1 Finish Profile

Iraq Aftermath

Locked

After seeing a blurb on CNN Headline News about Walter Cronkite’s opinions about the war in Iraq, I just could not help myself.

Check out this article:

http://tinyurl.com/qj8h

I quote from the article:

“worst policy decision this nation has ever made.”

Walter Cronkite is perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news.
If he is so concerned about the Bush administrations Iraq policies, I believe it is time for anyone who still supports the actions taken to re-evaluate their position.

In foreign policy issues, we cannot afford to use the ends justify the means rebuttal that the Bush administration is attempting to use in the face of mounting world criticism.

Yes, Saddam is a ruthless person who terrorized his people to stay in power.
Under that justification, what country will we decide to invade next?

Bush is already focusing on deposing Fidel Castro’s government in Cuba.

It is time for the US people to demand no new US aggression against foreign leaders without clear evidence of a imminent threat to the US or our allies.

Chas

Topic

An Iranian viewpoint …

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Almost every day I have the pleasure and privilege of speaking with an Iranian who runs (with his equally delightful family) a mini-mart. His most recent comment: “Why does Bush spend so much money on war, and none on peace? Why does he not spend money on peace?”

Another Iranian to whom I speak almost every day is equally critical of Bush.

These people, who of course have family members in Iran, are obviously in a better position to hold a considered viewpoint on the issue of
the volatility of the whole of the Middle East.

As for Iraq, well quite frankly I can’t see how the unwarranted and univited damage to that country can ever be reversed. The other countries of the world who voted in the UN against a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, are not going to help the USA clean up the mess. A precise tally is kept of the number of US military personnel who are still giving their lives to a stupid cause.

But has anyone bothered to count the Iraqi children who are the innocent victims of this invasion? Even before the invasion started, Australian MP Mark Latham drew attention to the inevitable loss of children’s lives that would result.

An Iraqi Viewpoint (actually several)

In reply to An Iranian viewpoint …

This opinion piece was written by a man who went to Iraq as a peace activist and left with his views completely changed.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Joseph20031012.shtml

I agree that the ends don’t justify the means, but I suspect that the case for war is best made by those directly affected.

In the case of Iraq, the UN failed miserably in keeping the peace. Iraq was a known threat to the region and the world by its ability and intent to dominate the middle east. By failing to enforce it’s own resolutions, denied an opportunity for a peaceful resolution.

Good Link – Interesting everyone should read it

In reply to An Iraqi Viewpoint (actually several)

Interesting link and article – everyone should read it … but them again – someone will say its just GWB propaganda …

Re: Iraq Aftermath

In reply to Good Link – Interesting everyone should read it

Chas said: Walter Cronkite is perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news. If he is so concerned about the Bush administrations Iraq policies, I believe it is time for anyone who still supports the actions taken to re-evaluate their position.

Chas, are you saying that I should believe what Walter Cronkite says because he is “perhaps the most trusted newsman to ever anchor the US evening news”?

The only one I really trust on any of the big three networks is Ted Koppel. He is the only one who doesn’t seem to have any hidden agenda or slant. No matter who he interviews or what the topic is, he always is courteous, and he always asks the same type of probing (but not condescending) questions.

Too bad ABC doesn’t let Ted Koppel anchor the evening news, or better yet, be in charge of the news department.

Re: An Iranian viewpoint …

In reply to An Iranian viewpoint …

jul646 said: But has anyone bothered to count the Iraqi children who are the innocent victims of this invasion? Even before the invasion started, Australian MP Mark Latham drew attention to the inevitable loss of children’s lives that would result.

Jul:

Please explain all of the Iraqis who CHEERED for the Americans, British, and yes, Australians. The average Iraqi was ELATED and OVERJOYED that we liberated them.

You can sit back in your comfortable chair, a long distance from the actual situation, and have all kinds of opinions about “the children” (Bill Clinton was a master at weaving in “the children” to every scheme he tried). If you watched the news coverage, however, of the actual events, you saw that the children, and their parents, were VERY GLAD that we came.

I vote with those whose lives were affected by the action, rather than with someone who is full of theories.

President Bush’s welcoming committee …

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Those of us preparing to protest US President George W Bush?s visit to Australia must tread a fine line ? between condemning the policies of an illegitimate president with a dangerous agenda and damning an entire nation.
Those mobilising the Weapons of Mass Derision rally next Sunday have the right idea – turning the President who never won an election, with a cartoon view of the world and childish notions of good versus evil, into a joke is the only constructive response.

And in making a joke of our own Prime Minister’s genuflection, we are calling for an Australian leadership with the strength to represent our national interests rather than blindly following its dominant ally.

That said, we would be foolish if we turned our protests into a round of Yank bashing, because in doing so we would be attacking many of the principles of freedom, democracy and individual liberty that we also take for granted.

Anti-American protests only detract from the anti-Bush message – and that is, his policies are the very antithesis of this American ideal.

In taking to the streets against the US President, we are protesting Bush’s policies of pre-emption and unilateralism; as they manifest in military action, trade negotiations, environmental and in terms of cultural imperialism.

And in doing so we join an increasing number of Americans who are rejecting Bush and the values he represents.

Americans like Michael Moore who famously wrote to Bush: “Instead of having to earn it, you have been handed the presidency the same way you’ve come by everything else in your life. Money and name alone have opened every door for you. Without effort or hard work or intelligence or ingenuity, you have been bequeathed a life of privilege.”

American’s like the Dixie Chicks who were pilloried by the Right for stating they were embarrassed to share a home state with the President, yet rewarded by fans with huge increases in sales.

And Americans like General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander who knows more about war than Bush ever will and knows that pre-emption is dangerous and short-sighted and only this week stated:

“We are in a crisis in our relations with the rest of the world. Today, at a time when we need friends and allies more than ever, resentment of America has never been higher, and that makes every American less safe at home and abroad.”

If the anti-Bush protests make Australians – and the world – laugh at Bush’s ignorance, they will play a small part in strengthening the hands of the only people who can remove him from power – the American people.

But if they become an attack on America they will only add to the siege mentality that began on September 11 and continues to provide Bush with the cover he needs to promote all manner of madness and ignorance.

[Peter Lewis, Editor of Workers Online]

Give me a break

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Walter Cronkite is not trusted.

Walter Croknite’s editorials have been appearing in my local newspaper ever since he “came out of retirement”, so to speak, to become an opinion writer. I’ve been appalled to see the anti-Bush and pro-Democrat slant in each and every one of them – without exception. For anyone to say that the Iraq liberation was “the worst policy decision ever made” has to be either delusional or senile or partisan, or, in Cronkite’s case, all three.

The worst policy decision ever made? And this from the guy (Cronkite) who covered (Democrat) President Johnson’s Vietnam War from start to finish? The Vietnam war which literally tore our country apart and killed over 54,000 American soldiers, wounded hundreds of thousands more, and killed and wounded hundreds of thousands – perhaps millions – of Vietnamese? You’ve got to be kidding me?

The worst policy decision ever made? And this from the guy (Cronkite) who saw the United States’ (Democrat-Socialist) Roosevelt administration sit idly by while Adolph Hitler was running amuck in Europe conquering neighboring lands, killing tens of thousands, no, make that tens of millions of people? You’ve got to be kidding me?

The worst policy decision ever made? Did he (Cronkite) conveniently forget that having legalized SLAVERY was a POLICY DECISION? You’ve got to be kidding me?

GIVE ME A FRIGGIN’ BREAK!

Walter Cronkite – a champion of environmentalism and alternative energy sources – who led the fight to block efforts to put wind farms near his precious Martha’s Vineyard vacation home – who later did an about-face under mounting pressures and charges of hypocrisy, but is “still waiting” for a government study on the matter.

Walter Cronkite, just like Helen Thomas, can’t hide behind his shroud of being an impartial journalist any more. His opinion pieces shine brightly on his partisan agenda. And let there be no doubt about it, Walter Cronkite has made his bias very clear.

From the outset, the Bush administration said that the Iraq liberation would not be a short term effort, but rather an endeavor that would take several years.

Chas, give me a break. Regardless you what you claim to be, politically speaking, your extreme liberalism and anti-conservative, anti-Republican views shine very brightly for all to see. But, of course, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as one-sided as they may be.

Julian, about your comments:

You said, “the President who never won an election”? With all due respect, Julian, you are either in denial, or you don’t understand our electoral process (because he DID win the election), or you conveniently forgot (or didn’t know) that the Bush opponents started and continued the court challenges (after several defeats), or you are proving those disingenuous comments made about you in the past. (Or all of the above.)

And you believe the likes of Michael Moore? Do you really know who – and what – Michael Moore really is? I’m sure you’ve heard me use the term, taking an ounce of truth and whipping up a pound of lies. Well, in Moore’s case, he takes that pound of lies and whips up a ton of slander. Michael Moore is an American embarrassment.

You praise Wesley Clark as a former NATO commander, but you forgot to mention that he’s a former FIRED NATO commander because he almost started a war with the Russians and was a general (no pun intended) pain-in-the-ass to every other military commander. Moreover, your assertion that he knows more than Bush when it comes to military matters becomes nonsense when compared to claims from other American (and British) Generals who DO believe Bush is doing the right thing and/or that Wesley Clark is dangerous.

How about General Colin Powell? Why not believe him – as a General – instead?

Read what British General Sir Mike Jackson had to say to Clark when he ordered him to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo’s provincial capital. “I’m not going to start the third world war for you,” General Sir Mike Jackson, commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, is reported to have told General Clark when he refused to accept an order to send assault troops to prevent Russian troops from taking over the airfield of Kosovo’s provincial capital.

Read what the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, said about Wesley Clark. “I’ve known Wes for a long time,” Shelton said. “I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. … I’ll just say Wes won’t get my vote.”
Read what Retired Army Brig. Gen. David Grange, the U.S. commander in Bosnia (at that time), said about Wesley Clark. “Clark was so focused on succeeding that ‘he would maybe not be cognizant of some of the feelings or concerns of some of the people around him. There’s no question that General Clark is for General Clark”.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Marc Cisneros said Wesley Clark, “just outright lied”.

And how about General Norman Schwarzkopf who was – and still is – in favor of President Bush’s Iraq policy?

Wesley Clark, who praised Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush – and his administration along with their Iraq war efforts – until, of course, he decided to run for President himself.

That makes my six Generals against your one (And I didn’t even dig into it looking for more.) It sounds to me that Wesley Clark is a self-serving liar.

Do the research for yourself to find the “Generals” who support Wesley Clark versus the ones who don’t. You’ll find scores of those against him, and very few – if any – supporting him.

Do the research for yourself to find the “Generals” who support George W. Bush versus the ones who don’t. You’ll find scores of Generals who support the President, and only one who doesn’t – now that he’s running for President himself, of course.

These discussions are just becoming too much for me.

I’m going to leave this one for all you Bush-bashers to have your little love feast without further comment from me. (But I reserve the right to change my mind.)

Reformed Conservative

In reply to Give me a break

Yes Max, I suppose that I am getting more liberal every day. If so, it is only because of seeing the increasing damage to our country that has been caused by the conservative movement.
Heck, I may even vote for my first Democrat in the next election.

I started my political beliefs as a Democrat.
Blame it on the ever present portraits of JFK that filled the classrooms of my youth.

When I reached the age to vote, my views had shifted to the Republican party.
I hold Presidents Reagan and George H. Bush in high regard.
They were both MEN who did what was needed and prudent at the time to make the world safe for Democracy.

What shifted me over to the “dark side” of liberalism?
The devastation to Michigan that the arch-conservative John Engler foisted upon us.

Education:
Shifting K-12 funding from the stable revenue source of property taxes to the most volatile revenue source, the sales tax is devastating our public school system.
My local school system has been forced to cut nearly all courses for advanced students.
I have spent time with some of the High School teachers and the superintendent.
There is no waste in the present school budget. There is scarcely any meat either.

Roads:
Shifting our hi-ways from concrete to asphalt turned 1 of JE’s friends into an over-night millionaire.
However, asphalt flows under the weight of large trucks. So when it rains, we have excellent ruts in the road that are great for hydro-planning.

Local Planning:
In another hand-out to a political friend, JE got a law on the books that PREVENTS local governments from limiting or even controlling mobile home parks.

Environment:
The Michigan DNR now has NO staff to even check on the details of a requested permit, let alone monitor and verify that rules and limits are being followed.
We have gone from thoughtful review of permits to little more than a rubber stamp.

State funds:
JE ignored history, and cut taxes so that the state was at minimal funding during prosperous times. Leaving little or no surplus funds.
Remember, unlike a business, government spending needs to rise when the economy goes into a slump.

Not that our present governor is a prise.
Every move she makes appears to be choreographed as a photo op. readying her for her next step up the political ladder.

In another thread, you stated that were JFK running for president now, he would be a Republican.
Not if he was still based out of Massachusetts.
Like many politicians, the choice of party affiliation would be based on getting elected to local offices first.
So, unless the Kennedy compound moved to a Republican area, JFK would NEED to be a Democrat to begin his political career.

Of course politicians like JFK and Ike could not be elected in todays political environment as both were far to close to the center to make it through the fund raising and primary process.

One more comment:
Bobby Kennedy must be rolling in his grave with all the mergers and collusion that has taken place in big business over the past 20 years.

Chas

On President Kennedy

In reply to Reformed Conservative

Yes, I did say in a separate thread that John F. Kennedy would be a Republican today OR (don’t overlook my “OR” continuance of that remark, lest you’ll take it out of context) he would have prevented the Democrat party from taking the extreme left turn that it did under LBJ. (I didn’t bother to find the exact message in which I said that, but this is, in essence, what I said.) However, I suspect the latter.

I don’t really think JFK would have switched parties, but had he lived to lead the party into the future (which is now the present), we wouldn’t have seen the HUGE growth in the welfare state industry that happened under LBJ. We wouldn’t have seen the class warfare – the class envy – rhetoric that we see today. And we would have seen the encouragement for people to take personal responsibility instead of the “everyone is a victim” nonsense that we see today. I believe the whole focus and face of the Democrat party would have been vastly different. Even Ronald Reagan, who has often been called a “Kennedy Democrat”, and who supported Democrat Harry S. Truman (and was a Democrat for Eisenhower), saw the left turn the party was making, and he officially changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in 1962.

But probably more importantly, the point I was trying to make was that JFK and his policies were based on a couple of very basic current-day Republican principles. The first, of course, is the importance of having a strong – a very strong – military. The military was absolutely devastated under the Carter administration (one of the reasons I left the military in 78.) And Bill Clinton, as we all know, loathed the military, even though he used it and abused it, slashing the military budget in favor of more social spending.

The second Kennedy – and Republican – principle to which I’m referring were his statements – and actions – about cutting taxes in order to stimulate the economy and increase revenues – supply side (trickle down) economics.

(And a third – Take personal responsibility.)

John F. Kennedy Democrats:

“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.

Today’s Democrats:

“Ask not what you can do for yourself, demand that others do it for you.”

Not MY opinions …

In reply to Give me a break

Max, you might note at the bottom of my posting that these comments are from the editor of an online publication, and NOWHERE have I said that I agree with them. Perhaps I should have made this clearer. I just thought that some TR members might like to learn that George Bush may not receive a warm welcome when he visits Australia.

You can read this item for yourself at http://workers.labor.net.au/latest

You may even care to submit a letter to this online publication, because no opinions are rejected. While it is Australian based, articles and letters come from people in other countries.

Thank you Julian

In reply to Not MY opinions …

You’re right, I did overlook that vital piece of information.

However, may I assume that you agree with it since you took the time to post it? Or do you disagree with it? And whichever it is, why?

I agree with the theme, but …

In reply to Thank you Julian

not necessarily the content. Peter Lewis is saying that there WILL be protests when Bush visits Australia, but that if these protests are not conducted in an appropriate manner, they may lead to alienation between and Australia and its long-standing ally, the USA. I think the following excerpt from the article sums up its intention:

“That said, we would be foolish if we turned our protests into a round of Yank bashing, because in doing so we would be attacking many of the principles of freedom, democracy and individual liberty that we also take for granted.”

I rest my case.

Protests – Part of exercising free speech

In reply to I agree with the theme, but …

I think every American President since Washington has been the subject of protests of some sort. Regardless of what one does, it’s bound to get someone bent out of shape.

Extra precautions …

In reply to I agree with the theme, but …

I observed on TV last night that physical barriers are being erected around Australia’s Parliament House, at a further distance than is usual, to keep protestors at bay when President Bush visits Australia next week.

One of the main issues for discussion between John Howard and George Bush will be the possibility of a free trade agreement beteen the two countries.

However, what the public will learn about the results of these talks will no doubt be determined by what Howard and Bush are prepared to reveal. My principal objection to the agreement made between Howard and Bush some time ago is that NOTHING (apart from the general topic of free trade) about the agenda of these talks has been revealed to the public.

John Howard has committed Australia to an agreement with America, but has kept the public completely in the dark as to which issues may be involved.

Are your treaties and agreements

In reply to Extra precautions …

up for debate in your Parliament? All treaties entered into by the US must be ratified by Congress. (as the Kyoto treaty was not, but Bush gets the blame)

Won’t the details of the agreement come out in debate?

If introduced as legislation …

In reply to Are your treaties and agreements

the treaty will be first discussed in the House
of Representatives, which is controlled by the Government.

