|
Post by jimmccormick3 on Nov 12, 2008 14:34:16 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_(2003)You'll have to paste this on your brower for the whole intersting article. Very enlightening! Here is a excerpt: President Bush formally makes the case for war See Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq While there had been some earlier talk of action against Iraq, the Bush administration waited until September 2002 to call for action, with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card saying, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."[37] Bush began formally making his case to the international community for an invasion of Iraq in his September 12, 2002 address to the U.N. Security Council.[38] Key U.S. allies in the NATO allies, including France and Germany, were critical of plans to invade Iraq, arguing instead for continued diplomacy and weapons inspections. After considerable debate, the U.N. Security Council adopted a compromise resolution, 1441, which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for noncompliance. Security Council members France and Russia made clear that they did not believe these consequences to include the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government.[39] Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock publicly confirmed this reading of the resolution, assuring that Resolution 1441 provided no "automaticity" or "hidden triggers" for an invasion without further consultation of the Security Council.[40] U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441, gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and set up inspections of Iraq by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Saddam Hussein accepted the resolution on November 13 and inspectors returned to Iraq under the direction of UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix and IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei. As of February 2003, the IAEA "found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq"; the IAEA concluded that certain items which could have been used in nuclear enrichment centrifuges, such as aluminum tubes, were in fact intended for other uses.[41] UNMOVIC "did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction" or significant quantities of proscribed items. UNMOVIC did supervise the destruction of a small number of empty chemical rocket warheads, 50 liters of mustard gas that had been declared by Iraq and sealed by UNSCOM in 1998, and laboratory quantities of a mustard gas precursor, along with about 50 Al-Samoud missiles of a design that Iraq claimed did not exceed the permitted 150 km range, but which had travelled up to 183 km in tests. Shortly before the invasion, UNMOVIC stated that it would take "months" to verify Iraqi compliance with resolution 1441.[42][43][44] The Bush Administration also sought domestic authorization for an invasion. In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". While the resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion. Later that year, however, Americans began to agree with Bush's plan. The U.S. government engaged in an elaborate domestic public relations campaign to market the war to the American people. See, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq. Americans overwhelmingly believed Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors had not uncovered those weapons. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons stashed somewhere, about half were pessimistic that they would ever turn up. By February 2003, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[21] In February 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations General Assembly, continuing U.S. efforts to gain U.N. authorization for an invasion. Powell presented evidence alleging that Iraq was actively producing chemical and biological weapons and had ties to al-Qaeda, claims that have since been widely discredited. As a follow-up to Powell’s presentation, the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Japan, and Spain proposed a UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but NATO members like Canada, France, and Germany, together with Russia, strongly urged continued diplomacy. Facing a losing vote as well as a likely veto from France and Russia, the U.S., UK, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and Australia eventually withdrew their resolution.[45][46] U.S. President George Bush meets with his top advisors on March 19, 2003 just before the invasion begins.With the failure of its resolution, the U.S. and their supporters abandoned the Security Council procedures and decided to pursue the invasion without U.N. authorization, a decision of questionable legality under international law.[47] This decision was widely unpopular worldwide, and opposition to the invasion coalesced on February 15 in a worldwide anti-war protest that attracted big between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.[48] In March 2003, the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, Australia, Poland, Denmark, and Italy began preparing for the invasion of Iraq, with a host of public relations, and military moves. In his March 17, 2003 address to the nation, Bush demanded that Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay surrender and leave Iraq, giving them a 48-hour deadline.[49] But Bush actually began the bombing of Iraq on March 18, the day before his deadline expired. On March 18, 2003, the bombing of Iraq by the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and Denmark began, without UN support, unlike the first Gulf War or the invasion of Afghanistan.
|
|
|
Post by jimmccormick3 on Nov 12, 2008 14:41:01 GMT -5
Just one more VERY INTERESTING excerpt:
With the election of George W. Bush as U.S. President in 2000, the U.S. moved towards a more active policy of “regime change” in Iraq. The Republican Party's campaign platform in the 2000 election called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein, and key Bush advisors, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld’s Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, were longstanding advocates of invading Iraq.[32] After leaving the administration, former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq had been planned since the inauguration, and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion. O'Neill later backtracked, saying that these discussions were part of a continuation of foreign policy first put into place by the Clinton Administration.[33]
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 12, 2008 16:33:13 GMT -5
Nothing you've posted denies the point that the world had reason to believe Saddam Hussein had weapons. Also It's not like Bush made up the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction. It was the whole reason U.N. inspectors where there in the first place. To verify that he had disposed of them and wasn't starting new ones. U.N. inspectors where not isnpecting because George Bush tricked them. The inspections where also largely a big joke with the inspectors not being aloud in to places for hours or days or even being completely denied access to others. Where Blix and boys where allowed to go they didn't find evidence of a nuclear weapons program that much is true.
