Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Today/Yesterday in the Senate
Jambo
Scriptkiddie
in Zocalo v2.0
Wow! Was anyone else as blown away and excited by what went on in the Senate today/yesterday (I saw the 'highlights' today) as I was? It's about time someone actually called Bush on his was for political reasons. It's about time someone stood up and said that one reason Bush was pushing so hot and heavy for war was to draw attention away to his total failure on the domestic front. Great Job Tom D!
I was also very interestd in listening to what Dianne Feinstein had to say. The fact that Bush wants to push for war, but has NO PLANS for what to do with Iraq after a US victory...or how to deal with the possibility that US Bombing could unlease biological or chemical weapons on an unsuspecting innocent population was very eye opening.
Yes, Saddam may have to be taken out, but giving someone who can't even be bothered to think through all of the possibilities unlimited power to wage war is a terrible, terrible mistake.
I won't even go into how Bush insulted all of the Democrats in the Senate. As Senator Byrd said, "It was dispicable!!!"
I was also very interestd in listening to what Dianne Feinstein had to say. The fact that Bush wants to push for war, but has NO PLANS for what to do with Iraq after a US victory...or how to deal with the possibility that US Bombing could unlease biological or chemical weapons on an unsuspecting innocent population was very eye opening.
Yes, Saddam may have to be taken out, but giving someone who can't even be bothered to think through all of the possibilities unlimited power to wage war is a terrible, terrible mistake.
I won't even go into how Bush insulted all of the Democrats in the Senate. As Senator Byrd said, "It was dispicable!!!"
Comments
[b]Wow! Was anyone else as blown away and excited by what went on in the Senate today/yesterday (I saw the 'highlights' today) as I was? It's about time someone actually called Bush on his was for political reasons. It's about time someone stood up and said that one reason Bush was pushing so hot and heavy for war was to draw attention away to his total failure on the domestic front. Great Job Tom D!
I was also very interestd in listening to what Dianne Feinstein had to say. The fact that Bush wants to push for war, but has NO PLANS for what to do with Iraq after a US victory...or how to deal with the possibility that US Bombing could unlease biological or chemical weapons on an unsuspecting innocent population was very eye opening.
Yes, Saddam may have to be taken out, but giving someone who can't even be bothered to think through all of the possibilities unlimited power to wage war is a terrible, terrible mistake.
I won't even go into how Bush insulted all of the Democrats in the Senate. As Senator Byrd said, "It was dispicable!!!"[/b][/quote]
eh... track records for everyone are suspect here, so isn't it a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
Bottom line is Saddam's "REAL" threat needs to be dealt with on a global scale. If everyone wants to stick their heads in the sand, then somebody's gotta step up!
- What kind or precedent will we be setting? Will China attack Tiwan using it? Will India attack Pakistan becuase of it?
- What will other countries in the area think to a large US occupation force inside Iraq for an extended time? What will Iran do? Will they start promoting terrorism or developing their own nuclear weapons? If they do the latter, how does stopping Saddam stop Nuclear Proliferation? Or does it in fact INCREASE Nucelear Profliferation as more countries see the US as a threat and nukes as the best deterant?
- If these actions are taken, how will the other large countries (China, Russia) respond to an obviously increase in US world control (and in its own way, colonialism). Will they begin their own similar expansion? How will those countries see the US's sudden dominance of world oil production (US + Mid East output will be esentially all controlled by the US with US troops in Iraq full time)? Will they act to stop US control of world oil production and prices? Remember why Isreal called a cease fire during the retaking of the Sinai Penninsula by Egypt? That was caused by Mid East contries restricting oil production so that the US demanded Isreal call a cease fire. Will other countries see the US control of oil after ousting Saddam as a similar attempt at world control?
[b]- What will other countries in the area think to a large US occupation force inside Iraq for an extended time? What will Iran do? Will they start promoting terrorism or developing their own nuclear weapons? If they do the latter, how does stopping Saddam stop Nuclear Proliferation? Or does it in fact INCREASE Nucelear Profliferation as more countries see the US as a threat and nukes as the best deterant?
[/b][/quote]
They already don't like us, but at the moment they're more interested in each other. Perhaps by removing Iraq we may become the new focus of their attention....
Then again, that's better than the alternative of either Iraq or Iran or someone else conquering all that land in there and unifying it against us.
I'm seriously concidering ignoring your stupid Bush Bashing that the dems are so bent on layering on... Naahhh, not my style.
If not bush, who would have have in the office? Gore? hes an idiot, even the mainstream democratic speakers admit that Gore wouldn't have known what to do during/after 9/11. So shut up about Bush, hes a good man surrounded by smart people. (For some reason most people think that because Bush isn't a good orator means that he lacks a brain, you know very well that isn't true, so hush).