It will then be presented to the Senate, which is not controlled by the Government. While the Government holds a greater number of seats in the Senate than the Labor Party, there are currently about 14 Senators who belong to minor parties, or who are Independents. The numbers are: Govt (34), ALP (27), minor parties and Independents (14). So according to my calculations, if 11 of these Senators who do not represent either of the two major parties vote with the Labor Oppostion, then the legislation will not pass.

However before being presented as Legislation, if copies of the Treaty are issued to all members of parliament, then questions may be addressed to the Prime Minister in a one-hour session known as Question Time.

So the general answer to your question is that details of any treaty may only be known to the public at the stage where the Senate either passes or challenges any legislation in relation to those treaties.

My complaint was, and still is, that John Howard has not at this stage informed the public of any of the details of the treaty, which will probably be finalised when President Bush holds talks with the Prime Minister in the near future. I think that the people should have been informed of the issues which are to be discussed.

Normally when the Prime Minister sets off to have talks with leaders of other countries, the public is given information regarding the principal issues to be discussed.

The Prime Minister and the President ….

In reply to Are your treaties and agreements

It is impossible to make a simple comparison with the Australian system of government and the American system, because your president is chosen in a separate election.

So that, in terms of blame, the Prime Minister will be equated with the government: Blame the government, and you will be blaming the Prime Minister; blame the Prime Minister and you will be blaming the government.

As an aside, I think these TR discussions have been very helpful in letting at least two Australians learn more about how the American system of Government works, and letting a number of Americans learn more about how the Australian system works. Our two countries have been allies for a long time, and will no doubt continue to be for a long time into the future.

Did you know, by the way, that it was only via a radio telescope at Parkes, New South Wales, that you were all able to see Neil Armstrong make that first step on the moon?

Pot calling the Kettle black

In reply to Give me a break

Max, once again you refuse to believe any comments made by anyone other than those who you believe in. Yet you also try defame these statements with statementss made by other sources. Who is right? Let me guess, the ones YOU chose that favored YOUR opinion right?

“But, of course, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, as one-sided as they may be.”

I don’t see how someone with your intelligence could make such a hypocritical statement. Perhapse YOU have the one-sided opinions and only rely on sources , again that favour YOUR opinions. If not, they don’t hold water because someone else said otherwise.

“And you believe the likes of Michael Moore? Do you really know who – and what – Michael Moore really is?”

>>Disliked by Republicans?

“You praise Wesley Clark as a former NATO commander, but you forgot to mention that he’s a former FIRED NATO commander because he almost started a war with the Russians and was a general (no pun intended) pain-in-the-ass to every other military commander”

>>Ok, so you don’t like Wesley Clark either, you’re allowed to do that, you’re also allowed to believe his views.

“…retired Gen. Hugh Shelton, said about Wesley Clark. “I’ve known Wes for a long time,” Shelton said. “I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. … I’ll just say Wes won’t get my vote.”

>>He doesn’t get YOUR vote either, so what. How does that detract from the validity of his statements?

“And how about General Norman Schwarzkopf who was – and still is – in favor of President Bush’s Iraq policy?”

>>So are YOU, it’s YOUR opinion, so what?

“Do the research for yourself to find the “Generals” who support Wesley Clark versus the ones who don’t. You’ll find scores of those against him, and very few – if any – supporting him.”

>>Do your research for yourself to find out the American and other world citizens who support George Bush jr. vs the ones who don’t. You’ll find scores of those against him, and very few – if any – supporting him.”

I’m starting to see a pattern here, you have the ability to defame everybody who has a different viewpoint than you or those who your believe in, simply by stating that others who you DO believe in don’t support the statements either.

Very narrow minded and closed eyed way to look at the world each day. There are only what, a few hundred peolpe in the world who actually have a valid opinion?

Reads like you got the closed mind OZ

In reply to Pot calling the Kettle black

I don’t know bro – it seems you have the closed mind – Max had some valid and support points, but you flame him for his view because it is dyametriclly opposed to yours. Rather than reading his for the content that was provide – with back up quotes (which I hardly see from your side) – you flame him…

It appears – you are the closed minded one…

Bring on the Fire … Bro … My opinion and opinions are like ass****s we all have one and they all smell the same..

We’ve read or understood different posts

In reply to Reads like you got the closed mind OZ

Max had ridiculed EVERY person that was referred to and simply stated that others don’t agree with the said pesons opinions. Very well backed.

I admit by biases and voice my opinion as well

In reply to Pot calling the Kettle black

And show me a person who claims to not have biases, and I’ll show you a person in denial.

Look through all of my threads, and you’ll see by biases very clearly. I admit what they are, while others don’t.

Why do you feel superior enough to “defame” me, while criticizing me for, as you put it, “defaming” others? (defame – your word, not mine.)

Sure, give someone the right to voice an opinion or observation – I’m all for it. But give others who disagree the same courtesy. It’s not defaming. It’s disagreeing.

Too many people take things out of context and/or fail to put forth the whole story. (NATO commander versus fired NATO commander – big difference.)

You don’t know the first thing about Michael Moore, but sure feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him. You’ve probably read ZERO of Walter Cronkite’s editorial columns, but you feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him, even though I’ve read probably all of them.

Oz, you really are naive, but you sure are vocal about it.

(Okay, go ahead, attack me some more. That is what you do best, after all.)

You still don’t have a clue who I really am do you?

In reply to I admit by biases and voice my opinion as well

“You don’t know the first thing about Michael Moore, but sure feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him. You’ve probably read ZERO of Walter Cronkite’s editorial columns, but you feel superior enough to comment on my opinion of him, even though I’ve read probably all of them.”

Cronkite, yes I have seen and heard many of his comments but not as many as one with your higher intelligence. My point was not to say these people were right or wrong, just that you flame a POST based on it’s sources, then provide your own sources that are extremely one sided. What is to make YOUR ststements and beliefs better than another? Michael Moore, although I haven’t followed his every move since birth, I feel he has made MANY statements that I do see as valid. I also see his right wing views going to far sometimes and realize that he usually has full editing control over his public statements. Doesn’t everyone else though? It’s a matter of taking what’s said as it is and sorting out the BS for yourself.

I have neither a positive or negative view towards Moore but won’t turn down his statements because of WHO HE IS and that he doesn’t fit my political parties objectives.

YOU DO have a right to YOUR opinjion, but oh so often seem to deny anyone else’s opinion by stating that thier sources are incredible, however, you rebut this with a bunch of one sided poilitical opinions by those that YOU agree with.

That’s not a debating skill, it’s defamatory to the person who made the original statement in declaring them to be invalid statements because others that YOU believe in disagree.

Message from the President of the U.S.

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

THE PRESIDENT:

Good morning. This weekend in Iraq, 750 Iraqi citizens completed their military training and became the first battalion of the new Iraqi army. For decades, Iraq’s army served the interests of a dictator. Today a new army is serving the Iraqi people. And less than a year from now, Iraq will have a 40,000-member military force, trained and dedicated to protecting their fellow citizens.

Our coalition is helping to train and equip Iraq’s new army, so that Iraqis can take over border protection and other security duties as soon as possible. Soldiers in the new battalion join more than 80,000 other Iraqis who are defending their country’s security. Iraq now has a Civil Defense Corps of nearly 2,500, a border guard force of 4,700, and a facility protection service of over 12,000. And more than half of the Iraqis under arms are police officers, instructed by professionals like New York City’s outstanding former police chief, Bernard Kerik. Iraq’s neighbor, Jordan, has announced that it will help Iraq train additional police officers.

For three decades, the police in Iraq were the feared enforcers of a dictatorship. Now Iraq’s new police are enforcing the just laws of an emerging democracy. Already the Iraqi police are assuming greater responsibility, and greater risks. This week, Iraqi officers aided a series of joint raids by American troops, leading to the arrest of more than 50 suspected criminals and terrorists. We’re on the offensive against the desperate holdouts and Saddam loyalists who oppose progress in Iraq. The free nation we are helping to build will be free of them.

The United States is standing with the Iraqi people as they move toward self-government. My wartime funding request to Congress includes more than $5 billion [thousand million] to help the people of Iraq take responsibility for their own security. These funds will be used to prepare the Iraqi army, to train public safety and emergency personnel, and to establish a fair and effective judicial system.

Greater security is essential to Iraq’s future. A secure Iraq will protect the nation’s schools, and the hospitals that are opening, and the roads that are being built, and the water and power facilities we are repairing. Across Iraq, our coalition is turning over responsibility to the future leaders of that country. Those leaders include women. Just this weekend, a conference is being held at the University of Babylon to affirm the vital role of women in the Iraqi society.

The transition to self-government is a complicated process, because it takes time to build trust and hope after decades of oppression and fear. Yet we are making steady progress, and we will keep our promise to fully return Iraq’s government to Iraq’s people as soon as possible.

The men and women of our coalition have shown bravery and skill and compassion in Iraq. And they know their mission. They know that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities. Our forces know that a secure and sovereign Iraq will be a setback for terrorists, and an inspiration to all who dream of freedom in the Middle East. And the world can be certain, this essential mission in the war on terror will be completed.

-George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
October 4, 2003

And yet

In reply to Message from the President of the U.S.

>>Our coalition is helping to train and equip Iraq’s new army, so that Iraqis can take over border protection and other security duties as soon as possible. Soldiers in the new battalion join more than 80,000 other Iraqis who are defending their country’s security. Iraq now has a Civil Defense Corps of nearly 2,500, a border guard force of 4,700, and a facility protection service of over 12,000. And more than half of the Iraqis under arms are police officers, instructed by professionals like New York City’s outstanding former police chief, Bernard Kerik. Iraq’s neighbor, Jordan, has announced that it will help Iraq train additional police officers.<< Add to that some 23,000 coalition troops. Then add all the figures up. On CNN tonight (yes we have it here in Blighty) the evening news was one continuous story about a bombing of a hotel in Baghdad. Every day on CNN, Sky, ITN and BBC we hear about another assault on American troops, or more coalition casualties. Whatever Dubya may say, or indeed what ANYONE may say, the situation 'on the ground' in Iraq is very different from anything we've heard from the politicians. Whatever their intentions, whatever the grand visions, no amount of words can stop a 7.62mm round hitting a US Marine or a kilo of C4 blowing the wheels off a HUMV if some Iraqi decides that he doesn't like Bush or Blair. The decision to go to war was based on false premises and 'sexed up' (to coin the BBC phrase) intelligence. Having 'done' Iraq, no WMD's have been found...in 4 months of searching! Yes, there were other motives not connected with threats to the West. President Hussein had NO capability with which to carry out a 'direct' attack on the Western world and at worst, all he could have reasonably done would be to stir up regional conflict, terrorise his own people or attack Western oil interests in Saudi, Oman, Qatar or Kuwait. But, WMD's don't have to be 'weapons' in the context of gas, nerve agents or nukes. The biggest and most threatening WMD in the Iraqi arsenal was President Hussein himself. He was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Kurds in the country over the years. Perhaps removing him from power DID justify the Coalition action. However, nature abhors a vacuum, especially a power vacuum. The Iraqi people are glad to see an end to Mr Hussein's reign of hate and fear, but as we debate this, the 'power vacuum' is being filled by 'infidels' in the eyes of the Iraqi public. Winning the war isn't enough. We now have to win the peace. But more than that, we have to hand Iraq back to the Iraqis and do it in such a way that it preserves their national identity AND prevents another Saddam Hussein ever coming to power again. The Iraqis are a proud people with a long history, and they want to move forward learning from history, but preserving their beliefs. They do not want to be another ;rogue nation' quelled into submission and paying lip service to both Bush and 'big business'.

Balance and Perspective

In reply to And yet

You make some excellent points. I personally thought the case existed regardless of the WMD aspect, and that too much was made of this.

Two things that seem missing in much of the public discussion around Iraq.

Given that Iraq has some 24 to 25 million citizens, an opposition to a new Iraqi state or fanatical opposition to any outside intervention is still 250 thousand individuals. This number seems much larger than the number of individuals involved in guerilla tacktics against the coalition forces. A 10% general dislike of foreign involvement offers up 2.5 million unhappy Iraqis to interview for the evening news. It also frames a 10:1 to 100:1 range of odds faced by the coalition forces on the ground.

As for winning the peace, this too is a time issue. Compare the schedule with the time spans in other relatively recent issues such as the troubles in Ireland, the Baltic situation, Japan and Germany following WWII, or the transition from colonial rule to full self government and stability in any number of Asian and African nations. An expectation that success with peace will accelerate the way success on the battlefield has seems overly optimistic.

Add to this the inherent criminal element in every society. It seems to me that a dictatorship or opressive government does keep a lid on “ordinary” criminal activity, so to that extent the lid is off in Iraq.

On the positive side, considerably more infrastructure was left in place by coalition forces in this most recent conflict than historically occurs, and self inflicted damage seems to be the greatest problem.

I don’t see how a realistic assessment of progress with the peace can be made in less than 18 months.

Gee you’re kidding?

In reply to Message from the President of the U.S.

George W Bush is SUPPOSED to have ONE focus on his agenda, ‘To please the American public and get reinstated for another term.’

With the entire world looking down their nose at him and claiming he’s a warmongering loser that makes rash and uneducated decisions that kill the American public, it’s about time he woke up and faced the music.

Canadian soldiers are still in Afghanistan cleaning up the last mess.
Canadian and German soldiers are now working on peace keeping and security missions in Baghdad.

Perhaps, just perhaps, good ole WBjr is feeling a little pressurs to live up to his statements and expectations, if he doesn’t make a move now to appease the people he may not be re-elected. This given, I think it’s too little too late. Just like every other war blow ’em all up and claim victory after the rest of the world’s finished cleaning up the messes.

GWB 21 Sep, 2001

In reply to Gee you’re kidding?

The world knew what this was about before the invasion of Afghanistan. GB, Germany and several other countries went in knowing what this was going to be like. This was never described as a speedy or painless process. Any who try to say that this was going to be quick and neat is either acting on abject stupidity or intellectual dishonesty.

Transcript of speech:

Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.

The following is a link to a synopsis if pre-Iraq statements by members of the Bush Administration.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/957955.asp

Just because something is difficult, it doesn’t mean it isn’t worth doing.

Oz, this is specifically directed to you:

You seem to have some grudge against the USA, and seem to resent it’s projection of influence around the world.

What nation would you approve of as a suitable substitute for the US on the world stage? Don’t give the chickenshit non-answer “no one”, because nature abhorrs a vacuum. If not the US, then whom?

You spend a lot of time and effort to hammer the US on any issue available. Let’s hear your vision.

Why should a single country…

In reply to GWB 21 Sep, 2001

Be responsible for policing the world? That’s just plain arrogance. What is best for your people is best for all?

“…USA, and seem to resent it’s projection of influence around the world.”

Of course, why should any country project it’s influence around the world? Why have you appointed YOURSELVES as that country? Who did it last time?
I think that may be a solo opinion of yours, I don’t think any other country (since Hitler’s Nazi Germany in WW2) has felt it neccessary to invade and bomb a country in order to push it’s beliefs and government on it (Saddam aside, unless you are comparing your actions with his now).

Projection of Influence

In reply to Why should a single country…

This is a concept that is based on a basic component of the human condition. In the absence of power, nations or even groups / factions will assert themselves. In the absence of the US or any other nation playing a dominant role, terrorist groups and nations using terrorist groups as instruments of foreign policy have filled the void.

The idea of equality and “live and let live” on a global scale is simply a fallacy. To assert that such is not the case shows a lack of understanding of basic human nature.

The UN was once the hope of the world in filling the void of global influence with a “democratic” international body. This has been a miserable disappointment, as the clash of cultures has resulted in paralysis from within and abject failure to employ influence to a mutually beneficial end.

With the current clash of cultures, radical islam has declared war on all that is not radical islam, including more moderate practitioners of their own faith. These types do not acknowledge the right of any other belief systems to exist.

This is effectively demonstrated by the fact that nearly all armed conflicts in the world involve islam as one side of the fighting…
http://www.lander.edu/atannenbaum/Tannenbaum%20courses%20folder/POLS%20103%20World%20Politics/103_huntington_clash_of_civilizations_full_text.htm

Unless something better comes along, the US can and must assert power. The alternative is conversion at swordpoint by intolerant and violent practitioners of a faith that causes misery and death wherever it comes to power.

That’s absurd !

In reply to Projection of Influence

Saying that I don’ think that the USA should be ‘THE’ dominant power does not mean that everyone is to just take a back seat and let terrorists attack them.

If terrorists thought that attacking America would have the rest of the world at arms, they’d probably think twice.
Knowing that most countries won’t join George on a rampage due to fear, they push fear upon America, where it is expected and drilled into people from birth. This creates a situation that most would ignore and the USA will retaliate against, ALONE. Other countires do not impress fear into the citizens in order to justify action the way that the American administration seems to do so often.
FEAR of Canadian Beef, FEAR of SARS, FEAR of terrorism, FEAR of being different, FEAR of… the list goes on and on.

In Canada, nobody was scared of beef, it was blown well out of proportion in the USA.
In Canada, VERY few people have a fear of SARS, in the USA (and Canada via American networks) it was plastered on every channel until people stopped visiting Toronto, just visiting Toronto will do that though.

The Taliban were one of the first to attack America on American soil. They were removed (even if still in the process)and will have a VERY hard time to rebuild thier terrorist regime.