Your last post helps prove my point. The Clinton administration had started the ball rolling on an attack of Iraq. Clinton may have done so himself if not for Kosovo, Serbia, Croatia etc. The more Hawkish Bush administration naturally solidified those plans as they took office. They exponentially sped up the plans after 9/11 and the war on terror. His only mistake is poor marketing. Bush made the war hinge on finding of weapons. Removing a mad man that openly supported terrorists if not Al-Queda should have been enough.
|
|
|
Post by jimmccormick3 on Nov 12, 2008 17:50:32 GMT -5
Nothing you've posted denies the point that the world had reason to believe Saddam Hussein had weapons. Also It's not like Bush made up the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction. It was the whole reason U.N. inspectors where there in the first place. To verify that he had disposed of them and wasn't starting new ones. U.N. inspectors where not isnpecting because George Bush tricked them. The inspections where also largely a big joke with the inspectors not being aloud in to places for hours or days or even being completely denied access to others. Where Blix and boys where allowed to go they didn't find evidence of a nuclear weapons program that much is true. Your last post helps prove my point. The Clinton administration had started the ball rolling on an attack of Iraq. Clinton may have done so himself if not for Kosovo, Serbia, Croatia etc. The more Hawkish Bush administration naturally solidified those plans as they took office. They exponentially sped up the plans after 9/11 and the war on terror. His only mistake is poor marketing. Bush made the war hinge on finding of weapons. Removing a mad man that openly supported terrorists if not Al-Queda should have been enough. Bush escalated moving us to wards war. Bush deliberately with held info on Weapons of Mass Destruction from congress when told there was no weapons, so he & his administration could continue to rally support. He even started bombing Iraq one day before the deadline of Hussien & his son's turning themselves in. I'd say that's aggressive. Treasury Secretary O'neil, back tracked when pushed in a corner, & tried to put some of the blame on the Clinton administration. Bush administration was plotting war against Iraq as soon as he was inaugurated. Yes, it can be said that the inspections may have not occurred under optimal circumstance, but the whole point of this thread is about Bush pushing the Iraq war, to the point of warmongering. Which you so how seem to deny that they spear headed it in your earlier posts. Which I have unequivocally proved. I remember all these things going down as they happened, my excerpts only prove the point. Yes, Clinton was examining Iraq, but I very much doubt if he would have taken Bush's route. If anything, George has proved himself & his administration incompetent & deceitful, in their quest of turning Iraq into a democracy for their (our) own benefit. I remember a country called the Soviet Union who forcefully forced satellite countries to become & stay communist. Bush polices are not that far different in the pursuit of democracy. A very real & scary truth.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 13, 2008 9:31:37 GMT -5
Nothing you've posted denies the point that the world had reason to believe Saddam Hussein had weapons. Also It's not like Bush made up the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction. It was the whole reason U.N. inspectors where there in the first place. To verify that he had disposed of them and wasn't starting new ones. U.N. inspectors where not isnpecting because George Bush tricked them. The inspections where also largely a big joke with the inspectors not being aloud in to places for hours or days or even being completely denied access to others. Where Blix and boys where allowed to go they didn't find evidence of a nuclear weapons program that much is true. Your last post helps prove my point. The Clinton administration had started the ball rolling on an attack of Iraq. Clinton may have done so himself if not for Kosovo, Serbia, Croatia etc. The more Hawkish Bush administration naturally solidified those plans as they took office. They exponentially sped up the plans after 9/11 and the war on terror. His only mistake is poor marketing. Bush made the war hinge on finding of weapons. Removing a mad man that openly supported terrorists if not Al-Queda should have been enough. Bush escalated moving us to wards war. Bush deliberately with held info on Weapons of Mass Destruction from congress when told there was no weapons, so he & his administration could continue to rally support. He even started bombing Iraq one day before the deadline of Hussien & his son's turning themselves in. I'd say that's aggressive. Treasury Secretary O'neil, back tracked when pushed in a corner, & tried to put some of the blame on the Clinton administration. Bush administration was plotting war against Iraq as soon as he was inaugurated. Yes, it can be said that the inspections may have not occurred under optimal circumstance, but the whole point of this thread is about Bush pushing the Iraq war, to the point of warmongering. Which you so how seem to deny that they spear headed it in your earlier posts. Which I have unequivocally proved. I remember all these things going down as they happened, my excerpts only prove the point. Yes, Clinton was examining Iraq, but I very much doubt if he would have taken Bush's route. If anything, George has proved himself & his administration incompetent & deceitful, in their quest of turning Iraq into a democracy for their (our) own benefit. I remember a country called the Soviet Union who forcefully forced satellite countries to become & stay communist. Bush polices are not that far different in the pursuit of democracy. A very real & scary truth. OK lets say you're right. Freeing people from a ruthless dictator to decide their own destiny is in your eyes is the same as forced subjugation?
