General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2146332

    Iraq- For better or for worse

    Locked

    by oz_media ·

    While reading some news from the Middle East, BBC NEWS and a few others including Iraqi news, I ran across more and more articles about the repression women have faced SINCE the US ocupation that wasn’t there before.

    In Afghanistan, the focus was to rid them of the Taliban, freeing up Afghanistan to operate democratically and reduce the amount of repression of women in the country. Oh, and to rightfully kick the turbans off of those who terrorized America.

    Since the key focus and majority of coalition troops were moved to Iraq, everthing done has slowly been reverted, more and more Talibam rule now than ever before and Kandahar is just a breeding ground for terrorism.

    But what about Iraq? There are lots of troops in Iraq, but AlQaeda has now taken over there by amassing all the former (much smaller) radical groups into one large, organized terror group. But what about the people of Iraq who are supposed to be saved by this change in government and millitary control?

    [i]”The police in Basra claim that as many as 15 women a month are murdered for breaching Islamic dress codes. Iraqi women claim that [b]over the past five years[/b] they have lost their freedom of movement, the right to dress as they please and their legal standing.” [/i]

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/04/2008_19_wed.shtml

    Whereas before the invasion they were repressed somewhat, but still apparently happy and leading normal lives (as were most Iraqi’s, despite what SOME news has reported from time to time) it seems that they have been forced to follow a more traditional Muslim lifestyle of repression now and have lost many of the freedoms they once had.

    So what is REALLY being done in Iraq, other than years of rather senseless fighting and deaths with no resolve and no gains in sight?

    If the Iraqi’s that were once on the side of democracy are now turning against the USA and UK, if the insurgents are growning in number and still laughing at ‘the infidels’ while killing them, how is it that things are getting better?

    How is it that the powers that be never saw this coming to begin with?

    Did they know it would be endless?

    Why is it that the ONLY time the US has ever started a war, it happens to be in a country where the US was cut off from importing their oil and stands to gain great benefit in silencing a 2000 year old conflict?

    [i]IF[/i] the US was to win this one tomorrow and all the oil flows freely to America, will the US government then turn their nose up at the idea of being more resourceful because they are not FORCED to be anymore, until years down the road when that well dries up too and they invade someone else for THIER oil?

    If Canada stopped sending oil to the US, would there be another US vs Canadian war? Well I think it would be the US vs the world at that point, Canada has many allies and very few foes, even in the Middle East.

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2462146

      BAD OZ entering stuff unapproved by the US Military Censor

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Iraq- For better or for worse

      I certainly hope you have your Fire Proof Underwear on. 😀

      I can’t say I disagree with you though I haven’t been subject to the Mass Media Brain Washing Campaign that is currently going on in the US.

      Col

      • #2462144

        MMBWC…

        by boxfiddler ·

        In reply to BAD OZ entering stuff unapproved by the US Military Censor

        gods but they’ve been at that for years. I can’t remember the last time I could just catch the evening news and trust that I was getting the straight scoop. These days I have to hunt a bazillion news sources and then put the puzzle together from the variety of ‘viewpoints’ that I find.

        Disgusting. News, my @ss.

        • #2459638

          That’s why…

          by jck ·

          In reply to MMBWC…

          I watch television…then watch BBC feeds…then read Irish and Australian news.

          I hate getting spin when I want to know what really goes on in the world.

      • #2459646

        It’s not really news

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to BAD OZ entering stuff unapproved by the US Military Censor

        It’s all just fluff put forth by those currupt agencies, outside of teh US media.

        I suppose the post was too long for the questions to be at the bottom though. Oh well, who could expect to get rational thoughts from the south anyway?

        • #2564147

          Now Oz…

          by jessie ·

          In reply to It’s not really news

          I know there may not be many of us, and our voices are not often heard above the drone of republicans making money, :p but there are [i]some[/i] still functioning brains to the south of you.