Another point just came to mind.
You undermine the leader of our nation, by doing so, you also undermine the nation itself.
How very American of you...
------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
And you have to realize the republicans need to secure their right wing base (which is just as large, and potentialy more vicious then the left wing anti war crowd when it comes voting time)
And the truth is Sadam does need to go, weve got biiig problems, like say 200 missing Ukranian nuclear warheads, and some people in russia itself are pointing their fingers at Iraq saying "guess who bought them?"
Frankly between the Isreali WMD arsenal and the Iraqi, we better do something quick before the middle east goes poof.
And looks like the Iraqi's are the weak link, going after the Israeli's is crazy, they already have highly effective delivery systems, and in '73 both the US and Russia were pancking and getting ready to rush forces into their respective client states, because Golda Mier damn near pressed the button. And the current PM would probably do the same in a pinch.
------------------
Chase
Web Hosting Provider for FirstOnes.com
http://www.radiusco.com/
Dubya is just using the latest PR/vote winning weapon, I seem to remember a certain President torpedoing an Intern, and to deflect the issue, he kept yelling "Look over there, in that small country, someones doing something bad, (yeah I know they've been doing bad things for a long time but I didn't need a distraction for the US public voters)".
If Bush goes in without atleast a UN rubber stamp on the operation, he and perhaps the US itself is screwed. How screwed is a point of debate, but as soon as the US is looked upon as a bully, the rest of the world will seriously consider it's position in relation to it. Regardless of Saddams real threat, Bushs actions may set one hell of a precedent.
What was that biblical reference again ?
Oh yeah...
"the first shall be last, and the last will be first"
~~~~~
USA vs Rest of the World,
that would be a very interesting bout. If the US really did make itself an enemy of the rest of the world we are looking at Doomsday sorts of scenarios. Even if there are no Nuclear exchanges, just a conventional war, we are looking at a whole lot of decimation and destruction, though and I'm sure I'll be howled down...
the winner would be the Rest of the World.
~~~
Technically speaking, ROTW forces would come down through Canada and prolly up through Mexico, though I imagine the US would do its best to occupy Mexico, and fighting across the NM, Texas borders would be easy for defenders.
Canada would be the go, much harder to defend the USA's Northern borders.
This kind of awful scenario does open up some very interesting technical tactical/strategic issues.
Concentrating the USA's naval power just along its coasts ? Ouch, now that is not an easy thing to overcome, but man at what a cost ? It would not be every day that the US loses a Carrier to a conventional sub sitting doggo on the bottom, ( remember that the Nimitz was pretty much incontrovertibly sunk in wargames with Australia, (four, well spread, actual dummy torpedo strikes). High tech, large numbers, great logistics et al, can all be brought undone by cunning and a 'sharp stick' all too often.
~~~~~
Come to think of it... I guess this boils down again, to an arrogance thing.
The most powerful Country/President, hasn't much humility.
I think I need a vacation! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/cool.gif[/img]
Argone
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
[b]And the truth is Sadam does need to go, weve got biiig problems, like say 200 missing Ukranian nuclear warheads, and some people in russia itself are pointing their fingers at Iraq saying "guess who bought them?"
[/b][/quote]
Do you have some links or media references that I could look up on this...
Not doubting you, just want to do a little research, and need some hard stuff...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[b]If not bush, who would have have in the office? Gore? hes an idiot, [/b][/quote]
And bush isn't?
[quote][b]
How very American of you...
[/b][/quote]
Im not American though.
[quote]
[b]QUOTE OF THE DAY[/b]
"There's no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us. There's no doubt he can't stand us. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."
PRESIDENT BUSH,speaking of Saddam Hussein.
[/quote]
Is Bush thinking strait!?!?
I know one thing - he just turned of those of us that were on the edge with that comment. It seems like this whole war with Sadam is a personal vendetta rather then in the country's interest based on that quote!
It is NOT the job of the US government to "secure a regime change." We are not the police force of the world. We need to strenghen our borders and take care of the other problems we have.
And if we do get Saddam we need the support of the world. I always felt that one of the reasons the terrorests attacked on 9/11 was to alienate the US by making us wage war on everyone. Yes, we need to stand united... but united with the world.
------------------
[b]Penn State Proud[/b]
[b]Frankly, I'm not really bent on War with Iraq, but there are some serious issues over there that need dealing with. Mainly, getting rid of Saddam, who is undeliably a lunitic.
I'm seriously concidering ignoring your stupid Bush Bashing that the dems are so bent on layering on... Naahhh, not my style.