|
|
|
Post by jimmccormick3 on Nov 13, 2008 10:23:18 GMT -5
Bush escalated moving us to wards war. Bush deliberately with held info on Weapons of Mass Destruction from congress when told there was no weapons, so he & his administration could continue to rally support. He even started bombing Iraq one day before the deadline of Hussien & his son's turning themselves in. I'd say that's aggressive. Treasury Secretary O'neil, back tracked when pushed in a corner, & tried to put some of the blame on the Clinton administration. Bush administration was plotting war against Iraq as soon as he was inaugurated. Yes, it can be said that the inspections may have not occurred under optimal circumstance, but the whole point of this thread is about Bush pushing the Iraq war, to the point of warmongering. Which you so how seem to deny that they spear headed it in your earlier posts. Which I have unequivocally proved. I remember all these things going down as they happened, my excerpts only prove the point. Yes, Clinton was examining Iraq, but I very much doubt if he would have taken Bush's route. If anything, George has proved himself & his administration incompetent & deceitful, in their quest of turning Iraq into a democracy for their (our) own benefit. I remember a country called the Soviet Union who forcefully forced satellite countries to become & stay communist. Bush polices are not that far different in the pursuit of democracy. A very real & scary truth. OK lets say you're right. Freeing people from a ruthless dictator to decide their own destiny is in your eyes is the same as forced subjugation? How many ruthless dictators have there been we did nothing about, except throw sanctions on them that hurt the poor of their nations? Sometimes not even that. You can not change a country like Iraq by declaring war on them for five or ten years, & expect the country to reform. A country with a violent history for thousands of years. Iraq's culture is totally alien from ours. All you achieve is a temporary situation. If history, especially modern US warfare history has taught us anything, it is that using force on poor third world countries is not successful. Korea & Vietnam are text book examples. You can not beat people with nothing to loose, you just can't, short of nuclear attack. Americans are rich & fat, & have everything to loose. We get a black eye & want to get out. We don't understand these people, its proven time & time again by our failures. Saddam in our eyes was a madman, one of many who have reigned in the middle east. He grew up in a violent country & became violent himself. The only thing that separated him from those surrounding him was his ambition & charisma to become a leader, for the good or bad, depending on whose view you subscribe to. He was a product of his environment. If he was born in a country like the US, he may have been a CEO, or maybe even someone that would have never made a headline in his life, but he would not of been the Saddam we know. It is better to foster change through diplomacy & economic incentives, than brute force & economy hurting sanctions. These countries are like children, you spank them all the time & you build up hate & rebellion. You reward them for doing something good, & they'll grow up with out the hate & anger. When they become adults, they'll be productive & good citizens. If you don't reward them, they'll be poor & angry. Which makes more sense? One quick note about those "weapons of mass destruction." Do you really believe if Saddam had them after all the inspections, that he wouldn't of used them on us & the people that were not loyal to him during war? I mean really. He was cornered. Saddam had nothing to lose, & everything to gain by using them. How come he didn't? Because they were never their in the first place. Just food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 13, 2008 10:49:18 GMT -5
OK lets say you're right. Freeing people from a ruthless dictator to decide their own destiny is in your eyes is the same as forced subjugation? How many ruthless dictators heve there been we did nothing about, except throw sanctions on them that hurt the poor of their nations? Sometimes not even that. You can not change a country like Iraq by declaring war on them for five or ten years, & expect the country to reform. A country with a violent history for thousands of years. Iraq's culture is totally alien from ours. All you achieve is a temporary situation. If history, especially modern US warfare history has taught us anything, it is that using force on poor third world countries is not successful. Korea & Vietnam are text book examples. You can not beat people with nothing to loose, you just can't, short of nuclear attack. Americans are rich & fat, & have everything to loose. We get a black eye & want to get out. We don't understand these people, its proven time & time again by our failures. Saddam in our eyes was a madman, one of many who have reigned in the middle east. He grew up in a violent country & became violent himself. The only thing that separated him from those surrounding him was his ambition & charisma to become a leader, for the good or bad, depending on whose view you subscribe to. He was a product of his environment. If he was born in a country like the US, he may have been a CEO, or maybe even someone that would have never made a headline in his life, but he would not of been the Saddam we know. One quick note about those "weapons of mass destruction." Do you really believe if Saddam had them after all the inspections, that he wouldn't of used them on us & the people that were not loyal to him during war? I mean really. He was cornered. Saddam had nothing to lose, & everything to gain by using them. How come he didn't? Because they were never their in the first place. Just food for thought. You're right there are many ruthless dictators that all we do is sanction. This ruthless dictator was deemed dangerous to U.S. and world interests. Like you say sanctions only hurt the people keeping them poor while the leaders continue. So in this case the leader is removed and the people can decide their own destiny. Also Iraq is not a third world country and their culture may be somewhat different but I would hardly call it alien especially in the urban areas. The people there and their interests are not so different. Most would just like a chance to live in peace raise a family and have a chance to make a living. I think just about anyone would call someone who builds a torture room and teaches his teen sons how to use it and regularly has people beaten and killed is a mad man regardless of his environment. My point about WMDs is that we may never know the extent at which he had them at the time of the invasion. Just that George Bush did not make it up. Bush may have over sold that aspect of the dangers of a Hussein regime but he did not make it up. Reports from Russia and France who in the end where against an invasion also showed that that Iraq had WMDs.
|
|
|
Post by jimmccormick3 on Nov 13, 2008 11:53:01 GMT -5
"You're right there are many ruthless dictators that all we do is sanction. This ruthless dictator was deemed dangerous to U.S. and world interests. Like you say sanctions only hurt the people keeping them poor while the leaders continue. So in this case the leader is removed and the people can decide their own destiny." Saddam was not as dangerous to the world community as you or Bush would make it. What the US & its allies did was not sanctioned by the UN. Countries were concerned, but not to the point of physically removing Saddam by force. You know that. It was all over the media & in the excerpts I posted.