Now we got the war bandwagon rolling, hey Saddam might sometime in the future, possibly be able to attack. So now you attack Baghdad.

Who’s next?

Instead of the USA being seen as a world protector, they are showing themselves to therest of the world as the Self-appointed World police, that will attack any country it deems worthy of agression. In order to stifle POSSIBLE agression, the USA is agressive.
So, if I see a guy in the bar who MAY be able to pick up my girlfriend and take her home, should I be thinking about punching him out before he makes a move? Preventative medicine?

What is the difference? He has threatened to disrupt my life (or possibly could do), isn’t it comlpetely legal for me to kill him first? Why not? How is this different from attacking a country based on it’s supposed ability to attack yours?

England doesn’t get attacked, they aren’t the world police. Germany doesn’t get attacked, they aren’t world police. So why does America get attacked and claim they are the world’s saviour, nobody else feels threatened. Why does the USA?

Then why does the USA feel it is their DUTY to protect the world from …? What are they protecting ME from and why should I support their actions?

Do you REALLY think that if Saddam launched an attack on the USA that others would idly sit by and watch it happen? Maybe they should just sit idly by and then you would all be justified in your fears.

Who appointed you the police of the police?

In reply to That’s absurd !

While you’re busy congratulating yourself on your “enlightened” restraint, do a little web surfing.

Several terrorist cells have been broken up in Great Britain and Germany. Bombings and assassinations occur in such world powers as Bali(well known for their constant meddling in Arab lands).

Should Iraq have been able to develop WMD, are you ready to let them get in the first punch in order to salvage your sense of fairness?

Like you said, this isn’t 1953. Folks who believe that other folks don’t have a right to live now have access to things that allow them to kill thousands.

Your logic is hopelessly skewed by your selective consideration of the facts.

If there are no police (don’t even try to make a case for the UN) then someone has to fill the breach.

If you are any indication of the bravery of your countrymen, I feel sorry for your girlfriend. I guess you will see fit to become involved somewhere after the first rapist….

To Road Dog

In reply to That’s absurd !

Just a clarification-

Bali is part of Indonesia, a largely Islamic country. The attacked night club was a favorite for tourists, mostly Australians. Australia is a “western” nation in its base, and thus fits into a likely terrorist target.

Islam has grown to many of the Pacific Islands. In that respect, Australia would be rather coveted by those who would expand its influence even more. As well, Australia is probably even more ‘evil’ than the US with their relatively risque ways…

So, bombing a Bali club full of Aussies would be a great way to expell some of those evil tourists and get you cause mentioned all over the evil-doers’ homeland.

Getting tired

In reply to That’s absurd !

Of talking to you, you rarely have anything to say that is a relevant rebuttal but if you insist on being a nutbag,
“Should Iraq have been able to develop WMD, are you ready to let them get in the first punch in order to salvage your sense of fairness?”

>>The WMD was SPECULATION! Don’t even go there, it’s not a justified reason for war. Get over it, it’s old news.

As for letting someone rape my girlfriens, does this mean that you feel any guy looking at your wife or girlfriend needs a beating? You sound like one of those really insecure guys that knows his partner would leave for a bigger …. at the first chance. Get a grip !

Yuo have the unvbelievable ability to either not understand a single word you read, take everything out of it’s context or simply have zero intelligence and no comprehension of anything in your life.

I’ve had enough of your mental ramblings, later.

WMD was speculation?

In reply to That’s absurd !

The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2854019.stm

OZZIE –

Once again you show up for a battle of with with an unloaded weapon…

Lest you dismiss this source as pawns of President Bush, Note that this is a BBC story, an news organization critical of Tony Blair’s decision to join the US in the war in Iraq.

Of course one might make the case that Saddam destroyed his weapons afterward.

I guess that when he threw the UN weapons inspectors out of the country, he then said “I’m glad those guys are out of the way so I can get on with the business of destroying these weapons”

You don’t know jack about Iraq, world politics, history, economics, business, or human nature. You argue baseless generalities that make it painfully obvious that your grip on reality is tenuous at best.

What’s truly amazing about you us that you think you know a lot about the US and Americans, apparently moreso than native Americans! You couldn’t be more wrong on so many things and yet you have this desire to repeatedly define what this country thinks, what makes it work, and why it does what it does.

I don’t crush you again and again because we disagree. I disagree on friendly and intellectual terms with lots of other members. You on the other hand, are a sanctimonious blowhard who attempts to project every single personal shortcoming on anyone who disagrees with you.

You accuse Americans of many things that manifest themselves in your approach to the debate here, from condescension to name calling.

Why don’t you post a link or two backing up some of your more outrageous claims made in this thread. I would make a sincere effort to look at them to better understand your views.

If you do not, then prepare to have your assertions picked apart and refuted. Even if you are so dense as to believe you are seen as rational here, rest assured that others here will recognize you for the monumental twit that I judge you to be…

Another viwepoint

In reply to That’s absurd !

“The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day.”

Halabja and America are a LOOOOOOOONG way apart. This doesn’t put Americans at risk of attack.

But that aside.
I have never said that SADDAM should NOT be removed from power. Nor have I said that I condone the repression and killing of Iraq’s citizens. I do not condone BUSH’s premature efforts at all. This war was started with improper planning and without proper support, this causing a messy and expensive attack that could cost America their furture as the World’s Super Military Power.
(or the Worlds Main Defenders-WMD)

“First, the military plan took unnecessary risks, because it skimped on the forces made available to the commanders….Additional forces were available? they were even under orders to prepare for combat in Iraq. One more combat division, an additional force for securing the supply lines, more trucks and supply units to provide the redundancy that the inherent inefficiency of military operations requires?each would have reduced the risks. Some of the planners knew this; whether these forces would be used was the issue at the heart of the continuing tensions during the planning process. But they weren’t deployed until it was too late.”

“The second major criticism of the war plan?a profound flaw?concerned the endgame: it shortchanged postwar planning. Those who plan military operations for a war must take into account the aftermath. Four steps have to be considered: deployment; buildup; decisive combat; and postconflict operations. The destruction of enemy forces on the battlefield creates a necessary but not sufficient condition for victory.”

“This brings us to the third major criticism of the government’s plan: in attempting to retain full control, the administration raised the costs and risks of the mission by preventing our use of the very allies and resources that should have been available to the US. The Bush administration, thus far, has been unwilling to make use of the international legitimacy and support it could have from international institutions like the United Nations and NATO. Rather than gain leverage by means of international legitimacy, the United States, even through the long summer of 2003, refused to cede political authority to the UN or grant meaningful authority to any other international institution. Yet such legitimacy was critical if governments in Europe were to provide forces and resources to assist postwar efforts in Iraq”

http://tinyurl.com/r6gr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Impact on Human Rights cooperation: "The experience of Operation Iraqi Freedom will likewise weaken international cooperation on human rights issues.27 Support for such efforts depends on their being clearly separated from attempts to advance the unilateral interest or agenda of any particular state." "...nations have an inherent right to defend themselves by force against military aggression is a bedrock principle of international law. Without this guarantee, no nation would accept the constraints of law. But "defense against aggression" must be clearly and narrowly defined, least nations simply recast offensive acts as "defensive" ones -- a persistent problem ever since international covenants and treaties (such as the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact) began weighing generally against "aggressive war"." "With regard to the recent concerns about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Webster's (US Secretary of State Daniel Webster -1837) criteria would have allowed pre-emptive action: >if Iraq was known to have the capability and inclination to attack,

>if Iraqi policy toward the United States or its allies had evinced a growing bellicosity,

>if Iraqi preparations for an attack were clearly underway, and

>if there were good reasons to believe that deterrence would not hold. ”

“Although the United States has enjoyed a good decade of growth relative to other nations, the long-term trend favors a slow decline in America’s relative position.

Twenty years from now several countries are likely to be able to give the United States a good run for its money — on a regional basis, at least. This outcome is not preordained, however. It depends on a convergence of capacity and motive. A broader, more energetic exercise of US military power may provide the latter. ”

http://tinyurl.com/r6h4

I’m not the only one questioning BUSH’s motives and calling him an idiot for leading American citizens to their deaths.

pushing beliefs etc.

In reply to Why should a single country…

I fear that neither Nazi Germany nor the U.S. is the only one invading other states to push beliefs etc. on them. In 1948 the newly founded Israeli state burst the borders the UN had assigned to it, and expelled thousands of people from the assigned and the conquered territories. In 1952 – I think – North Korea invaded South Korea. In 1954 China invaded and conquered Tibet. In 1956 North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam, the USSR invaded Hungary and a Franco-British-Israeli coalition invaded Egypt to attempt to impose state-sponsored capitalism regarding the Suez Canal. And this last shows where the US can do some good: it was at US insistence that the aggressors withdrew from Egypt and, after some fuss, the Israelis even withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Now if the US were to be a policeman first by its own example it would have less invasion to do and more support when it did it. The US could refuse to export arms to undemocratic governments – which does not mean that Iran, say, would be entitled to buy weapons, just that Sa’udi Arabia and such wouldn’t even be considered. It could insist that the Israelis stop stealing private property and return to its owners what they have stolen since their state’s foundation. It could insist that all its allies and client states submit to ICJ jurisdiction – starting with the US itself. The US has great power for good, but a lot of it is wasted. The beliefs to push are democracy and personal freedom. But Iraq, which could have had an election six weeks after the conquest, still hasn’t had one, and only now is the US allowing enough UN troops into Afghanistan to protect the organization of elections.

Oz – you are something

In reply to Gee you’re kidding?

WGjr – he isn’t a Jr… and from what it appears he isn’t worried about his re-election camp yet… He is worried about the American Economy and the Iraq war – are his two big ones…

Oh did you notice – American DOW up 120 point from yesterday … Pretty dam good for someone that doesn’t know about economics… hum..

I don’t know how you all know so much more about our american president than most americans… hum must have an insiders track up there in the North.. I guess nothing else to do when you get “SNOWED” … in

Delusion or Jest ?

In reply to Oz – you are something

“…he isn’t worried about his re-election camp yet… He is worried about the American Economy and the Iraq war – are his two big ones…”

Uh….sure. You’re not really serious are you?

Your knowledge of Canada is uncanny!
“I guess nothing else to do when you get “SNOWED” … in”

I think we got less than 3″ of snow last year that lasted about a week. In contrast, England got more snow than Vancouver last year.

Today, the middle of Ovtober, it’s chillier at about

The year before, I don’t think we had ANY snow. Th moutains closed early and spring skiing was a no show. So besides the fact that we don’t get the snow that scared you out of Newfoundland, I can’t help you. You do realize that Newfies are Canadian Polaks right? (In the sense of the jokes, not the race).

Iraqi Deserters or Patriots?

In reply to Message from the President of the U.S.

It’s probably worth pointing out that immediately after George Bush had those people armed, trained and paid with US dollars – many (if not most) of them have returned to their former lives.

Since the US is currently waging a war against that country – it’s probably not too bright of them to pay, train and arm their enemies.

Isn’t it funny how things seem to go round in

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Circles. It was on something like thsi that I asked my first ever question and got ragged on by everyone.

I just can’t get over how much things have changed in such a short time.

Will you define terms?

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

You said, “It is time for the US people to demand no new US aggression against foreign leaders without clear evidence of an imminent threat to the US or our allies.”

Will you define “imminent threat”?

And by whose definition of “imminent threat” should we respond?

———- Possible Scenario ———-

For example, let’s assume that President Bush, in his daily security briefing, receives a report from the director of the CIA, George J. Tenet, that he has what he considers reliable intelligence information that a terrorist group currently training inside Syria is planning a series of coordinated and simultaneous terrorist attacks on a dozen U.S. targets around the globe, some of which are inside the United States. He further reports that British intelligence has confirmed these reports as being reliable. Moreover, it is reported that these same training facilities have been the home base for several terrorist attacks on Israel, resulting in the deaths of dozens of innocent civilians, including women and children.

Furthermore, it is confirmed by these same intelligence sources that the military regime in Damascus, with the support of President Bashar al-ASAD, is sponsoring the terrorist mission by knowingly allowing the training facility within Syria, and is acting as a middle-man through which funds are being funneled to the terrorists.

The recommended action by the President’s security advisors is to launch (from aircraft carriers currently in the Persian Gulf) a limited “surgical strike” inside Syria to destroy the terrorist training facility and “neutralize” all personnel at the facility. It is further recommended that a stern warning be sent to Syrian President Bashar al-ASAD to cease all connections with known terrorists lest he will be faced with a second strike on government facilities in Damascus.

———- End of Scenario ———-

Would that be considered an “imminent threat”?

If yes, would military action be justified?

If not, why not?

Should the President consult Congress?

Should the President ask the UN for a “resolution” for military action?

Surgical strikes

In reply to Will you define terms?

Surgical strikes against specific targets should remain as an option against terrorist groups.

Should there be clear evidence that the government of a country that a terrorist group is operating out of is providing “material” support to the terrorists, we should be able to convince NATO, if not the UN Security Council that sanctions against that government are appropriate.

The type of attacks that I was referring to are related to the speculation about potential US efforts to dispose of governments that are not on our list of friends.
This includes Iran and Cuba.

If you have not noticed, there has been a shift in the Bush Administration position on the WMD issue.
There is no longer a hard claim that the weapons were still there. We had to go in because Saddam had a strong desire to possess and ultimately use WMDs against his neighbors, or other targets.

Chas

What are you a sheep – or loin

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Walter has his opinions – and if you want to blindly follow like a sheep – rather than making up your own mind then you get what you what you ask for..

A Land of Sheep – like we were under Clinton – Listen to what news people say – but why blindly accept it without your own research and brain..

Walter is old and I would bet has a little problem with memory – Use your own brain – and don’t blindly follow like sheep ..

Made my own decision

In reply to What are you a sheep – or loin

From the news and independent reading, I did formulate my own position on this issue.

I found Walter Cronkite’s comments very interesting.

Am I to understand that you believe that those who do not blindly follow the Republican party and Bush Administration positions to be ill informed?

My stance on the war in Iraq has not changed.
In my opinion, the war against Saddam was a convoluted plot to cause an economic boom in time for the 2004 election to get GW elected for a second term.

The goal is to get oil flowing from Iraq to reduce the global price of crude. Thus dropping the cost of gas in the US below 1 dollar per gallon.
The reduced cost of energy would cause people to buy large SUVs and travel. Boosting the economy and creating jobs.

So far, the aftermath of the war has been to provide lucrative contracts for the friends of Dubbua.

Just my cynical view.

Chas

Anyone that follows anyone blindly is a fool

In reply to Made my own decision

Your putting words in my mouth dude – “Anyone” that lets someone else make up their mind for them is a fool. You said because Walter was the most respected newsman – and he is against the war, then we all …. Whether you support the action or not – do it from your own not because Walter says he doesn’t think so…

Do you know why the Vietnam war lasted so long, why the North never came to the peace table until Linebacker 2, why the POW’s were beaten and miss treated… Do you? (I was there)

Because of the Negative press and all the protests by the America people, and esp “Hanoi Fonda” visiting (do you know who many were killed because of her), she should of been tossed in jail and I hope that in the after life she servers some time with those she helped kill.

The NVA realized that if they held out long enough – even after losing every battle including Tet they would win – because of the public op in America would froce the government to pull out.

Lets not have another Vietnam going here. Support or not support the war – Wait until the job is done. Then – once it is done … Complain to the President and congress, change leaders.

If we pull out before the country is stayablize, the Pro-Saddam Iraqa’s and Saddam will return to power, and it all starts again. Finish the Job – right or wrong, then take corrective action afterwards so it doesn’t happen again. Carter – pulled out in the Middle of the Iran rescue and how many were killed aborting the mission… Learn from past mistakes… Start it Finish – don’t stop in the middle…

I heard about a (Democrat) Congressman

In reply to Anyone that follows anyone blindly is a fool

At least I think he was a Democrat (which surprised me, by the way), who recently returned from a trip to Iraq. He said that the rebuilding effort was going MUCH better than he had heard reported in the press, and that the constant barrage of negatine press coverage was hurting the effort – including the security efforts.

I’ll post his name and exact quotes if I find them.

I’m sure that the 90% of what’s going on in Iraq could fall into the “positive” category, while 10% is negative. Of course, 90% of the press coverage is reporting only that negative 10%.

And if ANYONE is playing the “partisan” card here, it should be quite clear that it’s the Democrats (except this particular Congressman) and the biased news media.

You’re missing the point

In reply to Anyone that follows anyone blindly is a fool

“If we pull out before the country is stayablize, the Pro-Saddam Iraqa’s and Saddam will return to power, and it all starts again. Finish the Job – right or wrong, then take corrective action afterwards so it doesn’t happen again. Carter – pulled out in the Middle of the Iran rescue and how many were killed aborting the mission… Learn from past mistakes… Start it Finish – don’t stop in the middle… “

Sorry about that

In reply to You’re missing the point

“If we pull out before the country is stayablize, the Pro-Saddam Iraqa’s and Saddam will return to power, and it all starts again. Finish the Job – right or wrong, then take corrective action afterwards so it doesn’t happen again. Carter – pulled out in the Middle of the Iran rescue and how many were killed aborting the mission… Learn from past mistakes… Start it Finish – don’t stop in the middle… ”

Do you not think that THIS war is just such an example or perhaps you could have learned from PAST wars? You’ve stated several cases where war was deemed unjust AFTER the fact and people died due to being pulled out early. Wouldn’t this in turn be a lesson that should have been looked at BEFORE going to Baghdad?