If not bush, who would have have in the office? Gore? hes an idiot, even the mainstream democratic speakers admit that Gore wouldn't have known what to do during/after 9/11. So shut up about Bush, hes a good man surrounded by smart people. (For some reason most people think that because Bush isn't a good orator means that he lacks a brain, you know very well that isn't true, so hush).
Another point just came to mind.
You undermine the leader of our nation, by doing so, you also undermine the nation itself.
How very American of you...
[/b][/quote]
Authoritarian societies inevitably crumble because they silence the critics who could save them from errors of blind hubris. Dissent is not a luxury to be indulged in the best of times, but rather an obligation of free people, particularly when the very notion of dissent is unpopular.
Robert Scheer
I don't agree with anything Jambo said (violently disagree in some cases), but better that he can say it and be taken seriously for at least a nanosecond without being forcibly silenced.
Now, for my freedom of speech:
I voted for Bush because I wanted to keep Gore out of office, not because I was particularly fond of Bush. Had I thought it possible for Alan Keyes to win, that's the guy I would have voted for. That said, I think Bush has done a mostly good job. I'm not pleased with everything he's done, but for the most part, I'm satisfied.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
- PJH
RE this being mostly a political issue, I found the OP Ed piece by Dick Gephardt in the New York times to be good reading. (http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/09.28C.gephardt.oped.htm)
Especially this part:
The president assured Americans then that politics would not play a part in deciding issues of life and death. Which is why when Karl Rove told a Republican party meeting last January that talk of war and terror themes could play to the G.O.P.'s advantage in the 2002 elections -- or last June, when a computer disk containing a presentation by Mr. Rove revealed a White House political strategy to focus on the war as a way to "maintain a positive issue environment" -- I didn't want to believe it. And when Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, remarked that the White House waited until the start of the election season to promote action in Iraq because "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," I hoped it wasn't true.
I don't think civilians will stand in front of armed men coming for him.
Git rid of his military the rest will take care of itself. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Argone
------------------
[b]4 Thousand Throats can be cut in one night by a running Warrior[/b]
[b] Do you have some links or media references that I could look up on this...
Not doubting you, just want to do a little research, and need some hard stuff...
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img][/b][/quote]
Well to top it off there is THIS story which is the most recent development.
[url="http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1508708"]http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=topnews&StoryID=1508708[/url]
Thats the second seziure of weapons grade uranium on its way to what is quite probably Iraq and
as for the missing nuclear warheads, its supposition that they are going to Iraq, they could be going to Iran, or NK (but I doubt they have the hard currency) The story about missing ukranian nukes is avalible at
[url="http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/13/36519.html"]http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/13/36519.html[/url]
and even the new Pravda couldnt be called "pro-western" by any strech of the imagination. if you poke around there are some interesting stories, like Portugals uranium deals with Iraq in the 80's and such
Oh and jambo_jimmy: Daschel or dushbag or whatever the hell is name is is the same @$$hole that went on CNN and said people hate the U.S. because they're jealous. The Senator's scummy like Don Rummy! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-29-2002).]
One issue is that Saddam is a bad guy who does bad things to his own people and who posses a threat to the region and possibly, some day, to the United States.
The other issue is whether or not the United States has the right to force regime change in another country.
These are two separate issues.
If the United States takes the right to force régime change (because we can), then it is setting a precedent that other countries should be able to do this too. What if China decides that the United States needs a régime change? You may say, "Let them try." But then we end up with the philosophy that whomever is strongest gets to do whatever they want. And that is contrary to the ideals that the United States is based upon.
The only way that we have the legal right to effect régime change in Iraq is if they are a clear and present danger to the United States. This case has not been made. But if it is made, then the United States has the moral high ground.
Since the case has not been made, Iraq remains a United Nations/ Security Council issue.
[b]It seems to me that there are two issues.
One issue is that Saddam is a bad guy who does bad things to his own people and who posses a threat to the region and possibly, some day, to the United States.
The other issue is whether or not the United States has the right to force regime change in another country.[/b][/quote]
I feel there is also 3rd issue here: Whether or not a regime change will solve the "threat" of "nuclear proliferation" that seems to be the primary reason why the US wants to do the regime change in the first place.
In my opinion, it will likely not stop nuclear proliferation (see above post - 3rd post in topic).
--RC
P.S. - I am glad this topic has not degenerated into a yelling match the way most politically based topics on this forum tend to. It is a very interesting discussion. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by Random Chaos (edited 09-29-2002).]