          And if Canada stopped sending oil to the US, I’m sure their would be plenty of Americans who would be so overwrought by such a calamity that they would then be BEGGING the president to open up our protected land for oil drilling, and then those of us who hadn’t already moved to Canada would invade.

        • #2564094

          My most humble apologies, sir.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Now Oz…

          You are right and I do apologize. However, Hal9000 and I have always been quite cut and dry with one another, though it was a bit broad.

      • #2466008

        Not possible.

        by $$$$$$$$$$ ·

        In reply to BAD OZ entering stuff unapproved by the US Military Censor

        The military-industrial complex fully supports the appearance of freedom to dissenting speech. Just don’t try to tell high school students that military service is less adventurous than a GI Joe cartoon.

    • #2459637

      Oz, only you would change the Iraq war to

      by dadspad ·

      In reply to Iraq- For better or for worse

      a Canadian war! 😀

      Seriously, we, in the west, are amateurs compared to propaganda the middle east can do. I remember before the Iraq war, latest one, that the press had interviews with individuals that said just about everone in Iraq had at least one relative that was killed, tortured or dissapeared, they wanted that to end.

      Now they are saying that things were better or got worse because the US and allies came in? We are in the age of shock news. I do not believe much of the news today is well researched. I do remember when I was in the service, servicemen reported that women were very repressed in the mideastern countries. Of course, that was another war. :0

      • #2459634

        But Dad, they lost rights they never had?

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to Oz, only you would change the Iraq war to

        Yeah, if things are reverting back to islamic law, then the women that were enjoying their new-found freedoms would get punished/killed. Makes complete sense to me.

        Total BS that they have less freedoms now than they did 10 years ago.

        • #2459626

          A little history

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to But Dad, they lost rights they never had?

          Iraq before the war was a SECULAR society, with an Islamic face only when it suited Saddam’s interest. That is why Bin Laden hated him and wanted him out of power.

          In Iraq under Saddam (prior to the Gulf war), women were able to perform most of the same roles as men, and had the right to vote, attend schools (including university), run for political office and own property.

          After 1991, Saddam attempted to portray himself as an Islamic leader, and to do so some of the rights of women were taken away.

          http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

          So frankly its not that simple, for anyone to say. Women were better off before 1991 than they were after. Women now may exercise their rights if they are in a “free” area. No doubt if they are in an Al Qeada controlled area, things are far worse than they ever were under Saddam.

          James

        • #2459605

          So it is a “It depends”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to But Dad, they lost rights they never had?

          In Afganistan, are women better off now or worse off before we went in there? Speaking over all, not issolated regions here or there.

          Iraq, again, because of the political foot dragging hindering the military, areas were not secured like they should have been, and so again, it depends on where you are if they have more or less.

          oops, wrong lvl, suppose to answer james, not myself… ~sigh~

        • #2459603

          In Afghanistan

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to So it is a “It depends”

          Women are not worse off, as the taliban were very bad for a long time.

          In most areas of Afghanistan, it is better for women than it was. Going to take a generation though to overcome the damage the taliban did. Read “the Kite Runner”, very good book.

          James

        • #2459596

          Saw the film

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to In Afghanistan

          Apart from the teenager that buggers the Kite Runner to teach him a lesson, odd form of fighting there, it was a great film and really shows a different side of people than the media ever has.

          As for women in Afghanistan, as always, there is not too much of an issue INSIDE Afghanistan, but as always Kanadahar is Taliban dominated and mostly male, with repressed women working in the background.

          Before teh invasion, women in Afghanistan were not really downtrodden, not until the Taliban started to move in.

          So all the coalition has done in the last haf dozen years is to secure SOME of Afghanistans streets that’s it. Anywhere outside Afghanistan and even in areas of the city itself, women can no longer walk safely, attend schools etc.

          The scene in Afghanistan is just as bad now as it ever was and in the case of violence and the insurgence, it is far worse than before the invasion or durign the occupation.

        • #2459579

          Disagree

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Saw the film

          Before the invasion by the coalition, the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan, and women were badly treated. Before the Taliban were the warlords , before the warlords the soviets.