If the president won’t listen to the people VEFORE starting a war, then he and his supporters must be held responsible during the war and mistakes should be surfaced immediately to stop further mistakes. Unfortunately, nobody has learned yet, so how will waiting until after the war save people. These people were sent to their deaths without reason already!

Do you quite a job in midstream – right or wrong?

In reply to Sorry about that

Do you quite doing something in midstream, and I mean something important that if you don’t finish it something bad will happen? Building a wall in a home – if you stop in midstream the roof could fall in … wouldn’t it be better to finish that wall – then build another – then remove the first?

Look it cost me 365 and a wake-up … then I get home to assholes calling me “Baby Killer” – and other bullshit.. these kids were still sucking on their mommy boob … and are spouting stuff they heard on TV… Now I see the Press doing the same thing with the IRAQ war – that the Press did with the Vietnam war… All Negative – even thou if you were there, you knew that the people you were fighting for wanted it.. they didn’t want to live under commie rule. But the Press wouldn’t let the people of America hear the truth – the press was against it and that was the only story line you could read.

And I see it all starting again – with CNN (Commie News Network) – CNBC (Commie National Broadcasting Comm) – The only one that is still fair is FOX – Hey no “C” in front of FOX – could it be .. Hum … Interesting ..

Take aa flashback pill!

In reply to Do you quite a job in midstream – right or wrong?

Well we know that the GI’s in Vietnam were sent to an almost certain death, had to push forward with little or no reasons given, had to endure some horrific sights that someone who wasn’t there could not begin to conceive. That war is over now.

Anyhow, it’s now 2003, your government is still up to sending citizens to die and then backstabbing them when they return.
I’ve noticed that the soldiers returning from Iraq are being spit on and degraded for thier actions by fellow Americans, or maybe that was a Vietnam documentary.

People aren’t blaming soldiers for fighting this war, they are blaming YOUR president for STARTING it in he first place. It was unjustified, is still unjustified and unless Saddam rides a WMD into America it will ALWAYS be unjustified.

Bottom line, it’s not the soldiers, it’s the freak who sends them to thier deaths.

Isn’t that what started the war?

In reply to What are you a sheep – or loin

And obviously brainwashed many pro-Bush Americans.

“Listen to what news people say – but why blindly accept it without your own research and brain..”

Two things are begging to be asked

In reply to Isn’t that what started the war?

Keeping your comments in the context of things you’ve said before, a couple of questions come to mind.

First of all, why are you suggesting that any “pro-Bush” Americans have been brainwashed?

Moreover, were “pro-Clinton” Americans brainwashed as well? Were “pro-Gore” Americans brainwashed?

Why aren’t the “anti-Bush” people the ones who are brainwashed?

Are “Americans who think differently than you” all brainwashed?

Hell, maybe everyone (except you, of course) is brainwashed.

What’s the difference between being “brainwashed” and placing one’s trust in another?

And you have made it clear, on more than one occasion, that you don’t research a lot of these issues, you’re not a political person, you’re not a news savvy person, and so on, but you do have opinions on everything, so what qualifies you to know who may or may not be brainwashed and/or who may or may not be accurate in their assessments?

Brainwashed?

In reply to Two things are begging to be asked

“so what qualifies you to know who may or may not be brainwashed and/or who may or may not be accurate in their assessments?”

I don’t believe everything I read or hear, regardless of the source. I often see politicians, generals etc on TV making different statements, AND WITHOUT POLITICAL PREDJUDICE, make up an opinion of MY OWN based on what is being said against what I see and hear from other sources.

Your own political predjudices are what makes you susceptible to ‘brainwashing’. You refuse to listen to viewpoint from any party other than that which you support fully. Therefore you’re opinions are clouded and why I consider this a form of ‘brainwashing’.

I haven’t made any political references in my statements, other than I FEEL that the war was and is unjust (LONG BEFORE IT STARTED)based on my views from ALL sides. This gives me tha ability to form an opinion based on what I believe and what I don’t. Not just that Mr. X said so, so I’m going that way because we have the same political views. As said before, Petriotism may end up to be the death of America, or certainly it’s worst enemy.

“Why aren’t the “anti-Bush” people the ones who are brainwashed?”

I’ll use YOUR methodology to answer that one.
I belive in Chas and his open minded way of forming a personal opinion, there are many times when I don’t like what you’ve said and therefore I distrust and disagree with anything you say, so should everyone else because we dont have similar political views.

Sounds pretty dumb doesn’t it? But we’re all expected to believe it when you do it?

This fits you, Oz

In reply to Brainwashed?

Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain – and most fools do.

-Dale Carnegie

Fits you to a tee, Oz.

Funny

In reply to This fits you, Oz

How you constantly quote Dale Carnegie, but don’t live by his focus of How to Win Friends and Influence people. I taught the Dale Carnegie course in Vancouver for about 7 months, I was also a trainer for the Dale Carnegies Sales and Administration courses (I and II).

In light of your last argument or excuse for an argument, all I can say is:
” Sure, give someone the right to voice an opinion or observation – I’m all for it. But give others who disagree the same courtesy. It’s not defaming. It’s disagreeing.” – Maxwell Edison 2003

Oz – you lost my respect on that last comment

In reply to Isn’t that what started the war?

Oz – oldman with that last comment you just lost my respect … All because someone doesn’t believe your opinions doesn’t make them “Brainwashed” – You have a very closed mind – and are unwilling to accept what others see as the truth..

That makes you Brainwashed – Others are willing and openly debate your views – we accept that is what you believe – we may not and most time don’t agree with your opinions – but to toss a blanket over everyone that believes Bush is brainwashed, is just a stoned stupid statement …

I now – consider you opinions NULL AND VOID – LACKING CREDABILITY – LACKING AN INTELLIGANCE BEHIND THE KEYBOARD – LACKING THE ABILITY TO SEE OTHER OPINIONS AND ACCEPT THEM (not believe in them but accept them) –

You lost my respect with that last comment

You lost my respect with that last comment

In reply to Oz – you lost my respect on that last comment

You need to keep up!

I’ve never respected you poiyical views! I don’t care what you’re told, or what you tell me, I’ve always disagreed with your comments in a political forum.

BRAINWASHED may have been taken out of context a bit though. What I meant is that it seems once people make a political decision, be it Repub. Demo. Liberal or whatever, you will stand by ANY and ALL comments made by ANYONE even slightly related to that party and deem all other information useless based on it’s political stance. THIS is ignorance at it’s best or what I call “BRAINWASHED”

News media NOT reporting the real progress in Iraq

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Iraq’s national electricity network – crippled by war, looting and sabotage – has surpassed the production levels of the prewar period for the first time in six months, U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer reported Thursday. “On Monday, Oct. 6, power generation hit 4,518 megawatts, exceeding the prewar average,” Bremer said at a news conference at which he trumpeted accomplishments of the U.S.-led occupation. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reported the prewar peak to be 4,500 megawatts.

Bremer reported the improved electricity situation at a news conference at which he cataloged accomplishments under the U.S. occupation, which is generally dated to April 9, when U.S. troops took command of central Baghdad.

“Most of what has happened since then, not all of it, has been good,” he said. His list included:

* More than 13,000 reconstruction projects completed.

* More than 40,000 police on duty nationwide, including 7,000 in Baghdad, compared with virtually none at the war’s end.

* A first battalion of a retrained Iraqi army graduated from basic training and on active duty.

* Twenty-two universities and 43 institutes and colleges open, along with almost all primary and secondary schools.

* An increase in deliveries of pharmaceuticals from 800 tons in May to 12,000 tons.

* Clearing of 8,000 miles of irrigation canals.

* Establishment of 170 newspapers.

“In six short months, we have accomplished a lot, but we’re also aware the progress we have made is only a beginning,” Bremer said.

He acknowledged that “much remains to be done to establish an acceptable security environment.”

Of course

In reply to News media NOT reporting the real progress in Iraq

It is EXPECTED that America rebuilds a country after attacking it, unless in a full territorial war, then it’s yours to do with as you please.

Too little too late again, sorry doesn’t hold water.

When BUSH declared war, his reasons and objectives were to kill Saddam and eliminate his regime, same as Bin Laden but you had just cause for that attack, AND DESTROY ALL THE HOARDS OF WMD that he had stockpiled for a planned attack on the US and it’s citizens.

US citizens were scared for thier lives and felt threatened, as usual, wich allowed Bush to attack Baghdad with full support that he was once again saving America from the bad people who look different than other Americans and don’t believe in his views.

Upon infiltrating Baghdad, nothing was found that he was assured was there (including Saddam). The British troops discovered the mass graves and it was plastered all over television to lok as if American troops had discovered these graves and that America was justified in taking war action.

All the pro-Bush groups were then sidestepping the WMD issue and focusing on teh whole mass graves issue, which was unknown before the war and then used as justification?!?

When that all came to light, the focus turned back to WMD, they found SOME materials but not anything substaintial. Now everyone said it was just tme until the WMD were uncovered, thus justifying the war. Nothing did turn up though.

Now, he’s claiming to be rebuilding the country single handedly and trying to obtain credit for that as he has so far uncovered NO REASON for the attack on Baghdad, nor has he captured a single target with all the American military’s HIGH INTELLIGENCE, and unstoppable war machine, BILLIONS of dollars worth of “The best trained and most effective military in the world”.

Guess everyone else is doomed if you’ve got the world’s best and can’t capture a single man.

Bin Laden, Saddam = 2 wars, billions spent to capture these men and destroy their regimes that in turn destroyed the American economy, lives of many countries soldiers lost, and many thousands of soldiers still in a foreign country and so far Bin Laden AND Saddam still alive.

I’d say 0 for 2 (just counting recent war) with America still supporting the war efforts religiously while wondering why others aren’t jumping on thier side. This is from te ‘Leader of the free world’ and the world’s ‘Super Power’/’Greatest military in the world’ Pretty bold statements for a bad F&^%-up.

Good news doesn’t sell

In reply to News media NOT reporting the real progress in Iraq

Whether or not the media has a bias on an issue only affects the slant of the story.

The reality of news is that bad news sells better than good news.

Controversy and sensationalism sell best of all.

ALL of the news organizations in the US exist for 1 reason, PROFITS.
The better the ratings, the higher the profits.

A story on how well things are going ANYWHERE causes the viewer / listener to change channels.

So the news reporting is simply the result of the ‘free exercise of commerce’.

While I do not listen to the right wing’s shill (Rush Limbaugh) I understand that most of his time is spent regaling in how bad the liberals are messing things up.

Is that really any different?

Chas

To an extent

In reply to Good news doesn’t sell

Chas, so far I’ve agreed with almost all of your points or at least accepted your opinions in this discussion.

I don’t think this holds true though:
“A story on how well things are going ANYWHERE causes the viewer / listener to change channels.”

I agree that bad news sells, in other countries (I’ll speak for Canada only) there is VERY little political agenda on the news, there is VERY little focus on death and loss. There is a HUGE focus on what America is doing, THIS is what gets people to change channels. Good news is welcome here, the front page of our paper NEVER has poilitical crap on it. It is more about locals and how they’ve been either supported by Canadians after a fire, flood or theft. We get stories about how people’s pets have saved their lives. How the new CD from a local band is being recieved etc. We are interested in people and how people are being helped and supported in times of need. We are interested in how people have managed to overthrow legalities in order to get ahead in life or beat the cops out of a ticket. We are interested in what OUR PEOPLE aer doing, not what Iraqi’s are doing. People get sick of seeing death and destruction in the news. Canadian’s are more interested in life and living not how scared we can be until our government puts a stop to it.

If the Canadian government had launched such an attack, Canada would be losing citizens by the hoard, we don’t stick around to be lied to and will not stand behind and act upon bullshit either. Don’t get me wrong, if Canada was attacked we’d all stand at arms, unless they had a good reason for attacking Canada. It would be a long camping trip and many beers followed by a big BS session before anyone moved a muscle here.

Agree and disagree

In reply to Good news doesn’t sell

You said, “Whether or not the media has a bias on an issue only affects the slant of the story.” That’s only part true. The other part is whether or not they report it at all. Silence will show a bias – perhaps a stronger bias – as well.

Yes, bad news sells.

If you don’t listen to the “right wing – shill”, and I assume you don’t read any other right wing publications either, how can you form a balanced opinion?

Are you suggesting that all of your information comes only from left wing sources?

Centrist

In reply to Agree and disagree

Max, I try to avoid either political extreme when it comes to getting information.

I also account for the slant of the resources I use.

My primary news source is my local public radio station. They provide some of the most detailed local news in the area.

I know that most college based radio stations lean a little to the left.
That is the exuberance of youth.
Most people were more liberal in college than after a few years in the work force.

I do understand that many of the commentators on NPR lean to the left.
The news reporting however, is generally near the center.

Despite claims to the contrary, my local newspaper leans to the right. They have to, they serve the most conservative area of Michigan.

In the past few months, I have witnessed a few events that made the news.
Comparing reports from different sources, I wonder if we were all at the same event!

Chas

Left or Right leaning media

In reply to Centrist

At the risk of starting another one of those “political spectrum” tangents (left versus right versus a circle versus a diamond versus whatever), I find it interesting to see how others perceive left leaning versus right leaning media.

I’ve discovered that whether or not a person considers a particular media source “left leaning” (or right leaning, for that matter), depends on that persons position on the same left-right scale. Using Ted Kennedy as an example, I consider him extremely left wing. A true socialist, on the other hand, would consider him too far to the right.

Having said that, and assuming that I’m a bit farther to the right than you (perhaps a lot farther), it would stand to reason that we would see PBS (public radio / public TV) from a different perspective. Where you might describe their commentators as “slightly” to the left, I would consider them “very far” to the left. Where you would consider their news reporting “centrist”, I would consider it “left wing”.

Moreover, the left wing bias of PBS could certainly be proven in more ways that just the “slant” put on a particular story. The choice of story – or the choice to eliminate a story – may be just as much as a factor. To illustrate my observations, I’ll point out that Public Radio has done quite a number of stories, interviews and commentary on the “fallacies” of supply side economics. I’ve actually heard quite a number of them. (And I do listen a great deal. In my area there’s one PBS station that plays great jazz.) The conclusion of all these stories is that supply side economics (always called “trickle down theories”, by the way) doesn’t work and only benefits “the rich”. But I’ve never heard proponents of supply side economic give the opposing view of why it DOES work. I’ve never heard a story on PBS about the Laffer curve, and how it illustrates that there is a point where increased tax rates actually result in decreased tax revenue. But I’ve heard plenty of stories about the merits of raising taxes in general. I’ve never heard a story of why taxation in general, for the purpose of funding social programs is an unfair concept. (Taking a dollar from one person who did earn it just to give it to another who didn’t.) I would love to hear Public Radio air stories and commentary about how the welfare state has created a dependent class, and how we need to find a way to make them independent from government support instead of dependant on it. And the way their stories continually “blame the rich” shows that they perpetuate class envy and the “victim” mentality.

On a scale of 1-10, with a 5 being “centrist”, Public Radio is about a 2 in my book. (Rush Limbaugh, by contrast, is about an 8, GWB is about a 6.5, I’m about a 7.)

As far as local newspapers go, and I’ve read a lot of different ones, the same applies. In addition, there are those “human interest” stories, designed to pull at a person’s “compassionate” heart strings, more times than not concluding in something like a lack of funding as a cause for some personal dilemma. Human interest stories are, more often than not, left leaning editorials masquerading as news – often times on the front page above the fold.

And anyone who might say that Dan Rather or Peter Jennings are “impartial” news anchors, is fooling themselves.

“This is Dan Rather reporting. In today’s news, REPUBLICAN…..pause…..Ken Starr, is AGAIN…….. The raised eyebrow, the voice inflection, the emphasis on certain words is editorializing a news story. I see it all the time, and am amazed at the ones who overlook it.

And I’m tired of hearing my Public Radio station tell me that they, “are, in part, funded by the Gay and Lesbian Foundation, seeking ways to make a better………”. Yes, Public Radio is very far left.

Addition to PBS comments

In reply to Left or Right leaning media

I’m not suggesting that Public Radio not broadcast whatever they please to whatever target audience they’re trying to reach. But I would suggest that most of Public Radio’s audience is left-leaning in their thinking, and they just select their content accordingly. (Just as Rush Limbaugh’s audience is right leaning.) I would further suggest that the “Public” in public radio be eliminated, and let the listeners pay for it themselves by either direct fund-raising efforts, which they do anyway (four times a year), or by advertising revenue, which they also do anyway. (They just call them supporters or underwriters.) Public tax dollars should not pay for it.

Public television has also grown to a point where it could probably be totally funded by private sponsorship as well. How much have those guys on Antiques Road Show benefited (financially) by the public paying for the broadcast expenses? They should either give all of it back to the government, or pay for it themselves. And Ken Burns’ became a millionaire because we paid for his shows to be aired. Pay it back, Ken. I won’t even mention all the “big bird” items that have been sold – people getting rich off of our tax dollars. I’m not suggesting that they don’t have the right, but just pay the expenses themselves.

Local Funding

In reply to Left or Right leaning media

Max, I have 3 different “local” stations that carry NPR programming.

The 2 that are locally operated have mainly conservative funding.

The 1 that is run out of The University of Michigan does have some similar funding to your local station.