Iraq has decided it own destiny for countless years. Saddam was an Iraqi, it was not like he invaded from somewhere else. How do you think he became in power, by himself? Hardly, but with the support of other Iraqi's."Also Iraq is not a third world country and their culture may be somewhat different but I would hardly call it alien especially in the urban areas. The people there and their interests are not so different. Most would just like a chance to live in peace raise a family and have a chance to make a living." Iraq is a third world country. Their people are as poor as any other third world nation. The average Iraqi is lucky to make $300 a year. Just because their government now has tens of billions of dollars in their surplus, does not mean the average Iraqi has seen any of that.Their culture is totally different. I'm not even going to argue this point. It's ludicrous. As my my son who served over there would tell you."I think just about anyone would call someone who builds a torture room and teaches his teen sons how to use it and regularly has people beaten and killed is a mad man regardless of his environment." By our standards he is, by theirs? Its a dog eat dog world over there. Poverty breeds violence. Apparently their must be millions of madmen over their that supported Saddam. You just don't get in power by yourself. Plus your side stepping the point, as you have through out this. Poverty breeds dictators. Religion & ignorance breeds dictators, when there is nothing but poverty all around. Extreme circumstance breeds extreme leaders."My point about WMDs is that we may never know the extent at which he had them at the time of the invasion. Just that George Bush did not make it up. Bush may have over sold that aspect of the dangers of a Hussein regime but he did not make it up. Reports from Russia and France who in the end where against an invasion also showed that that Iraq had WMDs." Again, he had none. He would have used them if he did. He's a madman, right?No one said Bush made up that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I said, when he was told Saddam did not, he chose to ignore it, & deceitfully led congress to declare war. Something that is unequivocally wrong, & in my opinion as bad as Saddam him self. Many people through out the world & even in this country see Bush as a "madman." A terrorist. Madness comes in many forms my friend. The worse ones are the ones that no one thinks are mad, until its to late.I'm done arguing this. I have work to do. To argue anymore will be unproductive. The point of it is moot. You will not change your mind, so be it. I will not change mine. It's time to move on. We're to much a like when it comes to not giving in. After a while it just drags on.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 13, 2008 13:40:58 GMT -5
You don't have to go somewhere to learn and know about their culture. Of course first hand knowledge is always helpful. I've read many books, and articles and viewed documentaries. Your son was their I have friends who have lived there who would tell you they are no different than you or me. Saddam got in power by force and kept power by killing those who opposed him. If you want to compare that to George Bush a President elected by the people who will willingly give up power that's your right. Often the point of an argument or discussion isn't necessarily to change the other persons mind but intellectual exercise. Also it's taking place on a public forum so others will read it and maybe glean some information or points to use in later discussion instead of just hurling insults. ...although hurling insults does seem to stir things up.
|
|
|
Post by jimmccormick3 on Nov 13, 2008 15:09:07 GMT -5
You don't have to go somewhere to learn and know about their culture. Of course first hand knowledge is always helpful. I've read many books, and articles and viewed documentaries. Your son was their I have friends who have lived there who would tell you they are no different than you or me. Saddam got in power by force and kept power by killing those who opposed him. If you want to compare that to George Bush a President elected by the people who will willingly give up power that's your right. Often the point of an argument or discussion isn't necessarily to change the other persons mind but intellectual exercise. Also it's taking place on a public forum so others will read it and maybe glean some information or points to use in later discussion instead of just hurling insults. ...although hurling insults does seem to stir things up.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Nov 13, 2008 19:11:31 GMT -5
...and hurling insults was not my intent. I'm glad to see that we got into a somewhat "spirited" debate. I certainly didn't want to tick anyone off. I lamented, put forth my thoughts in regards to the current administration and I did! I know and understand that my thoughts on the day to day fighting that takes place will most likely never be resolved, but I just wanted to vent...I've never really taken the opportunity to do that before...in fact, I made it a point of pretty much staying out of things like this...now I know why. I have to say that I believe that Jim pretty much understands what I was trying to say in my somewhat, uneducated, over the top diatribe and although I am not going to speak for Jim (as I think he's done just fine)... ;D, I will say that, regardless of what regime we are in disagreement with, there will seem to be no answer. The world is full of evil, nasty, dangerous, and threatening people from single factions to entire countries, but when push comes to shove, at least over the last couple hundred years...it appears that "right" wins over "wrong"...at least I would like to think so? There is a bottom line that I should have added earlier and that was in regards to standing up for ourselves. I agree...and in fact Canada has been there. When it comes time to do that, then playing "footsey" just doesn't work. Nagasaki and Hiroshima comes to mind. If you're going to go to war...you don't play games. There are no rules in war and this is what the terrorists have been telling us for years. Unfortunately, too many countries that are against a Western way of thinking don't want to buy into that. Once again, if it comes down to "us against them", then it's only "right" that we protect our thought process in terms of what's right and wrong. Sounds pretty crude, final, and decisive............but in the end, that is the decision required to solve the issue. You don't go unlimited rounds with the school yard bully, you take him out with a knockout punch. Jesse, I appreciate your comments and YES!, I was able to read them even though it was hard on my aging eyes as well. Good points. However, some of them we could debate over a good bottle of Canadian Club whiskey long in to the wee hours of the morning. Unfortunately, life for the both of us is too short in my opinion, and with the new direction that the USA has taken, I trust this won't need to be an issue, not that it ever was to begin with. Hell, I could go back to the "War of 1812" and we could debate that for months... I'm trying to keep the entire "reorg" on a simple level" and go from there. Jesse, I understand your political stance...trust me I do...but like the majority had to do with George Bush, try and give Barak Obama his shot and day in the "big chair" and let's see what happens. George had his 8 years and once again, I think that he's leaving office with a lot left on the table, unresolved and compromised. Just my opinion as a Canuck...not as a friend. As a friend, I don't really care what