          Life in Kabul, at least until recently when the Taliban seems to be favouring suicide bombers, is much better than it was in Taliban days, for women and children.

          Its the countryside where things are up in the air.

          The US is increasing its overall numbers in Afghanistan, and France added some troops to allow the US to redeploy some troops from a quiet area to the war in the south.

          The US soon may have more troops in Khandahar than the Canadians.

          James

        • #2459568

          And the anti-americanism continues….

          by locrian_lyric ·

          In reply to Saw the film

          So, when are you going to accuse us all of baking babies into our Matzos?

        • #2459553

          I don’t see a mention of America in that post

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to And the anti-americanism continues….

          He mentions the coalition which includes almost all of NATO, including Canada.

          You accuse him of a knee jerk reaction, but yours isn’t any better.

          James

        • #2564233

          Anti-Americanism defined

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And the anti-americanism continues….

          First of all, YOU brought America into this, not me.

          You have the mentality that, if you don’t like someone, you will go to all lengths to try and put them in their place with your little Anti-Americanism crap, which, I suppose, MAY matter to a few Americans but the rest of us couldn’t give a toss how you feel anyway.

          You have the mental capcity of a parrot who watches too much TV. You simply take what others say and print and then spend the next few weeks, months repeating it until a new buzz word comes out.

          A great deal of the world’s citizens (Canadians, Brits, Germans, French, Australians, Austrians and so on) are Anti-American (by your generalized definition) and always have been.
          Next time try and have a point or at least stay on subject.

          Defined: Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture, or people of the United States.

          So with more than half of your dimplomatic country’s citizens opposed to the Republican government and GWB, I suppose Ant-Americanism (your little buzz word when you have nothing worthwhile to say) is actually rife throughout your own country.

          Based on that, how is it that teh people of a country, which supposedly is spereading the gospel of how to be a free and prosperous, creates a term that attacks the political viewpoints of more than half of its own citizens? Is THAT democracy?

          Did you fall into that retard trap “you are either with us or against us?”

          How can you CLAIM to be a free country with free speech if people are not allowed to voice opinion on your government?

          If you are unsure, you’ll need to read the first ammendment and actually understand it, as many Americans don’t seem to grasp the whole concept of free speech it seems (at least as illustrated here time and time again).

          It’s pretty clear that you don’t have a clue, anyone who doesn’t think the same way you do is deemed Anti-American, which I would say pretty much puts very few against rest of the world, good luck with that.

          With your government instilling this ‘either with us or against us’ BS into your little mind, how can you possibly claim that they are on the right path?

          I suppose that you would see it fit if they passed a law stating you had to agree with them or leave the country, which would be a complete breach of all Americans constitutional rights.

          Unfortunately your leader has a somewhat similar mindset it seems, yet even with his limited education and very poor knowledge of the world around him, it seems even he is not as stupid as you can be.

          Instead of flaming without a clue, why don’t you try and report some actual facts to the contrary? You’d gain a little credibility, which sure couldn’t hurt, and you would actually have a valid point for once.

        • #2564229

          As an American…

          by jck ·

          In reply to And the anti-americanism continues….

          I’d like to say…I’m not anti-alcohol.

          Thank you 😀

        • #2564175

          As an alcoholic

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And the anti-americanism continues….

          I’d like to say……sorry for the chunder on your American shoes!

        • #2563981

          no worries

          by jck ·

          In reply to And the anti-americanism continues….

          i had them treated. i have lots of alcoholic friends 😉

        • #2459589

          but jdclyde

          by jck ·

          In reply to So it is a “It depends”

          Areas were not secured in Iraq from the get-go, except for “the green zone” in Iraq which is basically used as a recreational facility and the in/out point for our troops in Iraq.

          If securing Iraq would have been the modus operandi from the beginning, Bush would have told military leaders to do so. He didn’t.

          It wasn’t political footdragging that caused Iraq’s borders to be unsecured…or the major cities where most of the sectarianism exists outside of Baghdad.

