masses believing that their political, religious and spiritual leaders are acting in their best interest.

If such action is promoted by your religion it makes perfect sense. Killing your children with rocks because they are disobedient doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you are true to the christian bible. The quran makes it very clear that the lives of non-believers are forfeit.

The Quran also makes it very clear that the Muslim people are to protect the Christians and the Jews. Like the Bible the Quran can be interpreted to say whatever the reader would like it to say. Iím not going to argue the meanings I know what both said to me and that is enough for me.

Iím not going to condemn either book for the actions of its reader. To me if a Christian stones his child it is not because the Bible told him to do it. It is because he is either ill or just immoral. At the same time Iím not going to condemn every Muslim or the Quran just because a half dozen flew planes into our buildings. I am going to condemn those responsible and not an entire faith.

Faith and spirituality does not promote murder. People promote murder and even if you can interrupt some lines taken out of context into promoting the deaths of unbelievers it is still the person reading responsibility to actually think for him self before acting.

Achilles
07-22-2007, 04:28 AM
@mimartin: with respect to your wish to avoid going off-topic (i.e. religious debate), I'll post my response to you via PM in the morning. If you would like to copy/post my message in a thread that you find appropriate, feel free to do so and we'll pick it up there. Take care.

Nancy Allen``
07-22-2007, 10:53 AM
Oh, I was aware of that much, just wasn't sure as to what degree the aborigines tried to engage in violent resistance to Euro encroachment.

Please don't take this as gospal but I'll tell you what I know. To be fair there wouldn't be an Aboriginal militant movement like the Black Panthas, sure there would be anger and hatred at white people for it and violence stemming from it but these would be isolated 'you hate me because I'm black' incidents as opposed to any organized uprising. Think the Cronulla riots. There are Aboriginal gangs, Asian ones as well, that seek to make life hard on the Australian people and I think the Asians are probably more active in using violence against Australians. By the same token given the percentage of Aboriginies there is a massive amount of them commit crime, largely theft, assault, drunk and disorderly (which leads to the racist myth about Aboriginies not being able to handle alcohol) ect.

GarfieldJL
07-25-2007, 11:28 AM
Okay it appears the "New Republic" is in trouble for possibly printing stories about atrocities in Iraq by US troops that never happened.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290539,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/business/media/24mag.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/891gxtcb.asp

Achilles
07-25-2007, 12:35 PM
But this guy is allegedly an anonymous US troop himself. So it's not that a New Republic journalist is trashing US troops. Rather they published an article by someone without rigorously checking the source.

Is this an admission that you don't have any examples to support your earlier comment or is this a strawman that you are introducing as your support?

Also, should I assume that we're abandoning our other dialog which left off at post 72?

Glad to see you're back. Take care.

GarfieldJL
07-25-2007, 09:11 PM
Achilles this isn't the first time they've gotten in trouble for printing false stories and making up sources... I'm more inclined to believe that the source never existed.

Achilles
07-25-2007, 09:41 PM
That very well may be. Please explain to me what that has to do with what we were discussing?

GarfieldJL
07-25-2007, 11:25 PM
Uh it shows that the media is misrepresenting to outright lieing about the progress we've made to further an agenda to get people to think the situation is a hopeless failure when it isn't.

Dagobahn Eagle
07-26-2007, 12:22 AM
From the article you provided, it seems to me it's everything but 'misrepresenting' by the media:
Franklin Foer, the editor of The New Republic, will not reveal the authorís identity but says the magazine is investigating the accuracy of his articles. In the late 1990s, under different editors, the magazine fired an associate editor, Stephen Glass, for fabrications.Evidently, lying is not something they take kindly to. Interesting how both your other sources gives the New Republic a chance to defend itself (even though the second couldn't reach them), while FOX News seems to have... forgotten to do so. Hmm, odd move from a Fair and Balanced news outlet.

The New Republic also seem to be eager to get to the bottom of this:
ďNow that these questions have been raised, weíve launched an inquiry. Weíre putting the full resources of the magazine to look into the story,Ē Mr. Foer said. ďItís taking me a little bit longer than I wish it did. The author, not to mention some of the participants in the anecdotes he described, are active duty soldiers and theyíre on 20-hour active combat missions sometimes, and itís very difficult for me to get them all on the phone to ask them the questions that Iíd like to ask.Ē
So in conclusion, this is far from the blatant misrepresentation of the Iraqi War you seem so eager to witch hunt in the evil liberal media. I've seen far worse.

Achilles this isn't the first time they've gotten in trouble for printing false stories and making up sources...I could say the same for another news source, but I'll bite my tongue. Let's keep this on topic.

Achilles
07-26-2007, 01:20 AM
Uh it shows that the media is misrepresenting to outright lieing about the progress we've made to further an agenda to get people to think the situation is a hopeless failure when it isn't. No sir, I believe your comment was:
the News media reporting to try to stir opposition to the troops and pull our forces out.
I posited that while the war was unpopular, the media supported the troops. You replied with:
Try any of the following CBS, NBC, MSNBC, ABC, the New York Times, BBC, etc.
I asked for a specific example from a sample of your choosing from this list.

From that, you replied with completely unrelated controversy occuring within some media outlet I've never heard of before.

Even if I weren't paying attention and accepted that the topic really had been "the media is misrepresenting to outright lieing about the progress we've made to further an agenda to get people to think the situation is a hopeless failure when it isn't", I'm not sure how well your new source supports even that argument.

If I am missing some critical component, please feel free to let me know. Thanks!

PS: I'm still very much awaiting your thoughts on post 72. Please let me know if you intend not to reply to it so that I can put it to rest. Thanks in advance.

Samuel Dravis
09-07-2007, 07:11 PM
The report from the GAO has been released. (http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-07-1230T)Apparently the situation hasn't changed too much from the interim report. It's still disappointing.

Achilles
09-07-2007, 07:40 PM
Surge + Iraqi legislative vacation = not much change.