your beliefs are, we came together as one in terms of music and I hold that dear to my heart my friend. Bottom line to everyone here that reads my drivel...it was simply a lament, and as much as you have witnessed my discord with Mr. Bush, please understand, it was not a personal attack,...just one of a personal belief...one that, whether right or wrong, pretty much exemplified my feelings on an individual basis. I told myself that I would never get into this, but, alas, I did, and my overall concern is that it has not caused my friendship with those that I trust and respect and YES love!!!!...to cast me asunder because of my words. You guys know me well enough that I want only the best for all of you...myself included. Once again, it's been a spirited debate...but guys, let's put it aside and move on...there is enough discourse, disagreement and hate in the world. By all means, submit your rebuttals, everyone should be allowed at least one... ;D...after that, maybe we need to focus more upon the music that has brought us all together in the first place...after all, it's the music that makes everything in the world that we know RIGHT!? Thanks Kim
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Nov 14, 2008 7:49:48 GMT -5
I think everybody has made their points and if none of us have changed our minds yet, we aren't going to. That said, i'd just like to comment on this one passage: "Jesse, I understand your political stance...trust me I do...but like the majority had to do with George Bush, try and give Barak Obama his shot and day in the "big chair" and let's see what happens. George had his 8 years and once again, I think that he's leaving office with a lot left on the table, unresolved and compromised. Just my opinion as a Canuck...not as a friend. As a friend, I don't really care what your beliefs are, we came together as one in terms of music and I hold that dear to my heart my friend. " NO ONE who voted against Bush in 2000 or 2004 gave him a break, they were right on his ass from the word go as soon as Gore conceded the election. For the sake of the Country, I hope Obama is given more of a chance, I will certainly give him more the benefit of the doubt than most folks gave Bush. However, I will not excuse Obama if things stay bad or go worse. I hope you folks who are critical of Bush are as critical of Obama if he stays the course in Iraq and continues to ignore atrocities in Africa (BTW-Clinton holds the record for ignoring the largest African genocide in Rwanda). Also, the economy needs to turn around quickly. Democrats in congress SHOULD have a 2 year head start in implementing their policies. If nothing else, they should have their ideas lined up and ready for President Obama to sign off on. Whatever the economy is, Bush gets credit or blame for the 1st quarter of 2009, beyond that, credit or blame will go squarely on Obama and Democrats. I'm hoping they turn it around, but by the 2nd quarter of 2009, if it's not turned around, I don't want to hear them still blaming Bush. It's their puppy now. Anyway, I went off a little further than I originally intended. As I said, we all made our points and I'm done with it. Kim, we'll debate more on this when I make my trip to Canada . For the record, I have a friend who is a die-hard liberal democrat, the discussion on this thread is NOTHING compared to some of the spirited dicussions (actually knock-down, dragg-out arguments) that he and I have had over the years .
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 14, 2008 10:15:48 GMT -5
Kim you always know how to keep the board interesting. A little off topic but on topic. A few months ago I watched a documentary 'Heavy Metal In Baghdad' about some Iraqi dudes who in the middle of the chaos of invasion and insurgents just wanted to rock. I posted it in a different thread earlier but here is the trailer again... Historically, heavy-metal bands such as Slayer and Metallica have sold images of hellfire and damnation, torment and oblivion, amplified and exaggerated to mythic proportions for a mostly suburban, adolescent base. Even under Saddam Hussein's violent regime, metal colonized the subconscious of a generation of young Iraqis, who suffered criticism for their scruffy goatees and threw their devil horns the raised fist with index and pinky fingers extended like the furtive signal of a secret society. It wasn't easy to rock. But once American armed forces began dropping bombs on Baghdad in 2003, followed by an occupation now in its sixth year, things really went to hell. All the apocalyptic language and gruesome cover art that gives metal its demonic kick paled amid the harsh reality experienced daily by the young men who wanted nothing more than to emulate the Western rock bands they idolize. How are you going to crank the volume when the power goes out all the time and there's a 7 p.m. curfew? What do you do when a Scud missile blows up your equipment van and a bomb wipes out the guitar store? These are a few of the many cultural questions that underpin "Heavy Metal in Baghdad," ... .... Shot by Vice honchos Eddy Moretti and Suroosh Alvi on handheld video cameras with a "we must be nuts to come here" first-person approach, "Heavy Metal in Baghdad" quickly transcends its potential flake factor as it chronicles the struggle of Acrassicauda, a quartet that is purported to be the only heavy metal band in Iraq. The group's name is Latin for "black scorpion," an insect common to Iraq, and a usefully descriptive symbol for the band's impressively stinging attack. The cameras follow the band over the course of three years, beginning in 2003 when it was first featured in Vice, then picking up again in 2005 when Acrassicauda successfully staged a concert in a downtown Baghdad hotel though they had to pack up the gear and get lost before nightfall, and the coalition forces guarding the bombed-out site got spooked by all the shaggy Iraqi dudes in their bootleg Iron Maiden T-shirts. Much of the story is told by the group's bassist, Firas Al-Lateef, an amiable and talkative young man whose command of English idioms is admirable, if almost comically profane. Though the musicians say they taught themselves from movies and recordings, their accents make them sound a lot like the good ol' boy American servicemen around whom they've spent much of their time. "Dude" is frequently used as verbal punctuation. Weird cultural transliterations abound, such as when Mr. Al-Lateef complains about the difficulty of "head-banging" in an Islamic nation. It seems the up-and-down motion known to metal fans too closely resembles the Jewish act of davening, and could be punished with extreme measures. It's tough to keep a band together when it's too scary to make a 15-minute walk to your guitar player's house, so the musicians leave home only as a last resort. Gradually, the band drifts into exile before regrouping in Damascus, where the Vice guys arrive to film its first concert in ages. Remarkably, given that there is no metal scene in Damascus, a crowd turns up for the show in a basement café... --The NY Sun
|
|
|
Post by jimmccormick3 on Nov 14, 2008 10:30:04 GMT -5
...and hurling insults was not my intent. I have to say that I believe that Jim pretty much understands what I was trying to say in my somewhat, uneducated, over the top diatribe and although I am not going to speak for Jim (as I think he's done just fine)... ;D, I will say that, regardless of what regime we are in disagreement with, there will seem to be no answer.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 26, 2008 8:49:04 GMT -5
I'm actually impressed with many of Obama's cabinet picks so far.