While I agree that your rating of a 2 is close for the talk shows and many commentators, I feel that the “hard” news is closer to a 3.5 or 4.
The main reason I listen to NPR is for the depth of the news coverage.

Without cable, my other choices are limited.

Even if I wanted to, I would not be able to listen to Rush and company as AM radio does not come in at work.

I can’t remember the last time I watched the CBS evening news. Likely over 20 years ago.

Chas

Shocked as S&^T

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

I’m really shocked to see this discussion. I am also quite happy to see an American suggest that other Americans should POSSIBLY revaluate their political stand. I don’t think everyone will change thier views, but just to see someone from the USA even make the suggestion is quite uplifting.

I won’t to into a detailed opinion at this time as I can’t read all the posts to get an overview of opinions. I’m camping and will get a slap for using my notebook so I’ll read more tomorrow and chat later.

OM

Where are the WMD’s

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

This question is often asked in the context of the justification for the war, as if that were the only reason given by the Bush Administration. To those who watched the last State of the Union address, this is easily refuted.

Iraq is a big nation, geographically. The Iraqis were going to great lengths to hide WMD programs from UN inspectors. The following link shows just how far the Iraqis were willing to go to hide their efforts..

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=mig25-1.htm

Remove the space

In reply to Where are the WMD’s

between the L and the T in default when pasting the URL.

Political tricks

In reply to Where are the WMD’s

Yes, it may take a while to locate all of Saddam’s hidden labs.

I don’t believe that anyone doubts that Saddam wanted to have WMDs, or that he had research and development work going on.

Assuming that the administration does have some proof of the WMDs, I suspect that Carl Rove has advised Mr Bush to hold the information aside and release it when it will have the greatest impact on the 2004 election.

Not likely, and here’s why

In reply to Political tricks

“finding” the WMD would provide it’s greatest impact now, rather than later. Were WMDs found recently or now, the war’s justification would be largely unquestionable to our detractors on the world stage. This would prompt many of these nations to foot a larger portion of the reconstruction and assure our President’s re-election.

I have a theory (completely unsubstantiated) that the WMDs have been found, and are a smoking gun pointing to France, Germany, or Russia, each large suppliers to Iraq. This would be fatally damaging to the nation’s international standing.

If that is correct, then American diplomacy should use this to prompt the guilty party to loosen the purse strings and pay for reconstruction.

If the WMD’s were found just before the election, the long-term slide in popularity of GWB would not be offset by the short term gains.

Chas, you are attributing too much political maneuvering to this President. I’m not saying he’s apolitical, but in my estimation he’s a LOT less reelection driven than you believe he is.

TheChas – question? What would of you done

In reply to Political tricks

Question for TheChas – If you were the leader of the USA, and your advisors gave you the same intell concerning Saddam and Iraq what would of you done? Waited – kept inspectors looking – done nothing – permitted the terrorists continue in Iraq – waited for the UN. You critize the my leader but provide no alternative solution. As I do at work – you don’t like my solution don’t come into my office bitching unless you have a solution. It’s easy to critize – its more difficult to develop a solution … So what would of you done…

You have stated many negatives to the George Bush solution to the problem. But I have yet to read what you would of done.

If you ask – Me, I think what US did was right on the money. What we are doing to do today is also on the right track, but will take time. We can’t just walk out of that country we must help and aid the Iraqie’s establish their own from of government – establish elections – create a constitution – establish a police force – establish a military. Not based on our form of government but on what they want. We could just drop ours off and say here you go – and depart but that wouldn’t work.

Iraq is a baby country and just like a new born baby – You can’t let it fend for itself, you must help it, feed it and protect it. Iraq just starting on the road to self governing after years of dictatorship. It needs assitance being feed and protected.. So my solution was very close to the solution done.

I heard

In reply to TheChas – question? What would of you done

I heard that Canada is building Weapons of Mass Destruction in the form of REAL beer and shiping it to America as Coors light. Are we next then?

First of all, the whole notion of don’t complain unless you have a resolution was set out as a management standoff for disgruntled emlpoyees. No employee couls complain because in MOST companies, the resources to offer better solutions are not made available to staff. This is something to tell 5 year old children, NOT a way to conduct your adult life. I’ve been guilty of the same thing many times, Don’t come to me unless you’ve got a better idea than what is being done now. It’s kindergarten not reality, it’s also a cop-out for someone who doesn’t want to see change.

If you can make a decision, you can accept the repercussions and expect criticism. Let’s not treat each other like toddlers.
Baby>>”I don’t want to see THAT movie”

Mum>>’Do you have another movie you want to see?’

Baby>>”I dunno, but I don’t want to see this one”

Mum>>’well we will see this one unless you’ve got a better idea’

GROW UP, IT’S CHILDISH! Someone can express dislike without having a better idea, who started that stupid statement anyhow?

Your’re right, it IS childish

In reply to I heard

to complain without presenting an alternative. That is a common tactic of children who lack understanding of the practicalities involved in adult life.

Constant complaint without proposal of a satisfactory solution is an ineffective and ultimately self-destructive modus operandi in the arena of ideas. You have proven by your numerous ill-considered, accusatory, and petulant postings here that you have no other idea to submit here other than your dislike for all things American. This being the case, you have become demonstration of the lowest in adolescent bluster.

Your continued presence here is simply to satisfy some need for conflict or attention. I guess it makes sense, its much less difficult to be inflamatory than intelligent…..

WOW did you ever misread MY post!

In reply to Your’re right, it IS childish

Sarcasm or not, I NEVER said that it is childish to complain without an alternative. Quite the opposite. To expect an alternative to each complaint is what I see as childish. It’s an old management style that I was taught in my teens. If you don’t allow staff to understand the smaller nuances of a business, it is easy to shooy down and control ideas by just saying that the idea posted is uneducated as they don’t understand the little nuances of the business. Staff keep their mouths shut and just deal with it as written.

As with some others here, you think that you have fair analytical skills and an abuility to judge personality by a post or opinion from someone. If you had ANY analytical skills to speak of whatsoever, you’d know that this is completely ridiculous, psych.101.

If you think you can figure out people, try being successful at a sales job, good luck.

Not accepting someone’s displeasure in your actions because a relevant argument isn’t given is extremely self centered, can you not accept that something is wrong until you find a better way? How about the fact thet something IS wrong and by sharing thoughts, you will probably come to a better resolution. Get with the times, this isn’t 1958 anymore.

I didn’t misread, you misarticulated

In reply to I heard

the role you take in these threads is the role you placed the child in as demonstration.

A Freudian slip perhaps????

And then the child accuses the adult of childishness……

A Freudian slip perhaps????

In reply to I didn’t misread, you misarticulated

Like I said, this is 2003. Freudian analogies don’t fair to well these days.

I won’t even get into your other comments you obviously have your had up your arse.

Basic English 101

In reply to A Freudian slip perhaps????

A Freudian slip is a generally accepted term for a misstatement that possibly betrays an underlying opinion, or desire.

Usage of the term does not indicate acceptance of Freud’s psychiatric dogma, nor retain it’s original clinical context.

As an aside, my aren’t we getting testy? Now that your outrageous and unsubstantiated attacks on this nation, it’s members in this forum, and it’s President are being refuted wholesale by us, now you are showing your true debating acumen…. zip, zero, nada, bagel, bupkis.

Go away kid, the adults are talking here!

Get bent F*&k Nut!

In reply to A Freudian slip perhaps????

What a dork.

Oz bro – very intelligent come back

In reply to A Freudian slip perhaps????

OZ – a very intelligent and adult come back there … shows your that you are very mature and can withstand a debate … NOT …

That wild country camping trip must be getting to you

Just sttoping

In reply to A Freudian slip perhaps????

I find that some people can’t accept a difference of opinion. As a result, the poster resorted to name calling.
I’ve had enough wasting time with the idiot so I stoop to his/her level to hopefully appease the lunatic.

How is your statement miss read

In reply to I heard

Flash back Oz – “GROW UP, IT’S CHILDISH! Someone can express dislike without having a better idea, who started that stupid statement anyhow”

Look – you are someone that complains and bitchs about everything – never a good word – never an alternative free thought from your own mind – only the redic of liberals …

At the office I have people like you that all they do is bitch about this – or about that – but when asked what would they do – they haven’t a clue – that is childish to have an alternative solution to something you don’t like is being an Adult …

So how did anything get miss read – defend your point.. no name calling – again I quote you “GROW UP, IT’S CHILDISH! Someone can express dislike without having a better idea, who started that stupid statement anyhow” – How is that miss interrupted? Explain …

You seem to feel

In reply to How is your statement miss read

That if someone expresses distaste in something then they must have an alernate resolution.

This is an OLD theory and a common mistake that many older businesses still make. When an employee expresses dislike, this should indicate that other ideas MAY be available. NOT, come up with something better or it stays as is, that is a very closed minded management approach.

When someone expresses a warranted dislike in something it is an indication to others that the situation may need to be reviewed. If that person also has a better solution, then that’s great. If not, it is better to spend some time with the person to find out why or what they dislike and see if a better resolve is available by offering alternatives yourself or seeing if another mutual resolution can be found.

The whole put up or shut up theory is the most ridiculous management concept I’ve heard used since 1985!
That’s why new companies are hiring more productive employees and the stuffy old company’s full of upper management vs bottom feeder drones are failing to keep up.

Who wants to work somewhere with a bunch of useless old codgers and policies that are closed minded about looking into improvement?

There’s a erason EASports and Microsnot have more successful and productive employees, they are allowed to speak their minds and aren’t expected to offer a resolution for every complaint and are encouraged to find flaws and weaknesses in the system. It is then up to MANAGEMNT (who get paid for the job) to find a better resolution, whether from employee input or by their own alternative suggestions. EVERYTHING CAN BE FIXED! NOTHING ISN’T BROKEN. THERE’S ALWAYS A BETTER WAY.

Get with the times buddy!

Interesting

In reply to You seem to feel

I can bitch and critize about something – and have no clue of what should of been done. And tell the person that came up with the first idea and ran with it – he was wrong – and come up with something else …

Sounds like you don’t want to take the responsibility or the risk of coming up with a legit idea – a fresh thought – something original – because of fear of people like yourself critizing your idea – and you not being able to defend it ..

You will never understand my point – and I will never accept yours … so we agree to disagree.. Enjoy the wild life – and have a Miller on US

You’re so right

In reply to You seem to feel

too bad it took you a bunch of posts to understand that your way of thinking outdates mine by light years. Get some Depends and let the rest of us move on with the world.

Cheers Jim,
OM

Agree – Mine Current – your idea 1606 BC

In reply to You seem to feel

Your correct lightyears ahead – of your thinking. Thanks –

Ahh –

Alright Jim

In reply to You seem to feel

Time to let this thread die I suppose.

Your just playing the game now so the fun is fading from watching the irate defenders of the world.

Thanks for your bitching and ranting, hope to do it again soon.
OM 🙂

Coalition

In reply to TheChas – question? What would of you done

We should have either built a broader coalition, or been more open in sharing the intelligence with the UN Security Council.

At a minimum, we should have had a group of prominent Iraqi ex-patriots ready to step in as a temporary government.

I have little doubt that the intelligence data was “interpreted” to support a pre-conceived viewpoint.

Neither the President or his advisers look at the “raw” intelligence data. They review reports compiled by the intelligence staff.

After years working for corporations, it is not a stretch to believe that the mid-level security staff would ‘tailer’ their reports to support the position that the administration desires.

Yes, now that we have destroyed Iraq, we need to help rebuild the country. And finish what we started by finding Saddam or his remains.

The biggest folly of the war in Iraq is the advice given that it would be easy to set up a new government, and that the people of Iraq would embrace their liberators.

We need to be aware that our actions have made the world LESS SAFE. By destroying 1 man, we have given a new cause to hundreds of terrorists.

Chas

Different levels of faith in the UN

In reply to Coalition

Many people have absolutely no faith in the United Nations. If one considers the ulterior motives of some of the members, and especially the ones on the security council, one has even more reason to be skeptical. France, Germany and Russia, for example, were dealing with Iraq, behind the scenes, in violation of UN resolutions. Moreover, the emerging European Union, led by France and Germany, have their sites set on unseating the United States as the world’s dominant power – economically and militarily.

The United Nations can not be trusted to do the right thing. How many millions of people have been killed in Africa while the United Nations stood by and did nothing? How many years did the United Nations let Saddam violate the terms of several UN resolutions? How long did the United Nations stand by doing nothing when ethnic cleansing was going on in eastern Europe?

The United Nations is an inept and corrupt organization. They can’t be trusted.

United Nations is a Joke – waiting for a punch line

In reply to Coalition

The UN is a joke waiting for a punch line. Lets see Bush Sr got the UN to support removing Saddam and Iraq from Kwat – but Germany – France and the former USSR still purchased oil and sold to the Iraqies against UN mandates.

The UN sat by went millions were killed in South Africa – only when the US started about Eastern Europe did the UN step up to the plate. Funny you never hear any other country – stepping up when something happens…

The UN is a figure head – that many European countries would like to see as the world power – controlling every country – the NWO —

I see China as the Next world power if the US ever falls from it…

But the UN – Ha Ha Ha – I have seen a good thing come out of that group ever…

China in space

In reply to United Nations is a Joke – waiting for a punch line

I’m sure you’ve heard that China put a person in space yesterday, that they plan to do extensive studies of the moon, and that they plan to have permanent satellites orbiting the earth. (Spy satellites that could read a license plate from 500 miles up.)

I think it’s a good thing

In reply to China in space

The US space program as stagnated. Maybe a little competition will get us off our ass and prompt an initiative to go to Mars.

As for China going to the moon, I’d like to see that as well. It will rekindle interest in colonization, an important step in mankind’s destiny. I hope they don’t try to annex the moon though. America did not claim the moon, and China shouldn’t either. I think an Antarctica type of scenario should be hammered out.

I read somewhere that (fark, I think) that some guy is selling 5 acre plots on the moon. Nations are forbidden by treaty in claiming the moon, but individuals are not. As I understand it, this guy filed “legal” deeds in his state and federally.

Are the “Capricorn One” types going to spend 30 years saying that the Chinese landing didn’t happen either?

Best thing that could of happened

In reply to China in space

Look at the Space race prior to 1960’s when Sputnik went up… spooked the US into action. Well now China is rattling NASA’s cage – and maybe they will get off ground zero and get back in the race..

I for one are happy to see it – it will add quality and competiveness to the race.

I wouldn’t worry about the spy’s in the sky .. US already has hundreds looking down on them – it will be good someone will look down on us… keep them on their toes…

Also – the US already calmed the moon for All of Man Kind – IE no country can land there and clam it for their country… its already been clamed for everyone .. One small step for man – One graint step for Mankind..

They made no claim to the moon

In reply to China in space

for mankind or otherwise:

http://fodors.iexplore.com/res/explorer_armstrong.jhtml

On Sunday, July 20, the crew ate a quick breakfast, and then Armstrong and Aldrin crawled through a tunnel into the lunar module (or LM), which would carry the astronauts to the moon’s surface. Armstrong fired the engines, powering the LM toward the surface of the moon. After a close call with a crater, Armstrong set the LM down on the moon’s surface. “The Eagle has landed,” Armstrong reported. With a billion people watching on television, Armstrong and Aldrin donned their space suits, opened the hatch, and climbed down a ladder to the chalky surface, where Armstrong spoke the immortal words: “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” After a two-hour moonwalk, the two astronauts left behind a plaque that read, “Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969, A.D. We came in peace for all mankind.” Today, the 70-year-old Armstrong lives with his wife on a farm in Lebanon, Ohio.

Iknow it wrong but…

In reply to China in space

The visual I get of the Chinese space program are comical flashbacks of Godzilla movies of their HQ. The cheesy outfits everyone is wearing with the big red panic button in the middle of the command center to save the day and annoying beeping sounds with the people pointing demonstrativly in a semi controlled panic.

And yes I know it was Japanese movies, not Chinese, but tell me you dont have that visual in your head, lol.

I am actually happy for them striving for the stars and hope that this doesnt turn into a military phobia. I also hope their ship doesnt look cooler than ours. What do you suppose their freeze dried space food is?

The food part is probably easy

In reply to China in space

“I’d like 5,000 packs of Ramen noodles….TO GO”!

They probably didn’t need any on this trip, only a few orbits.

Trouble with chinese rockets. . .

In reply to China in space

. . . you send one up and half hour later you need to send up another!

prominent Iraqi ex-patriots – temporary government

In reply to Coalition

You said, “At a minimum, we should have had a group of prominent Iraqi ex-patriots ready to step in as a temporary government.”

Well, the prominent Iraqi ex-patriots that ARE (and have been) running the temporary government, issued a statment recently.

“The president of the U.S. appointed Iraqi Governing Council said Wednesday his country will ‘definitely’ hold elections in 2004. A U.S.-drafted resolution being discussed at the United Nations calls on the Governing Council to announce a timetable by Dec. 15 for elections and the drafting of a new constitution. Asked by reporters at summit of Islamic leaders when elections would be held in Iraq, Iyad Allawi replied, “Definitely, 2004.”

“That is part of the planning, that is our aspiration,” an aide to Allawi told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, referring to the 2004 schedule.”

The biggest folly? Not even close.

In reply to Coalition

You said, “The biggest folly of the war in Iraq is the advice given that it would be easy to set up a new government, and that the people of Iraq would embrace their liberators.”