          It was a lack of planning by the Bush administration, and their quick-stepped entrance into Iraq to take out Saddam that didn’t give military leaders time to plan for a proper ramp up and deployment.

          As for women in Afghanistan? I believe that I had read somewhere that since the US deployed there, conditions have gotten worse. The Taliban has resurged there and are taking parts all over the country again and enforcing their dark, twisted sense of social order.

          The biggest mistake anyone has made in this…is taking the belief that we can fight guerilla, renegade soldiers by using the formal means of military tactic and decorum.

          Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not follow the Geneva Convention or any other form of military doctrine when entering battle. We shouldn’t either.

          I mean, think of history: What happened when the British redcoats tried to march gentlemanly in formal columns to fight the rag-tag American revolutionaries? Are we going to stick in our neat columns and tactics to fight terrorism?

          We have to learn to think outside the box.

          It’s getting sorta late on a Monday. Let’s go get a beer 😀

        • #2459574

          jck

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to but jdclyde

          when I talk of political foot dragging, I do mean that on both sides of the party lines too. The not wishing to look like we are beating up on someone is stupid, so we have always make a Superior force fight with one hand behind it’s back. Unrestrained, no force could stop them, but Congress AND Bush have.

          Set a goal, and tell the generals to make it so.

        • #2459567

          agreed

          by jck ·

          In reply to jck

          but one other thing: make it a well-defined goal…and make sure it’s feasible by the ground rules you have to play by.

          Personally, I still think that Bush should have sealed Iraq’s borders and told the leaders of surrounding countries to tell their people…if you cross the border without permission, we shoot. No exceptions.

          That would have stopped insurgents from coming in from Iraq and other countries…the first time they see 4 Cobras come up over the hill with the autocannon hummin rounds down on em! 😀

          Damn…I just got excited…I need to watch a military flick tonight 😀

        • #2459563

          Sealing Iraq’s borders

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to agreed

          Can I just point out that you can’t even seal your own border with Mexico. Also, the Iraq-Iran border alone is over 900 miles long so that’s quite a few Cobras to come over quite a few hills…

          Neil 😀

        • #2459559

          i know of a way to seal it

          by jck ·

          In reply to agreed

          put loudspeakers of Rosie O’Donnell singing the Star-Spangled Banner out there…that’d run anyone off!! 😀

          Actually, they could have sealed em…thermo-optical sensors tied into wireless data links…inexpensive…troops would have been alerted to movement within a 1/2 mi range…then when they come up over the hill…there’s the COBRA waiting on em 🙂

          I say we go install it for em, Dad…we could get rich like all of Cheney’s friends are lol

        • #2459557

          jck, what I like about you is…..

          by locrian_lyric ·

          In reply to agreed

          you know what you’re talking about.

          I may not agree with some of the points you make, but you make them in a reasoned manner.

          thank you.

        • #2459549

          satellites and fighter jets

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to agreed

          thermal imaging, someone pops up in the restricted zone, a few fighters would be there in minutes. Combine that with unmanned drones and your electronic fence will detect heat and movement. Anything moves, it is neutralized. Simple, really. Especially the borders to Iran and Syria.

          [i]”I love the smell of Napalm in the morning”.[/i]

          it isn’t that we CAN’T control our own border with Mexico, the political insiders that CONTROL our politicians, that in turn control the government WANT the border to be open. The political parties then fall right in step.

        • #2459545

          thanks

          by jck ·

          In reply to agreed

          I just try to make sense.

          The biggest travesty of the whole Iraq thing…

          Politicians try to make it into a tool they can use to win office to make big paychecks…when it should be about doing things right to improve human life…

          But, I guess some people care more about money than other things.

          Guess that’s why I’ll never be at the top of anything…other than the Empire State Building lol

        • #2564171

          Thermal imaging satellites and stuff

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to agreed

          If you can, why don’t you?