...but congress still scares me.
|
|
|
Post by Donny Doom on Dec 1, 2008 15:59:12 GMT -5
So folks... What's your take on the election? It's been strangely quiet in regards of the recent developments concerning the new regime about to take hold of the US administration. Any thoughts? Any hopes? Any worries?...Anyting at all? For what it's worth, I'm reeeeeeealy excited that if the US says we can back out of Afghanistan, we're doing good! I still, to this day, don't understumble what the F*ck we were doing there in the first place??? Unfortunately, because we did take part in the futile effort, we are now on the terrorist's list of country's to target. What a shame. I thought we were pretty decent folks all along, but I guess George Bush has made an impact and our silly government went along with it. Thank you Paul Martin and thank you Steven Harper. Good for you George. You made a number of countries hate us because of your stupidity. I sure hope that in the following years of your life, you can take some comfort in knowing that you were not arguably, but GUARANTEED!!! the worst president in history and should someone find you on the street, shoot you dead like the dog that you are you miserable son of a bitch....ahahaha...but I digress... Good ole George is a good guy and will go down in history just fine. What the hell is 8 years of misery, abuse and certain chaos anyway? Daddy will be proud of Junior...great job Dubya! Atta Boy!!! You got Saddam hanged!!! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!...What an achievement!!! After 8 years...that's about the only thing "Stupid" people will remember you for...the rest of the country and the world will have a hard time trying to remember anything good about your administration from 2000 to 2008!!!!! ? AWWWWWW...Someone took a pot shot at poppa Bush and you went out and hauled him in...well aren't you the hero???... You freakin' Jackass! Fool! Idiot, Retard!!! The entire planet has just taken a breath of fresh air after this election and I'm thinking that although, things aren't going to be easy, I'm pretty certain that the lines of communications and the overall look of democracy will be looked at in a whole new light because of the decision that the USA made last Tuesday. My first kick at the Presidency if I was Barack, would be to go to Georges house and give him a slap right up side the head!...and say YOU STUPID SON OF A BITCH!!!!!!! ARE YOU REALLY THAT F**KED IN THE HEAD? Other than that, I'm sure that Dubya can cook a mean steak on the grill so he can't be all that bad?...but what do I know... I'm a simple Canuck. Thanks Kim Check your facts we wont be pulling out of Afghanistan. We have a reason to be there. We'll be pulling out of Iraq because we had no reason to be there.
|
|
|
Post by Trexx on Dec 5, 2008 21:39:17 GMT -5
We got a black President! It's incredible!
I've skimmed the earlier posts... Oh, Boy.
The only thing I'd like to say is America is BOLD, we're brash and we're the most Rootin' Toot'nist nation on Earth. We've got our triumphs and our mistakes but we never do things half way. It's full-on or nothing. I like that about the United States of America. We show our dirty laundry to the world, self-criticize up one side and down the other, all for the world to see. This makes us quite unique and also it confounds folks that don't know America. Obama... I hope... I hope upon hope that he doesn't fizzle. (ala Jimmy Carter) He's got his work cut out for him! I'm sure the subdued end to his victory speech in Chicago was indeed a fore shadowing of the efforts that will be needed to turn things around.
Final Thoughts As much as I've contributed to criticism of the Bush administration, The fact that many folks do NOT realize is the U.S.A. has consistantly sided with MODERATES in the Middle East. Everytime. All the time. Because it's always been known (since the Barbary Coast Wars at least for America) the religious wackos there (Middle East) are unreasonable and just plain mean. If you are intellectually honest with that premise, it is quite apparent that when given the choice on who to be friendly with over there, the reasonable moderates get our positive attention. The policy has never wavered.