Who ever said that setting up a new government would be easy? It certainly wasn’t President Bush or anyone in his administration.

April, 2003:

“Setting up a new Iraqi government likely will take more than six months once coalition forces take full control of the country, a Bush administration official said Sunday.

“Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said the interim government the United States will run with coalition partners and Iraqi opposition leaders is designed to be a bridge to whatever government the Iraqi people choose and is not designed to dictate the country’s future leadership.”

“The goal is not to install some particular group as the new leaders of Iraq. That absolutely contradicts the whole notion of democracy,” Wolfowitz said as focused attention on postwar Iraq while making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows.

As for a timetable, Wolfowitz note it took six months for a government to form in northern Iraq after the first Gulf War.

“This is a more complicated situation,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” “It probably will take more time than that.”

“Wolfowitz said the U.S.-led coalition will spearhead the effort to set up an interim government, but he stressed the Bush administration is eager to see Iraqis rule themselves.”

“I think the right goal is to move as quickly as we can … to a government that is if I could paraphrase Abraham Lincoln of the Iraqis, by the Iraqis, for the Iraqis,” Wolfowitz said. “Not to make them a colonial administration or a U.N. administration, or run in any way by foreigners.”

Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., echoed that sentiment on ABC’s “This Week.”

“We learned a lot in the Balkan situation, where the U.N. suddenly moved in,” he said. “And here we are 12 years later, still struggling to try and put those pieces back together. We’ve learned from those experiences, and we’re not going to repeat them in the aftermath of this conflict.”

Wolfowitz and Warner agreed that any interim Iraqi government should be made up of both Iraqis who left the country because of Saddam Hussein and those who stayed and suffered under his regime.

“We’re trying to put together a meld of the two to perform a transition government until the Iraqi people, exercising the fundamentals of democracy, can elect their own government,” Warner said.

Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said the transition to a new government must be handled delicately.

“If it looks like it’s imposed by us, if it looks like we sat down, hand-picked the leaders, put them in place, it will not have any legitimacy with the Iraqi people,” he said.

Biden also said the U.S.-led coalition should stay in Iraq until it’s clear the basic needs of the Iraqis for water, food and medicine can be met.

———-

So the Bush administration didn’t say it would be easy, contrastly, they said, “This is a more complicated situation”.

And it sounds as though their predicted time-table of setting up the temporary government in 6 months is on track, with the permanent elected government n place by the end of 2004.

Much faster than Japan and Germany after WWII.

Liberated Iraqis

In reply to Coalition

A report written by a reserve Judge Advocate General officer, LTC Mike Sawyers, who was not at all pleased about being in Iraq on active duty trying to help a group of people who were trying to kill Americans. Mike provided an eyewitness account following the deaths of Sadaam’s sons that America should have the opportunity to read:

?You may read many things about the recent deaths of Sadaam’s two sons here in Iraq. Let me tell you, as an eyewitness, what occurred here in Baghdad. About 2130 hours (9:30 p.m. for you civilians) last night, about six of us were huddled around a DVD player watching a movie. Sustained, small arms gunfire was heard outside. We all put on our flak vests and helmets, grabbed our weapons, and headed outside. What we saw was amazing.

?The entire down town Baghdad area skies was full of red and yellow tracer gun fire. It looked like the 4th of July celebration we had all missed a few weeks ago. The use of weapons in this manner, for the Iraqis, is an expression of celebration. The level of this celebration was obviously intense for they had just heard the news that the two sons were dead and their reign of terror was over, for good. The celebration lasted well into the night.

?As mayor of this installation near the Baghdad International Airport, I employee about 18 local nationals to work on our electricity, plumbing and to do manual labor. This morning, they were obviously tired from no sleep, but very happy, they had been celebrating all night. They offered their supervisors extra locally made bread and several kinds of fruit, their way of saying thank you from them and their families.

?In one short day, the atmosphere and attitude of those locals around us has changed, for the positive. For those of you or your colleagues who still question why we are here, they should have the opportunity, like I have, to look into the eyes of a people who were truly repressed and now sense that their liberation is really at hand. In the last war, the U.S. let them down by not ousting the dictator.

?In this war, they did not trust us because their tormenters were still at large and they were not sure that the military would close the deal. Yesterday, the military proved that this liberation is for real.

?If you are asked why we are still here, yesterday’s action is the reason. We are still here because the mission that we started is not over, but it will be soon. If you think our presence here is not warranted, you have the misfortune of not being able to see the faces of a liberated people.

?I have complained about our presence here. I am going to stop doing that now because last night gave me renewed hope that our actions are having a tangible affect on the lives the Iraqi people. I am not naive enough to believe that the violence is over and that the resistance is dead. Instead, every American fighting in this country has seen with their own eyes the fruits of their sacrifice. And for that, I am proud to be here.

I agree with Jim and Road Dog

In reply to Political tricks

Not much more to be said. President Bush is letting his political future take a back seat to doing, what he believes, is the right thing. He’s the most honest and honorable person to hold that office since……..Truman. (Reagan and Eisenhower not to be overlooked.)

Great minds

In reply to I agree with Jim and Road Dog

Great minds think alike.

Stupid ones seldom differ.

OK, So yours seldom differs from whos?

In reply to Great minds

Once again, your own pithy but misapplied cliche is again used to demonstrate your preadolescent worldview.

Obviously, your primary argument is that anyone who disagrees with you is either uninformed or a jingoistic follower of President Bush. You dismiss alternate views by dismissing the source as somehow less valid in origin.

You opine often and arrogantly on any and all topics, but your simplistic and fragile arguments fold under serious scrutiny. Your hubris is NOT justified.

You are not the towering intellect that you envision yourself to be. If your communications skills are as substandard at work as they are here, then I can certainly understand your frustration from your complaints being ignored. I suspect that your immature approach is just as tedious there as here.

Were it not likely to result in your increased presence here, I would advise you to ask your employer to telecommute, for the sake of your coworkers.

It’s really too bad

In reply to OK, So yours seldom differs from whos?

That when you atempt to sound eloquent and educated you include the most ridiculous statements and analogies. I’m sure your ability to understand human nature is as hideous an embarrassment to your mother as it is to all those who know you.

You are so informed that you think I work in an office, I don’t get my opinions heard and that I am the only one who doesn’t agree with you so therefore I must be just complaining.

First off: I do work from my home in Port Hardy and consult/contract to a few companies and end users.

Secondly: I don’t have to have my opinions heard, I just make decisions that have successfully increased the efficiency and progress of the company’s that I represent, I have the growth stats to prove it, that’s why I get hired and am in demand if I leave a company.

Thirdly: Unless I agree with everything you say, I am complaining without cause. Wouldn’t the opposite just make me a typical conformist that doesn’t wish to rock the boat?

So well done, you’re 0 for 3. NOW THAT’s Foresight!!

I also develop and manage bands from Western North America and promote them into European markets so they can get a fair shake at making some money. If I’m mixing a track and the guitarist says he doesn’t like it, I don’t expect him to have an alternative or tell him to shut up. If someone doesn’t like something, I offer my OWN alternatives and if they like one, it works, if not, by offering other suggestions I often find it sparks ideas for both myself and the musician I’m working with.
I am still young enough to understand that the world has changed and all the old timer couch politicians are rarely correct anymore, Eisenhower is dead, get over it.

So, if I’m the one who is just bitching for something to do, why don’t you give me a few good reasons that I should respect Bush?

Can you tell me why I should respect a race who looks down their nose at others?

Can you tell me why I would respect opinions from those who feel they are right, will never and could never be wrong and if you disagree, you’re just a whiner?

Can you tell me why I should listen to YOUR opinion and not someone else’s who I trust and see eye to eye with?

Probably not, but you can take all the questions out of context and rant about something completely different as you so often do. Better still why don’t you just continue to describe my personality and work habits, you seem to do that well and would probably impress others with your abilities.

You see, the difference between you and I is greater than you think. Your life is built on speculation and expectations. I prefer facts and offered input.

Your most likely the type of person that becomes a neurotic nightmare by constantly mulling over past facts and data instead of looking forward. If you can’t admit BUSH is completely F&^%$D in the head, I don’t care, you’re American and it is expected. If you can’t deal with others feeling differently than you, either wake up and smell the bacon or justs go back to bed.

Maybe you guys can help.

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

I’d read somewhere, and for the life of me I can’t recall where, that back in the 70’s or so the U.S. administration was responsible for putting the Baath Party in power in the first place.

The previous ruler was ousted and U.S. political backing, strong-arming, whatever… was responsible for putting him in power. They, at one point, had really high hopes for Saddam.

If this is true, wouldn’t it then be OUR responsibility to get Iraq back to square one? Political preferences aside, it just seems like the right thing to do.

I can almost hear it being stated from a six year olds point of view… “you put him there!!! YOU get him out!!”

I’m not commenting on the military/political action or aftermath, just wondering if, by laws of nature, it wasn’t something we HAD to do.

I seen something about that on the TLC/Discovery channels

In reply to Maybe you guys can help.

You are right – but I can’t remember why or when that was done either. But he was at one time the fair hair child of the US for that position.

If I recall it was either under the ending of the Carter Administration during the Iran problem – or under early Reagan that we aid him getting elected.

Once again – failed foriegn policy .. A free people can not predict what other people want – their culture and morales are different than ours. Just like we can not dictate a form of government for Iraq – only support what the Iraq’s want …

Noam Chomsky

In reply to Maybe you guys can help.

We were asked to read a book in my first year of college by Noam Chomsky. It detailed the Iran Contra ordeal, the Iran/Iraq war, Cuba and the cold war. I may check that out again when I get home. I have a feeling that’s where I read the information, but it was so long ago I’ve fogotten.

A few months ago there was a PBS (public broadcasting) documentary on Al Jazeera… I’m starting to worry that I may be mixing up my information. =)

Noam Chomsky

In reply to Noam Chomsky

I remember the start of the Vietnam War. The NVN government’s motive was quite clear. After the US got involfed in the war, two contradictory stories were invented to justify it, neither coinciding with the original government statement, and neither conforming to historical truth. Chomsky was one of the spreaders of those stories. Do not trust him.

not a problem there…

In reply to Noam Chomsky

I don’t trust anyone farther than I can throw them.

On the other hand, the only way to find out what is really going on with any government is to gain as much knowlege from as many sources as possible and weed out what you think is the b.s.

sources of information

In reply to not a problem there…

It’s impossible to do this for all things, but we should try to get as close as we can to the reality. I like to look at Britannica Year-Books, often written before opinions become fashionable – that’s how you can determine that Chomsky is lying about the Vietnam War. Sometimes one can get closer than that; for instance, the US National Archives have a 3rd carbon of Adolf Eichmann’s 1937 Palestine trip report, taken from RSHA offices after the war, and copies are available for $20 or so; from this I know that the story about the trip being to visit the Mufti is just plain false. For another instance, I recently obtained from the UK Public Records Office a photocopy of the report of the commission of enquiry into the 1920 Jerusalem Easter riots, a report that was kept secret till 1956. But this kind of research takes time and effort.

Iraq – the aftermath – as defined by whom

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Who do you believe and why?

———-

Do you believe the majority of Democrats?

or

Do you believe the majority of Republicans?

———-

Do you believe ABC, CBS, and NBC?

or

Do you believe Fox News?

———-

Do you believe Walter Cronkite?

or

Do you believe William Safire?

———-

Do you believe the New York Times?

or

Do you believe the Washington Times?

———-

Do you believe George W. Bush?

or

Do you believe Howard Dean (or other Democrat Presidential candidates)?

———-

Do you believe General Colin Powell?

or

Do you believe General Wesley Clark?

———-

Do you believe Dan Rather?

or

Do you believe Tony Snow?

———-

Unless you are privy to ALL intelligence information AND have been to, and spent a lot of time in Iraq, both before and after Saddam, AND you have ALL the information pertaining to EVERYTHING relating to Iraq…..the bottom line is that you (and I) don’t know squat about any of this – except for what we hear from any number of sources, all of which, when taken in full context and in its entirety, will ALL contradict each other.

So who do you believe and why?

Is it necessary to?

In reply to Iraq – the aftermath – as defined by whom

Is it really necessary to pick a single opinion or those of like minded individuals and base all of your further beliefs on those persons? I think that best outline what I describe as brainwashing. ‘He said it and I belive in him, so it must be so’

How about looking at ALL available information, listening to the angry as well as happy Iraqi’s on enws erports. Watching several diferent channels with different political agles. Learning what people on BOTH sides think and THEN fomulating your opinion based on a collaboration of information. Not just saying, “I’m a republican, I will support Bush and defame all those who oppose.” ‘Yes, master’

That’s the problem with taking sides, when you’re found out to be worng on or the minority side, it’s hard to save face and credibility.

Actually Oz

In reply to Is it necessary to?

I’m probably one of the few (if not the only) regular participant of these threads who does read BOTH sides – or ALL sides – of most arguments.

I read The Nation magazine (liberal), and I read the National Review (conservative). I listen to liberal commentators, and I listen to conservative commentators. I read the New York Times (liberal), and I read the Washington Times (conservative). I listen to Democrats’ views, and I listen to Republicans’ views. (And Libertarians and Socialists as well.) I read and study a very wide range of subjects, and I’m probably one of the most open minded “regulars” on these threads. But being “open minded” doesn’t mean to yield to faulty arguments or comprimise my principles and values.

So who are you to suggest that I haven’t, read, heard, or considered all sides before forming my opinion?

And you haven’t read ANY of these – yet you scream the loudest about others being “misinformed”. You’ve even admitted to being one of the most uninformed people around.

(Do you really believe the garbage you spew?)

Maxwell …

In reply to Actually Oz

“So who are you to suggest that I haven’t, read, heard, or considered all sides before forming my opinion?”
I don’t remember saying that YOU don’tresearch your information. I think you probably do, except with a biased opinion before and during reading the media you mention. I believe YOU DO read a Liberal Magazine, probably while thinking “Liberal B.S.” in the back of your head because it’s not written by the almighty BUSH and his fans. BUT this could also be wrong, you may actually start to read with an open mind but soon will deny it’s truth as it doesn’t coincide with YOUR beliefs, this of course is completely normal for anyone with any political views.

“And you haven’t read ANY of these – yet you scream the loudest about others being “misinformed”. You’ve even admitted to being one of the most uninformed people around.”

Let’s back up a bit.

Saying I don’t give a flying F*&k about Canada’s politics or that Bush is either a Republican or Democrat doesn’t mean that I don’t read, hear and watch the crap that spews from my TV every night.

I don’t care WHAT party Bush is a member of, I will never bote in America and therefore who YOU pick to lead your country is up to you. When YOUR CHOSEN (or so you say he was actually elected) leader starts a war that involves the country I live in and then involves our citizens, it is my completely acceptable to voice my dislike toward your LEADER. If I don’t believe in your president, that’s fine. If everyone I speak to, overhear and listen to on my TV dislikes your president it is also my right to voice my opinion.
When your President quietly sits in his oval office and gets a hummer from the staff, that’s fine, as long as it doesn’t involve me, the country in which I live or those who I love.

In the case of THIS war, I disagreed with the motives and intentions from the start. TO this I’ve been told that there WERE WMD, then thst Saddam had mass graves (yet this was not your reason for the war so it’s not justification), that Canadians don’t support the USA and that the French are backstabbing you. I’ve learned about many wars unrelated to this one, as they are used as a means to justify Bush’s actions.
I’ve learned that Americans feel that they are a superior people (although America is just a hodgepodge of every other race), that America has the best military, that America saved Europes ass in WWII and I even remember someone saying that the Ameican police force is the world’s best.

Now, you wonder why I feel (as most of the world does)that Americans are self-serviant, arrogant and delusional? Climb over the fence and see reality for yourself.

Note, you may not agree with the truth, you may not want to see it or you may warp it to suit your needs but the truth is, I’m not alone on this one, Bush is as evil as Saddam in many eyes, too bad your’s will be closed come the next erection.

To the Wizard of OZzzzz

In reply to Actually Oz

You bro – you always tell me Backup – and reread my post – me thinks you need to reread your own..

From your post – “How about looking at ALL available information, listening to the angry as well as happy Iraqi’s on enws erports. Watching several diferent channels with different political agles. Learning what people on BOTH sides think and THEN fomulating your opinion based on a collaboration of information. Not just saying, “I’m a republican, I will support Bush and defame all those who oppose.” ‘Yes, master’ ”

It reads to me that you called Max – what he thinks you called him .. and he has rightfully defended himself – you then say “I never said that” – “You miss read my post” – “Wasn’t Me” –

Oh well bro – Enjoy your camping vacation – watch out for the “Loins and Tigers and Bears – Oh my”

Got to do better than that

In reply to To the Wizard of OZzzzz

Instead of your cryptic beating around the bush posts, why don’t you be a little more specific.

I definitely will not take the time to read this discussion all over again. I will read a post carefully before replying, maybe you could just come out of your hiding spot and tell me what you’re talking about.

VIOLATION OF UN RESOLUTIONS

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Everyone seems to miss the point that Sadam agreed to terms after the first Gulf War in which failure to comply with the terms of his SURRENDER would result in military action against him.

After innumerable United Nations Resolutions that were ignored Sadam was laughing at the spineless excuse of World Government called the United Nations. President Bush did not need any other excuse to go into Iraq than that.