Source was News of the Weird
[quote]
Megalomaniacs on Parade
Turkmenistan's president Saparmurat Niyazov made two decrees five days apart in August, first changing the names of the seven days of the week and the 12 months of the year, e.g., April became "Gurbansoltan-edzhe" (the name of Niyazov's mother), and Tuesday became "Young Day." In the second decree, 12-year life cycles were created, beginning with "childhood," "adolescence" (up to age 25), on up to "wise" (age 73 to 85) and "old" (to 97). [New York Times, 8-11-02]
[/quote]
President Bush said the Democrats in the congress are a danger to national security because they are dragging their feet on the creation of the office of homeland security because they are squabbling over how the employees are paid and unionized! The Democrats are pandering to the big business union lobby again. The fact that there is still no central bureau IS a direct danger to national security. If the CIA and FBI had had a central entity it would have been more likely the September 11 clues would have been put together.
Attacking Iraq sets no president for China or others. There is proof he still has something to hide, otherwise why not let in inspectors with no restrictions. If he co-operated he might get all these embargoes lifted, so why wouldn't he? The terms of the end of Desert Storm were that he would disarm and comply with all UN orders, and weapons searches. We are enforcing that term. Just as we would have enforced it if Japan or Germany had tried to re-arm after WWII.
The fact that Bush might want a war for political reasons is negated in my book by the fact that the Democrats don't want a military action for political reasons. Both sides do things for political reasons. My question is what are the Democrats so scared of? If they vote the way their constituents want they should have nothing to fear come election time, right? Or could it be that they are not being representative of the people?
The other point is that we don't know where President Hussein is, according to a German scientist he has at least four other body doubles. No one is going after Iraq just because we can't find Bin Laden or his body. There are other good reasons.
The United States and Japan have sent a great deal of aid to Afghanistan and are providing defense and protection for it's President who was elected by the leaders of the different ethnic clans. Where's the rest of the world? If no aid is sent Afghanistan will fall back to a force like the Taliban. (If you want to talk conspiracy theories; perhaps the rest of the world wants to see the US and British efforts in Afghanistan fail.)
UNSCOM was a failed plan from the very beginning. There was no tooth behind it all. From the get go Iraq was resistant in what facilities could be searched. It would take months of talks and negotiations to get into a place, by that tame the labs could be gone. We all know that Iraq now has (and has had for some time) mobile labs that have gone un-searched. Scaring labs off and searching empty building and perhaps even eliminating a few labs like during Desert Fox is like treating a symptom. It's the government of Iraq that wants these weapons; hence it's the government of Iraq that would have to change if the programs are going to stop. Even the article faylorn sited says Iraq had never totally disarmed even years after the Gulf War.
If we were going to invade Saudi Arabia, Iran, or North Korea it would be a tough call because like Randy pointed out do we have the "right to force regime change in another country?" However in the case of Iraq, they are not complying with the terms set at the end of the Gulf War, and they are a clear and current danger to Kuwait and Israel, and therefore to the entire Middle East, in addition to the United States and perhaps Europe. You can't tell me that you don't think that if Iraq got a Nuclear weapon it wouldn't be sold to a group that had it's eyes on attacking the US. It's bad enough that Russia has a bunch of warheads that are not secure. The fact that great Britain has come on board to a certain degree tells me that there is information that at this point can't be given to the regular population for reasons of national security, armed forces safety, and intelligence source security. Even the US senate has show it's not trust worthy when it comes to leaks.
[quote][b]Furthermore, you people act like the U.S. had nothing to do with the gassing of the Kurds.[/b][/quote]
For a less biased article that explains why there was a delema in the 1980's over who to give aid to between Iran and Iraq lets look at a quality article from a major news outlet. [url="http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1"]http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1[/url]
I think it's encouraging that Rumsfeld was able to change his opinion based on new information when he wrote the memo to the Clinton administration. It shows that he's flexible to new ideas and not overly stubborn.
My point is that the United States didn't have its 'finger on the button' when it came to the Kurds. It was President Hussein that killed those people. Just as it was he who launched SCUDS into Israel and Invaded Kuwait. Playing hindsight (20/20) armchair zmag politician is easy; we had to pick between what appeared to bet the lesser of two evils in the 80's.
Perhaps it's even noble that we are trying to clean up the errors, mess, or imperfections we left behind.
The final thing was whether or not a change in the government of Iraq would stop nuclear proliferation. No it probably will not, among nations at least. However it would be one step in reversing the trend, and would stop the program that is most likely to allow weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists, who do not represent a majority or any nation of people and who can not be negotiated with in any way.
It will be interesting to see what Britain has to say over the next few weeks, there is a danger that this will drag out to long, we don’t want to have to invade Iraq during the Summer months, that much is for certain.
I feel I should add that in the unlikely event that Iraq does open it's doors tomorrow to an military backed unrestricted weapons inspection a conflict could be avoided, but...
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 09-29-2002).]