|
|
|
Post by kim on Dec 6, 2008 13:20:14 GMT -5
[/quote] Check your facts we wont be pulling out of Afghanistan. We have a reason to be there. We'll be pulling out of Iraq because we had no reason to be there.[/quote] I did check the facts Donnie. If you feel that you have reason to be there in Afghanistan...good for you...I respect your opinion. I'm a Canuck though and I don't understand what the hell we, as Canadians are doing in Afghanistan in the first place?...that was my point. My other point, in the comment I made was that if the US decides to get out of the place, then I'm all for it...simply put because our "lapdog" government will have no recourse but to break camp, pull stump and get the hell out of there as well...albeit a little too late. That's just the way we are and it's pretty sad and desperate in my opinion to see a nation such as ours, involved in a war with a nation that could kick our ass in a heartbeat. They are doing it now...just very slowly. We will (hopefully) and eventually come out of this with a lesson learned. Our losses will not matter to them, even if we and the rest of the world realizes that we were there to try and make it a better place to live. The Afghani people will someday turn to one another and ask the question..."Hey?, where did all of the Canadians go"?...the stock answer will be..."well we killed quite a few of them because they tried changing our way of living, and overall, we just didn't accept it". We just lost 3 more soldiers yesterday over there...and for what reason? Are we going to change the way that they live? Change their ideology and religious beliefs? Hope that they come around to "our way" of thinking? I highly doubt that. Once again, because of our involvement, we are now on their list of countries to terrorize...and once again, Bravo Paul Martin and Stevie Harper! What's next? After this fiasco, should we follow in to a scrap with Iran?...Pakistan?...Korea?...what the hell...why not? They too will kick our ass in a heartbeat! For what it's worth, we don't even have a Government at this point, so this further cements my thoughts on why the hell we are involved in the first place!!! Not to mention the cost of this "war", but do not for a minute think that they are not so stupid to realize that the financial burden is taking it's toll on our economic situations as of late. Certainly doesn't help when we continually pour money into a war that we will never win. Seriously, this just does not make any sense to me. I would also have to add that they are systematically, conquering, and dividing the people of our nations by waging the attacks that they have been successful at carrying out thus far. No one wants this or finds it acceptable, but their tactics strike a nerve deep down inside...causing us to question ourselves as individuals and as a nation as a whole in regards to our level of retaliation towards the attackers...plus...make us further question ourselves in regards to a democratic and Just system on how we deal with these terrorists once we have them in our custody. Does "Gitmo" make any sense? Keep in mind as well, these people have little to lose. Their day is looked forward to by getting up and cleaning their guns. Figuring out new methods of bombing the enemy in a suicidal manner. They don't care. They are also laughing at us and feeling good about the fact that they have us on our toes these days...tightening up security, having us look over our collective shoulders, putting new restrictions on border crossings and scrutinize our bordering neighbors with doubt and suspicion. In the old days, it was all "give us your hungry, your tired, your poor"...now it's "Get The F*ck Out...We're Full"!!!...or "you're on the No Fly list...sorry, you aren't allowed in"! I know, a lot of people still believe that if we ever get our hands on the ever elusive Bin Laden character, all will be well with the world...ain't gonna happen! Even if he is captured, then what? Hang him? They did that with Hussein...lotta good that did huh? There are umpteen more just aching to take up the cause and carry on in the tradition that they were born and bred with. I say, let them stew in their own ignorance...let them beat themselves up and kill each other because of their draconian beliefs...let them look forward to reaching Nirvana and the 72 virgins promised to them upon their demise when the neighbour shoots him for sleeping with his goat? Who cares? It's quite obvious that these people are barbaric due to their archaic ways of thinking...dipolmacy to them is not an option. They don't care...why should we? Democracy is unheard of and consist of a ridiculous set of ideals that are foreign to the vast majority that make up their country. I would think it difficult for them at this point in our primal epoch as a life form, to be able to even grasp the concept of democracy, let alone have it forced upon them?...such as our futile attempts to do so now. For what it's worth, and I'm sure most will disagree with the following, but playing footsie with these people will not win a so called war. If we are going to defeat these people for whatever reasons, we have to go in aggressively, and take them out, lock, stock and barrel. Send a signal out to the rest of the world that if we are targeted for attack, and ARE ATTACKED!, all hell will break loose leaving none of them standing. That's the only way it can be won. North America along with other peace loving nations of the world fought hard and fast to overcome the last great agitator, and we were collectively victorious in our final stand. Unfortunately, it took extreme measures to do so...a lot of lives lost, along with a nasty legacy that we will remember for years to come...but it got the job done. I'm not sure about how anyone else feels about this, but when I occasionally witness the news clip of George Bush uttering those words of his..."Mission Accomplished"...I have to cringe. Sorry, Mission was not accomplished, Mission still isn't accomplished and I don't like to be negative or a seer to any degree, but Mission won't be accomplished in my opinion...no matter what kind of deadline you impose on the issue. It's rather heartbreaking to also witness those that actually DO believe in a democratic way of life, hitting a fallen statue of a dictator with a shoe? Yeah, that's gotta hurt? Kind of similar to burning a flag or a hated leader in efigy?...We sure have come a long way haven't we? Once again, I'm not here to hurl insults...just saying it as I see it. Besides, my "Karma" hasn't taken a hit in weeks...hahahahahahaha. *DISCLAIMER* - No politicians were harmed or injured in any manner during this rant. ;D Thanks Kim
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Dec 6, 2008 13:47:17 GMT -5
That is exactly why the U.S. is in Afghanistan. The leaders there openly supported and protected Osama Bin Laden. Canada is there to assist the U.S. The Taliban where ruthless vile dictators. The vast majority of Afghans are glad they are gone. Many Afghans may not have an understanding of Democracy like you and I however most of them just want to be left alone to live and pursue happiness. ... and I can't beleve anyone would smite over a political discussion... I just exalted you one for the hell of it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Donny Doom on Dec 7, 2008 18:39:12 GMT -5