However, many of the mindless World citizens who oppose violence and war but for some strange reason accepted Sadam’s inhumane terror and efforts to cause anarchy as ‘OK’ will never be satisfied with the United States taking the high road. The United States did right.

Cronkites remarks are a bit myoptic. “He is setting an example for every nation in the world, if you don’t like what’s going on with your neighbor it’s perfectly all right to go to war with them,” It seems to me Sadam was already doing that.

The United States of America is a Liberator of oppressed people. We stand tall and carry the flame for freedom. Our form of Government has been here for over 200 years because it IS just.

When I see a Unites States soldier telling an Iraqi national its okay to come out or a US soldier helping an despondent Iraqi citizen and I see the American flag on his shoulder I am proud of who we are and what we do.

Don’t waste our time…

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

I appreciate everyone’s thoughts and feelings on the issues voiced in this thread. But get a clue and voice your opinions in a more appropriate forum.

This is certainly not the place and all of these mutterings, however noble, are inappropriate.

Who’s time?

In reply to Don’t waste our time…

Apparently members of this forum feel that this thread and similar threads are both valid and important. The fact that political and world event discussions often occupy the top three hot topics indicates that there is a market for this type of thing.

Most of us jump in on the tech threads as suits us. So…. What’s your beef?

Tech Republic points out these threads often in their weekly summary of events, indicating knowledge and acceptance of them.

Personally, the varied subject matter that crosses the screen here is one of the endearing and enjoyable facets of TR.

If you’re tired of these discussions, hit the tech threads and get them onto the top 3. If they merit opinions, they will go nuts just like the Iraq topics.

Just please don’t open the degree vs certification topic again… ARRRRGGGGHHH!

Burbs….

In reply to Don’t waste our time…

It’s only a waste of time if you choose to stop and read. Choose being the operative.

Why

In reply to Don’t waste our time…

Why is this not the place for all these “mutterings”?

(But I think they could be, more accurately, called rants and/or speeches, or sometimes, even civil discourse.)

OPEN THOUGHT?

In reply to Don’t waste our time…

I am glad to see that these techies have other interest than bits and bytes. We can bring this around to a technical discussion though. The Iraqi economy needs to reach markets. Perhaps digital profit models could open markets to the Iraqi’s. How could oil, services, and other goods from Iraq reach global markets? What needs to be done to increase technical abilities within Iraq?

Basic Education….

In reply to OPEN THOUGHT?

How about that….to boys and girls (yeah even for them).

Providing Technical abilities to Iraqis should’nt be World’s top concern. Basic facilities like Water, Health Services, Education are far more important.

Iraq was considered to be one of the most secular countries in that region. So establishing some kind of democracy that fits their culture and people.

I will be glad if we can open up their minds and get the frogs out of the well. Say, we give them networks and computers…the bad guys might put them to sinister use.

As a techie…I don’t think Technology is not important to them at this juncture.

INFRASTRUCTURE RESTORATION

In reply to Basic Education….

Restoring thier infrastructure also includes the telecommunications pathways. Part of any democracy is the self-worth and dignity. These are best derived through having a job. Jobs are possible through a strong economy. A strong economy builds the infrastructure.

Right now the United States is pumping wads of cash into Iraq. At some point there needs to be a shift from US support to free enterprise. The sooner the better. The two key elements to a getting there is the logistics and communication networks.

So with that thought how can the digital profit model and information technology accelerate Iraq’s recovery from the Sadam blight?

Degree of….

In reply to INFRASTRUCTURE RESTORATION

…technical sophistication is where I think we both disagree.
I agree with you on jobs, diginity, economy and infrastructure.
But I don’t agree that communication networks play an important role. Communication is important. Radio, Newspapers, Magazines, Road-side or street corner social-awareness-plays, TV, pamphlets/brochures, political-social meetings etcetra can play a good role. But we don’t have to inundate them with a whole lot of technical stuff.
The basic stuff like generation, storage and distribution of electricty is essential. So if we have to build the roads, then the bare minimum technical stuff should be used. If roads can be laid overnight in the US…it does not have to be done there in the similar way. Roads with manual labor can be laid (how much ever the delay). It generates jobs…keeps the people engaged and gives them the dignity.
Similary we don’t need high-speed internet or internet banking or pay-online stuff. Lets get the basic banking to work….

I think you know what I mean now. As I said…we differ only in the degree of technical sophistication…

TECHNICAL SOPHISTICATION?

In reply to INFRASTRUCTURE RESTORATION

Technical sophistication? It seems that there is some confusion on consumer products and services with telecommunications infrastructure.

The backbone of any economy is logistics and communications. Then a fabric of financial strength pulls these together into a living and breathing economy. While energy, water, and medical services are important in the hierarchy of needs they do little good when no one can pay for them.

There are three types of economies. They are Local, National, and International. Telecommunications would allow banks to move money around at the international and national level so that at the local level people can borrow money then pay the interest that creates money. This created money in turn is then loaned out expanding the Iraqi economy and would be used to rebuild Iraq!

However, Islam forbids the use of credit so this would be a difficult barrier to overcome even though Iraq is considered to be secular. Interest could be viewed as an evil of Western influence. Especially since there is a belief that the United States is the New Babylon in many peoples eyes. Specific references in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation in the Judeo/Christian Bible suggest this to be the case.

Don’t agree..

In reply to TECHNICAL SOPHISTICATION?

with you..on this one 🙂

Was USA not a great country even before the modern technological marvels? How is Iraq going to be different? I know the problem that we are going to face becos of the culture and the religion. But humans are humans everywhere. If we give them an opportunity to dig and build roads, wells (for water), help them in their agriculture
etcetra…

Regarding who is going to pay for the services you mentioned…Right now US has been doing so. So use that money to create more jobs and not buy tonnes of technological stuff.

Hard currency notes always works…it does not have to be credit cards or credit lines..Right now getting their local economy is far more important than integrating their local economy with the international ones….

Infrastructure leapfrogging

In reply to Don’t agree..

Basic infrastructure like water, sewage, power and roads require technology that hasn’t changed too much in the last century or so. They tend to be things that have lots of linear connections and therefore require require lots of work to put them in place.

They also require distribution nodes and special processing areas. (i.e. switching yards, power plants, sewage treatment plants, etc.) These are relatively mature technologies and require work to put them into place.

Telecommunications, on the other hand, could leapfrog dated technology and go wireless, saving a lot of money by avoiding a lot of the phone lines that would otherwise have to be set up. Wireless networks and GPS enabled cell phones would make it possible to make that leap and avoid installing obsolete technology that can be disabled with a backhoe or wire cutters.

It would, of course, introduce other vulnerabilities. But defending a set of cell phone towers and wireless hubs would be easier than defending a network of phone lines.

Do they need phones now…

In reply to Don’t agree..

I don’t know the exact state of Iraq…but do they need phones and cell phones now?

If you are talking about terrorism….then the terrorists can attack even the seweage treatment plants….electric transformers etcetra.

ADVANCING SOCIETY

In reply to Don’t agree..

The concept of technologically leap frogging is on the right track. Chile has the most advanced GSM cellular network in the World. The kind of benefits they are enjoying for example include zipping your debit or credit card in a taxi cab. At the end of the day the driver stops at an ATM and withdraws his earnings for the day or can do his banking. Interest could be acrued on his balance giving him even more money to spend. Meanwhile the bank is loaning the money out, creating more money with the interest, and expanding the Iraqi economy. The link with International financial markets opens Iraq to world participation and growth.

Building roads, water plants, electric services will keep the local thugs busy and thier mind off of terrorist influences. Iraq has a group of people who are not manual labor what are they to do to be productive?

One man’s food is the other man’s poision….

In reply to Don’t agree..

Well, I don’t know the state of affairs in Chile. Well I learnt something today. But just becos it works in Chile does not mean it will work in Iraq. But as a software developer it is nice to read about the technological advances in Chile. Kinda cool 🙂

For the people who are not inclined towards manual labor, let them join the police, army, NGOs, Government, Politics, School, Colleges, Environment, Oil…..Whatever there exists…

Ok, when you talk about technology in Iraq. What exactly are you talking? Well so late in the discussion 🙂 For schools that don;t have a concrete roof slab, that might be a technological advancement.

You talked about international banking. To an extent it might work. But we still would have to pay the workers and others hard currency. I don’t think they have many credit card systems in place. Maybe got to pay them in terms of Food, clothing,……ancient trading system :-)))))

Among some of the first things we want there is Peace and public support to democracy. Remember US dropped leaflets from the air. Then we needed the technology (aircrafts), now that we have a ‘earthly’ presence there, we could continue to do the PR work….

I don;t mind the Iraqis joining in a Linux vs Microsoft debate. They are free to join the world. But let us not thrust technology (atleast the ones not needed now) down their throats. I am sure their society will evolve and find the need for the technology. Lets be patient 🙂

Mr OnBliss…

In reply to TECHNICAL SOPHISTICATION?

By technology leap frogging they can skip generational evolutions such as laying cables by going to a cellular / wireless services much more quickly and cost effectively.

I suppose a classroom could be setup anywhere there is a ‘roof’ and satellite uplinks or LMDS wireless services could deliver the full benefit of an educational system to the young ones who right now are running around in the streets and being influenced by Radical Islamics. These young Iraqis do not lay roads or cable or build things.

What is need in this case is to begin preparing the people for democracy versus the misguided teachings of becoming a homocide bomber or allegiance to the Ghost of Sadam.

Technology has the potential accelerate their recovery if leveraged properly just as technology in business if leverage properly can give the business a competitive advantage.

It is kind of funny. Some 50 years ago a man name Dr Demmings went to Japan to teach them how to recover from the war. Mainly because no one in the United States would listen to him. The Japanese listened and learned from his concepts and propelled themselves forward. Most people were focused at that time on reconstruction efforts and not educating.

It can happen at a much quicker pace today than 50 years ago because of the technology.

But once again cultural issues of Islam may interfere with technology. The idea of ‘capturing ones soul’ in an online collaborative meeting or the fact that Islam is against interest and credit is another issue. These are concerns that must be addressed in the Islamic community and American Islamics should stand up and become involved.

Am glad…

In reply to Mr OnBliss…

that we are having such a conversation. but looks like you are getting little (or is it more) frusturated at me. Mr.OnBliss, eh :-)))))

I agree with you 100% when you say education is important.
Those bunch of kids who are running on the street are not going to dig the wells or build the roads…but they can be put into a school that does not brainwash them.

They can maybe just use a black board with some white chalks under the tree. They need not have the swinging/sliding boards or the white board that can print what is on it.

Give them more radios and TVs. Radio reaches far more people. You talked about lack of education. That is exactly what I am saying too…let us not concentrate on technology (alone)…but in getting those people up on their feet and allowing them to think for themselves….

Technology that can reach the masses is welcome. Others can wait for a bit..like setting up ISPs and Internet Kiosks. As these benefits a few. These are helpful at the college level. The people / culture need to be mature to use the technology.

NOT FRUSTRATED

In reply to Mr OnBliss…

Mr Onbliss was to draw attention that my response was on another posting level.

An issue is the brainwashing that has been going on in the Radical Islamic circles. That can be best managed through technology. A blackboard under a tree lends itself to creative teaching. However, a projection or downlink can be monitored more easily and mainstream knowledge can be imparted upon the young Iraqi’s.

Elaborate please…

In reply to Mr OnBliss…

Thanks…to note that it is not frusturation. I had a fleeting thought that it might be the same reason that you mentioned. Just double-checked :-))

>>However, a projection or downlink can be monitored more easily and mainstream knowledge can be imparted upon the young Iraqi’s.

Please elaborate on this when you get the chance.

Mr.Miami…

In reply to Mr OnBliss…

Apart from attracting attention to a fellow member, looks like you reserve the Mr. to people you disagree with, right :-))

Mr. BC, Mr.Brisbane examples that I saw :-))

Is it like trying to be civil/nice or look down on some one else when the tought is that they are talking to a stupid fool :-))

It is amusing…

INFORMATION OPERATIONS

In reply to Mr OnBliss…

The idea of a centralize point to manage the knowledge being imparted can control and inject necessary information to steer subversive ideas or attempts to brainwash to more docile thought processes. It would remove local influences that would require intensive monitoring to ensure proper training.

Mainstream knowledge such as history, mathematics, science, and even exposure to other faith based systems could be presented. So that independent thinkers are developed. Once this occurs it would be difficult to mislead the people.

In 650 to 662 AD Muhammad attempted to establish Islam in a literate town and the people rejected him. He then went to a town where the people were illiterate and forced the people to Islam.

This pattern has persisted even to today. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, or the Kashmire Region. The people were kept ignorant. Women are not educated and boys are removed from schools early. In Israel the Arabs educate the boys at a young age to die for Allah. They tell them that they will get a 1000 virgins. These suicide bombers wrap the genitals to protect them after they blow themselves up. It is a sick thing they are doing to thier own.

I think we could sagely use technology to solve many issues quickly and responsively.

Thanks and…

In reply to Mr OnBliss…

…you said
>>The idea of a centralize point to manage the knowledge being imparted can control and inject necessary information to steer subversive ideas or attempts to brainwash to more docile thought processes. It would remove local influences that would require intensive monitoring to ensure proper training.

To me even that looks like Brainwashing, the only difference is that it is we who are doing that..

But I agree on your other paragraphs. Education is hugely important.

The problems in Kashmir is just not religion. It is the Pakistan government that is playing the drama there. US has been shielding that country for a long time now.

A central dispute

In reply to Mr OnBliss…

We cannot make efforts to control information or we risk being as repressive as the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

We must seek to win hearts and minds, not control hearts and minds.

The core goal of the creation of educational infrastructure should be to present a solid, positive, and enriching ALTERNATIVE to radical Islam.

Were we successful at creating the curriculum and all of the teachers in the country, we do not and will not control the Mosques. They will continue with indoctrination of hate.

We must articulate individual prosperity vs faith based poverty, freedom vs repression, and the fallacy of enforced virtue.

Read this:
“America, the freest nation on earth, is also the most virtuous nation on earth”

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-dsouza070203.asp

This guy hits the nail on the head…

There is more to it than that

In reply to TECHNICAL SOPHISTICATION?

Think about it. Right now the Iraqi economy is based on barter, gold, and American greenbacks. The Saddam dollar is toilet paper unless the old currency is exchanged into the new Iraqi currency.

This needs to be ironed out before the period of total dependency is over, unless the country decides that the American dollar is the currency of the realm.

The water, schools, and oil infrastructure are the priority right now, the lights are just about all back on. Once the oil flows, many of the rebuilding programs will be financed from within.

Even if most of the workforce starts off as a government employee as part of the rebuilding, they will be better off than under Saddam. They should eventually spin off the economy into their private sector once the infrastructure will support it.

A FLEDGLING DEMOCRACY

In reply to There is more to it than that

Granted they need to get some basics completed and the new Iraqi council will be doing that.

However, this is the ‘Tech Republic’ forum and somehow we have to bring it back to technology. I guarantee you that there are think tanks in DC working on this. I would not be surprised if some of them belong to techrepublic and are seeking ideas from techies.

To TheBurbs –

In reply to Don’t waste our time…

OK – waste of who’s time – If your not interested in the thread don’t open it – don’t read it –

I for one enjoy this open “WORLD WIDE” debate – everyone is educated to other view other than the View from say Americans – you get world views – you get desenting views – you get some great debates –

So Who’s time is being Wasted –

If you feel time is being wasted – Don’t open the thread – don’t read it – don’t post to it – don’t waste your time … Mine is not wasted with these type threads –

And thank you for your opinion …

Bottom line Burby

In reply to Don’t waste our time…

Well the reality is this.

This forum, however international, is mainly dominated by Americans. They have a larger population than most, therefore you will see more Americans posting here.

Americans are infatuated with politics from birth and everyone is a Presidential wannabe or will stand by the presidents every moev and decision.

NO matter WHAT subject is started in these forums, politics will almost certainly be brought into the discussion somewhere, whether legality, infringement of Constitutional rights, what the OTHER countries are doing etc.

Get used to it.

IF ya can’t beat ’em, join ’em or find another forum.

Other sides of life

In reply to Don’t waste our time…

I would say that most of the people contributing to this thread don’t consider it to be a waste of time. There are other sides to life, other than IT technical problems.

Trying to keep it separated would be very difficult. As OzMedia pointed out, Americans are infatuated with politics.

Of course that doesn’t mean that people from other countries don’t have a similar problem.

Infatuated with politics

In reply to Other sides of life

That’s quite the dichotomy, Oz has also oft accused Americans of following our President blindly. If we are so infatuated by politics, then doesn’t that confirm there is a lot of independent thought going on?

We would not be so infatuated were there blind following shaping our opinions. Lively debate goes on everywhere, not just in these forums…. Perhaps that is why we Americans don’t accept our opinions being dismissed as uninformed or centrally controlled.

It is particularly offensive when presented by those who repeatedly pose a singleminded (anti Bush) viewpoint and cannot even begin to defend it factually or rationally.

My points

In reply to Infatuated with politics

Are simply observations. Observations create knowledge, opinions, questions and answers.

“It is particularly offensive when presented by those who repeatedly pose a singleminded (anti Bush) viewpoint and cannot even begin to defend it factually or rationally.”

Although I haven’t really been on the Presidential bandwagon with other US Presidents, this is the first where I’ve wanted to express my disbelief and distrust of his actions, maybe he should just act WITHIN America then everyone else won’t have a negative opinion of him.