Check your facts we wont be pulling out of Afghanistan. We have a reason to be there. We'll be pulling out of Iraq because we had no reason to be there.[/quote] I did check the facts Donnie. If you feel that you have reason to be there in Afghanistan...good for you...I respect your opinion. I'm a Canuck though and I don't understand what the hell we, as Canadians are doing in Afghanistan in the first place?...that was my point. My other point, in the comment I made was that if the US decides to get out of the place, then I'm all for it...simply put because our "lapdog" government will have no recourse but to break camp, pull stump and get the hell out of there as well...albeit a little too late. That's just the way we are and it's pretty sad and desperate in my opinion to see a nation such as ours, involved in a war with a nation that could kick our ass in a heartbeat. They are doing it now...just very slowly. We will (hopefully) and eventually come out of this with a lesson learned. Our losses will not matter to them, even if we and the rest of the world realizes that we were there to try and make it a better place to live. The Afghani people will someday turn to one another and ask the question..."Hey?, where did all of the Canadians go"?...the stock answer will be..."well we killed quite a few of them because they tried changing our way of living, and overall, we just didn't accept it". We just lost 3 more soldiers yesterday over there...and for what reason? Are we going to change the way that they live? Change their ideology and religious beliefs? Hope that they come around to "our way" of thinking? I highly doubt that. Once again, because of our involvement, we are now on their list of countries to terrorize...and once again, Bravo Paul Martin and Stevie Harper! What's next? After this fiasco, should we follow in to a scrap with Iran?...Pakistan?...Korea?...what the hell...why not? They too will kick our ass in a heartbeat! For what it's worth, we don't even have a Government at this point, so this further cements my thoughts on why the hell we are involved in the first place!!! Not to mention the cost of this "war", but do not for a minute think that they are not so stupid to realize that the financial burden is taking it's toll on our economic situations as of late. Certainly doesn't help when we continually pour money into a war that we will never win. Seriously, this just does not make any sense to me. I would also have to add that they are systematically, conquering, and dividing the people of our nations by waging the attacks that they have been successful at carrying out thus far. No one wants this or finds it acceptable, but their tactics strike a nerve deep down inside...causing us to question ourselves as individuals and as a nation as a whole in regards to our level of retaliation towards the attackers...plus...make us further question ourselves in regards to a democratic and Just system on how we deal with these terrorists once we have them in our custody. Does "Gitmo" make any sense? Keep in mind as well, these people have little to lose. Their day is looked forward to by getting up and cleaning their guns. Figuring out new methods of bombing the enemy in a suicidal manner. They don't care. They are also laughing at us and feeling good about the fact that they have us on our toes these days...tightening up security, having us look over our collective shoulders, putting new restrictions on border crossings and scrutinize our bordering neighbors with doubt and suspicion. In the old days, it was all "give us your hungry, your tired, your poor"...now it's "Get The F*ck Out...We're Full"!!!...or "you're on the No Fly list...sorry, you aren't allowed in"! I know, a lot of people still believe that if we ever get our hands on the ever elusive Bin Laden character, all will be well with the world...ain't gonna happen! Even if he is captured, then what? Hang him? They did that with Hussein...lotta good that did huh? There are umpteen more just aching to take up the cause and carry on in the tradition that they were born and bred with. I say, let them stew in their own ignorance...let them beat themselves up and kill each other because of their draconian beliefs...let them look forward to reaching Nirvana and the 72 virgins promised to them upon their demise when the neighbour shoots him for sleeping with his goat? Who cares? It's quite obvious that these people are barbaric due to their archaic ways of thinking...dipolmacy to them is not an option. They don't care...why should we? Democracy is unheard of and consist of a ridiculous set of ideals that are foreign to the vast majority that make up their country. I would think it difficult for them at this point in our primal epoch as a life form, to be able to even grasp the concept of democracy, let alone have it forced upon them?...such as our futile attempts to do so now. For what it's worth, and I'm sure most will disagree with the following, but playing footsie with these people will not win a so called war. If we are going to defeat these people for whatever reasons, we have to go in aggressively, and take them out, lock, stock and barrel. Send a signal out to the rest of the world that if we are targeted for attack, and ARE ATTACKED!, all hell will break loose leaving none of them standing. That's the only way it can be won. North America along with other peace loving nations of the world fought hard and fast to overcome the last great agitator, and we were collectively victorious in our final stand. Unfortunately, it took extreme measures to do so...a lot of lives lost, along with a nasty legacy that we will remember for years to come...but it got the job done. I'm not sure about how anyone else feels about this, but when I occasionally witness the news clip of George Bush uttering those words of his..."Mission Accomplished"...I have to cringe. Sorry, Mission was not accomplished, Mission still isn't accomplished and I don't like to be negative or a seer to any degree, but Mission won't be accomplished in my opinion...no matter what kind of deadline you impose on the issue. It's rather heartbreaking to also witness those that actually DO believe in a democratic way of life, hitting a fallen statue of a dictator with a shoe? Yeah, that's gotta hurt? Kind of similar to burning a flag or a hated leader in efigy?...We sure have come a long way haven't we? Once again, I'm not here to hurl insults...just saying it as I see it. Besides, my "Karma" hasn't taken a hit in weeks...hahahahahahaha. *DISCLAIMER* - No politicians were harmed or injured in any manner during this rant. ;D Thanks Kim[/quote]
Kim do know any thing about N.A.T.O. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nato
The U.S. & Canada are part of N.A.T.O. or North Atlantic Treaty Organization. When any member of N.A.T.O. is attacked member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party. The U.S. was attacked by Al-Qaeda who at the time was mostly based & operated out of Afghanistan. So basically the Taliban was the ruling party in Afghanistan an by them giving refuge to an supporting Al-Qaeda we the U.S. were attacked by Afghanistan which was a external party. By Canada signing the N.A.T.O. treaty Canada pledged to defend N.A.T.O. members. That is why Canada and other members of N.A.T.O. went to war with Afghanistan to defend & support the U.S. because we were attacked by a external party that being Afghanistan. Do you think the U.S. would not defended Canada if you were attacked? Yes we would defend Canada & any member of N.A.T.O. if they were attacked by a external party.
|
|