“If we are so infatuated by politics, then doesn’t that confirm there is a lot of independent thought going on?”

NOT AT ALL. By Infatuated I mean that anything goes and anything is followed and believed in just because of who he is. I don’t know but I assume that political dicussions surround your water cooler oh so often. Having a unique opinion would banish you from the group, yet sharing like opinions would be accepted. This also shows the INTEREST in politics that American’s share and not neccessarily education.

“It is particularly offensive when presented by those who repeatedly pose a singleminded …”

If your offended by personal opinions you’re in the wrong discussion.

Car coming…!

Your inconsistancy is showing

In reply to My points

So… You can acknowledge (assumed without solid knowledge) that debate occurs around the water cooler, but then you assume (without solid knowledge) that those dissenting would result in banishment. Then you use this to justify an assertion that this is not educational! You have created a condition without factual basis to justify a preconceived notion.

That is why you get jumped on so heavily here. Your ability to make leaps in judgement that do not make sense only underscores the oft made observation that you twist reality to fit your opinions, rather than the reverse.

Let me ask you a direct question. Upon what do you base your assertion that Americans follow this President blindly? This is key. You have stated this ad nauseum. I have yet to see you defend this in spite it being such a central part of your opinion of your American counterparts here.

When President Bush was elected (not selected), many pundits and others made great fuss about his mangling of the english language and his folksy presentation style. He certainly does not have a hitleresque ability to move mobs via powerful oratory.

What then is the root of this power that he has to foment this blind submission to his will?

What is offensive is not that your opinion differs from mine, it is the motives that you falsely attribute to this nation and President. When you assert that your detractors here are followers, you dismiss alternative opinions as less valid.

Your “follower” assumption is flawed, so also is your condescension based upon it.

Also, If you are so tired of President Bush and American news stories dominating Canadian news, then why do you spend so many hours here posting on these particular threads?

Lets see

In reply to Your inconsistancy is showing

To appease the road-kill.

I believe that MANY (I’ve never said ALL) Americans are sheep to the President because other than the few educated opinions you will find in TR or similar sites with educated opinions, the general publis of America has no idea that WMD were not found. One guy told me that Iraq had nukes pointed at California, and he was asking his son to enlist and go fight for his freedom. Another told me that BUSH was President of the USA AND Canada so defaming him would land me in jail. It doesn’t take much to find another american spouting how BUSH saves the world from certain peril and how his example is to be followed. I’m surrounded by COMMON Yanks all the time in my personal and work related business.

I have asked VERY open questions on TR to try and understand how this is NOT a mass opinion only to find others telling me that America WON WWII and for that I should be thankful as well as BUSH is justified in his attacks because of WMD and saving my children etc.

America didn’t Win WWII, nobody WINS a war. BUSH was NOT justified in his attacks based on the WMD theory, yet many died because of it.

So far, I have seen VERY little substantial evidence that the majority of Americans don’t follow BUSH with heads held high. I work with Americans, I speak and do business with Americans and this is all I see over and over again. “WHY DON’T YOU LIKE BUSH??!!” He’s grooooovy.

I am glad that you all suport your leader. I am glad that you allhave fath in America. I just don’t see how after such a mess of a war over specualtion of attack, how everyone can still stand behind this idiot! Does he pay you or something? If I was you I’d push for a raise, you’re being ripped off.

OM

Re-evaluate what you said

In reply to Other sides of life

You said, “As OzMedia pointed out, Americans are infatuated with politics.”

Pleeeeeeeease. OzMedia knows as much as about “Americans” as you or I know about the mineral elements that makes up the core of the planet Pluto. (Wait, Pluto may not even be a planet, after all.)

“Americans” are not infatuated with politics. Sure, many are. (Whatever “many” means.) Sure, some of the TR regulars are. But how many aren’t? (I could name a dozen TR regulars who aren’t – without even thinking about it.)

How many “Americans” don’t even vote? Go to any pedestrian mall in any major city and start asking, Who is the President? Who is the Vice President? You’d be surprised at how many don’t know. Name your two State Senators in Washington? Oh, there are TWO of them, they might say. (Or they’d say, no the original Washington Senators move to Minnesota to become the Twins, and the second Washington Senators moved to Texas to become the Rangers.)

Ask people to name their Representatives to the U.S. House – heck, ask them to name their State House Representatives – many don’t know the difference. Gee, then ask them a tough question like, name the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Ask them a history question? (When was WHAT signed? What’s that?) Ask many Americans about anything “constitutional”, and they’ll say, sure, once a day.

OzMentalCase has said that Canadians aren’t “obsessed” with politics like Americans are – they don’t even talk about it, he says. Sure, the Canadians he hangs out with are as dumb as dirt when it comes to such things, just like the high school drop-outs walking the malls that don’t have a clue, or the wasted lives in the bars who only care about getting drunk and playing pool.

You are known by the company you keep, and probably have the same interests. There are plenty of Canadians, unlike Oz, who are very politically savvy, just as there are plenty of Americans who aren’t.

Stereotypical generalizations are meaningless. And OzMentalCase is the master of relying on stereotypical generalizations to support his dribble. (And he certainly belongs with his “dumb-as-dirt” buddies who don’t have a clue.)

Applies to other countries too

In reply to Re-evaluate what you said

You will notice that I mentioned that the ‘infatuation’ applies to other countries too.

Haven’t heard any comments about that as of this moment.

Anyway, I’ve gotten to the point that I discount lots of what OzMedia says, especially when he makes gross generalizations like the one of either running for President or blindly agreeing with the current President.

And when profanity and/or name calling is brought into play, I consider that to be a point for the opposition. If you have to resort to those tactics, then you must be in a weak position.

Oz is always in a weak position

In reply to Applies to other countries too

My message wasn’t aimed at you, but your quoting of Oz. He has nothing constructive to add to these threads; he just stirs up trouble. He’s like the little kid outside the lion’s cage poking a stick at it, getting it all riled up, chuckling because he thinks it’s funny. That’s how I picture the little fool.

Pushing the wrong buttons

In reply to Re-evaluate what you said

Max, having an opinion of me is completely fine, I built your opinion of me and you follow it well.

Having an opinion of my friends and associates is not acceptable unless they are here to defend themselves.

First of all you have NO CLUE whatsoever who I know and who I befriend, just another misinterpretation of what I’ve told you and what is real. If you didi, you wouldn’t make such statements, instead you’d want to be put in touch believe me, you would absolutely LOVE to meet my friends as your experience is very similar and you would stand to gain much.
(Insert OzMentalCase flame here…it’s catchy I may just change my alias) I really can’t believe that YOU have dug yourself down this low!

I won’t even address the rest of your email because it is all covered by the above. I can guarantee you, without any wquestion whatsoever, I spend time with some of the most influential people in Western Canada, work with some of the largest corporations and am constantly bugged to introduce people to the circle.

I hang with headbangers and bikers too. I don’t shut people out for WHAT they are, I accept people for WHO they are. Contrary to polpular TR belief, I am an excellent contributor to society, I organize relief concerts for the needy when disaster strikes and am highly esteemed as a helpful member of my community.

Unlike yourself, I greet people with open arms, I don’t even know what political stand most people I meet are, actually NONE of them, it doesn’t matter because people I know don’t reflect their political beliefs in thier actions.

You have proven over and over again how important it is that your peers at TR respect you and how you will go to great lengths to retain that respect. If someone objects to your statements you speak as a group not an individual, this is also a big indication of insecurity and the need for other to agree with you. Weak and pathetic just to touch the surface.

Whatever you say

In reply to Pushing the wrong buttons

You’re a legend in your own mind.

As long as…

In reply to Whatever you say

As long as someone belives in me, that’s all that counts, I don’t require unknown third party support for my own gratification.

You are definitely off base and out of line when you attack someone’s friends, that is REALLY stooping low and I figured you were way above that, WRONG AGAIN I GUESS!

Have a safe and happy evening with your family and loved ones.

INTELLECTUAL FORUMS

In reply to Re-evaluate what you said

Recently, I was invited into an invitation only intellectual online forum that was not open to public debate. One had to meet specific educational and professional requirements plus post thier real names and photo. Once in the forum I carefully prepared a conference on a social and technical topic. The very first posting was “What no politics?”

From there the dialogue spawned into psycho-babble. One former US citizen in particular who now lives in India had a picture where he was attempting to recieve ‘Chi from the Sea’. He alone lead the conference into an emotional argument with his strange philosophy that eternity equals morality times moral capacity squared, E=mc2. I withdrew from the conference because there was nothing intellectual about it.

In short, whenever someone was challenged on an intellectual level it almost always spiraled into an emotional dialogue. In some cases it became an emotional attack. I have been guilty of this early on in my online life.

So this forum is not much different after reading many of the postings. I imagine the Techrepublic staff have a ball sitting at thier round table reviewing these for thier next article. I would like to walk through thier office and see how many classic postings are hanging in cubicles.

I wouldn’t join any forum desperate enough to invite me

In reply to INTELLECTUAL FORUMS

Hmmm, maybe their walls are decorated with postings that require spell checking?

I think that there is a difference between challenging intellect and insulting it.

LOL

In reply to I wouldn’t join any forum desperate enough to invite me

Spelling checking is an issue these days.

As for the invitation, it was supposed to be a limited access forum for think tankers. Not a bunch of people behind an alias.

What exactly are you suggesting about challenging intellect? I would not want peoples opinion of you tarnished. Afterall you are considerate?

Read your own post

In reply to LOL

You wrote,

INTELLECTUAL FORUMS
Recently, I was invited into an invitation only intellectual online forum that was not open to public debate. One had to meet specific educational and professional requirements:

You went on to say,

In short, whenever someone was challenged on an intellectual level it almost always spiraled into an emotional dialogue.

I, am not suggesting anything, other than;
the first paragraph makes you sound very pompous, having read this and some other posts by you i get the impression that you wish to impress.

The second paragraph suggests to me that, questions posed by you which you believe are an intellectual challenge,,,, may, by some people, be seen as psuedo-intellectual techno-babble which insults their intelligence.

but hey, you can follow a link to my bio so you must be pretty sharp.

Intellectual answer only please, no emotional dialogue!

??)

Road Dog, sorry I posted to wrong thread.

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

Another viwepoint
“The Kurds of northern Iraq are marking the 15th anniversary of the chemical attack carried out by Iraqi Government forces on the town of Halabja, where at least 5,000 people, many of them women and children, died in a single day.”

Halabja and America are a LOOOOOOOONG way apart. This doesn’t put Americans at risk of attack.

But that aside.
I have never said that SADDAM should NOT be removed from power. Nor have I said that I condone the repression and killing of Iraq’s citizens. I do not condone BUSH’s premature efforts at all. This war was started with improper planning and without proper support, this causing a messy and expensive attack that could cost America their furture as the World’s Super Military Power.
(or the Worlds Main Defenders-WMD)

“First, the military plan took unnecessary risks, because it skimped on the forces made available to the commanders….Additional forces were available? they were even under orders to prepare for combat in Iraq. One more combat division, an additional force for securing the supply lines, more trucks and supply units to provide the redundancy that the inherent inefficiency of military operations requires?each would have reduced the risks. Some of the planners knew this; whether these forces would be used was the issue at the heart of the continuing tensions during the planning process. But they weren’t deployed until it was too late.”

“The second major criticism of the war plan?a profound flaw?concerned the endgame: it shortchanged postwar planning. Those who plan military operations for a war must take into account the aftermath. Four steps have to be considered: deployment; buildup; decisive combat; and postconflict operations. The destruction of enemy forces on the battlefield creates a necessary but not sufficient condition for victory.”

“This brings us to the third major criticism of the government’s plan: in attempting to retain full control, the administration raised the costs and risks of the mission by preventing our use of the very allies and resources that should have been available to the US. The Bush administration, thus far, has been unwilling to make use of the international legitimacy and support it could have from international institutions like the United Nations and NATO. Rather than gain leverage by means of international legitimacy, the United States, even through the long summer of 2003, refused to cede political authority to the UN or grant meaningful authority to any other international institution. Yet such legitimacy was critical if governments in Europe were to provide forces and resources to assist postwar efforts in Iraq”

http://tinyurl.com/r6gr
>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>><<<<<<< ;<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Impact on Human Rights cooperation: "The experience of Operation Iraqi Freedom will likewise weaken international cooperation on human rights issues.27 Support for such efforts depends on their being clearly separated from attempts to advance the unilateral interest or agenda of any particular state." "...nations have an inherent right to defend themselves by force against military aggression is a bedrock principle of international law. Without this guarantee, no nation would accept the constraints of law. But "defense against aggression" must be clearly and narrowly defined, least nations simply recast offensive acts as "defensive" ones -- a persistent problem ever since international covenants and treaties (such as the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact) began weighing generally against "aggressive war"." "With regard to the recent concerns about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Webster's (US Secretary of State Daniel Webster -1837) criteria would have allowed pre-emptive action: >if Iraq was known to have the capability and inclination to attack,

>if Iraqi policy toward the United States or its allies had evinced a growing bellicosity,

>if Iraqi preparations for an attack were clearly underway, and

>if there were good reasons to believe that deterrence would not hold. ”

“Although the United States has enjoyed a good decade of growth relative to other nations, the long-term trend favors a slow decline in America’s relative position.

Twenty years from now several countries are likely to be able to give the United States a good run for its money — on a regional basis, at least. This outcome is not preordained, however. It depends on a convergence of capacity and motive. A broader, more energetic exercise of US military power may provide the latter. ”

http://tinyurl.com/r6h4

I’m not the only one questioning BUSH’s motives and calling him an idiot for leading American citizens to their deaths, these are just TWO examples of similar opinions.

Walter Cronkite!!!

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

I never voted for him in the “most trusted…” category.

“Freeedom”

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

When the citizens of a democracy cannot maintain control of their nation’s policies, it amounts to dictatorship.

Should be chiseled in stone.

In reply to “Freeedom”

Do you have a point though? Perhaps you could elaborate on your post and further explain your thoughts.

Bush lied to the whole world

In reply to Iraq Aftermath

I think that everyone that supported the war agains Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction was just because president Bush said so. Many people from different parts of the world believe that the only reason why Bush attacked Iraq was to take control of the country’s vast source of oil. For starters, weapons inspectors never found such weapons, and the US just got them out and declared war — as if they knew exactly where they were located and in what amount.

Well no weapons have been found so far, over 500 american soldiers died (and counting), millions of dollars are continously being spent, and the country’s credibility has been serously compromised. All this comes to the conclusion that president Bush is either a liar or incompetent. As for the capture of Saddam and the reconstruction of Iraq, well people see it only as a way to make up for the mistake. After all, let us not remember that this was not the main reason to go to war, and the country didn’t even support enough evidence to get UN support.

Now going to war skipping the United Nations is serious. That just goes to show that president Bush doesn’t get along well with international treaties. Even when he was governor of Texas, he actually attempted to set a nuclear waste land close to the Mexican border, in violation of a international treaty between the two countries of how close to the border can the country place a nuclear waste land.

On the other hand, the American media has been particularly generous with the president, as they try to focus more on the bright side than anything else. The media from other countries however shows both side of the story, focusing not only on the reconstruction of Iraq, but also how US troops strongly protect Iraq’s oil headquarters while the rest of the country is a major victim of crime and violence. The president will better do something quick before it all this goes down even further. Even thought the media is finally starting to question Mr. Bush for the war, he will continue to defend his side no matter what, and a lot will still be left unsaid.

Well you’re a bit late but I see your views

In reply to Bush lied to the whole world

If you read the rest of this thread, you will see hese points are said many imes and yet ignored and pushed aside as BS by all of the Bush supporters here.

You wil get nowhere and nothing will be achieved. Can you convince republicans at work they were wrong? No. Can a republican convince a Democrat HE is wrong? No

In a word, politics.

I know

In reply to Well you’re a bit late but I see your views

Yes. I know I won’t get anything out of this. But I still wanted to exercise my freedom of speech.

Well done

In reply to I know

good answer!

This thread is pretty old. Although these “accusations” were made some time ago, they are quickly becoming a bigger topic of interest as the election nears.

I don’t know where it is, it was along time ago now but there was a US Embassy Report to Congress that outlined all of your thoughts I’d have to dig through (I think THIS thread) to find it but it is easily found by searching for the US Embassy reports to Congress. In short, it outlined the interest in Iraq’s oil. The Oil-for-food program and exactly what sanctions were being breached and why. It definitely didn’t support the existence of WMD.

What do you think of. . . . .

In reply to Bush lied to the whole world

.
….Molly Ivans?

Jumping to conclusions?

In reply to Bush lied to the whole world

I think it is too early in the process to claim that Bush lied about WMDs.

Yes, we may have been given an exaggerated picture of what was going on in Iraq.

To say that President Bush lied about WMDs assumes that he was provided with information that there were no WMDs and choose to state otherwise.

I want to believe that our President told the American people the truth, as he understood it.

Now, when I started this thread, I was concerned that some of the high level advisers to the President desire to invade and overthrow ALL nations that have totalitarian governments.
(I still believe that this is a strong desire of a few staffers.)

As much as I would like to see a world where ALL people are free, we cannot and should not take it upon ourselves to decree what is the correct path for any other sovereign nation.

The exception would be if there was clear evidence of an imminent threat to the US or our allies.

Chas

[Author]

Replies