          Just asking…

          😀

        • #2564168

          Because some bottom feeder will complain

          by the scummy one ·

          In reply to agreed

          then the politicians will get involved, looking for a small extra boost in votes.

          So that is why no thermal imaging, planes, etc..
          There was a big stink when they were going to rebuild the fence too!
          When we thought about putting our reservists there for aid (the Border Patrol has requested this) what happened? Oh, our soldiers wont know what to do, and werent trained for this. That is the kind of BS that was being said on the news. I though, so, train them! What is the problem —
          No, you cant just shoot… Just tell them to stop, and if they dont, then shoot…

        • #2564166

          neil on technology

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to agreed

          how about the machine that goes “PING”!

          DOCTOR SPENSER:
          And, uh, get the machine that goes ‘ping’.

          OBSTETRICIAN:
          And get the most expensive machines, in case the administrator comes.
          [clunk]
          [exciting music]
          That’s it. Bring in the other machines. Right over here.

          DOCTOR SPENSER:
          [whistling]

          OBSTETRICIAN: That’s it. Just behind me.
          [music stops]
          Lovely. Lovely. Jolly good. That’s better. That’s much, much better.

          …..

          MR. PYCROFT:
          Oh, very impressive. Very impressive. And what are you doing this morning?
          [music stops]

          OBSTETRICIAN:
          It’s a birth.

          MR. PYCROFT:
          Aahh. What sort of thing is that?

          DOCTOR SPENSER:
          Well, that’s when we take a new baby out of a lady’s tummy.

          MR. PYCROFT:
          Wonderful what we can do nowadays.

          [ping!]

          Aah! I see you have the machine that goes ‘ping’. This is my favourite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to, and that way, it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
          [applause]
          Thank you. Thank you. We try to do our best. Well, do carry on.

        • #2564146

          It is the original purpose of the national guard

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to agreed

          to guard the nation.

          Liberalism is a mental disorder, along the lines of retardation, clearly, to not be able to see that.

        • #2563939

          so if liberals are so retarded

          by jck ·

          In reply to agreed

          what does that make a conservative president who is using our national guard in Iraq and Afghanistan, if they are intentioned to be here to defend our borders?? shouldn’t he have them here fulfilling their role, while full-time military goes overseas?

          i feel unsafe now with Bush in office. i’m gonna go buy another gun and move to Idaho and join a militia. lol

        • #2563928

          You haven’t been paying attention jck

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to agreed

          GWB is no Conservative, as I stated yesterday, with him spending more money than a Kennedy/Clinton in a wh0rehouse. don’t tell me you missed that comment, did you? :0

          [i]yeah, had to add the Bill slam. 😀

        • #2563923

          yeah

          by jck ·

          In reply to agreed

          i saw it. he spends on iraq so him and cheney’s buddies can get rich like he spent on cocaine and booze, right? our first convicted drunk driver president…what an honor for him.

          just remember…it’s your conservative constituency that has backed him…and gotten him elected…twice. not the liberals. 😉

          Oh btw…at least Clinton balanced the budget…not tripled the national debt 😉

          I’m writing-in NeilB for president here…even tho he can’t be…I’d much rather have him in office than Jenna Bush’s dad

        • #2564936

          And no one you know

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to agreed

          has gotten a DUI? I know several, and they are all good people that I would trust with my life.

          Thinks of a better excuse for your blantant foaming at the mouth hate for Bush because that is pathetic.

          Yeah, what does getting disbarred because of committing purgery while defending yourself on a sexual harrassment suit mean compared to a DUI? Amazing as well that the womens groups didn’t think sexual harrassment was an important issue and we should all just look the other way, right? Oh yeah, you don’t want to think about that aspect. She had it coming, dressing that way, right? Chicks just forget their place???

        • #2564929

          And more to the point

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to agreed

          NEVER excuse bad behavior because of someone elses bad behavior.

          Clinton was and is a disgrace to the office he served.

          Bush is a disgrace to the office he serves.

          Why did Bush win? Because NO ONE of value ran against him.

          Why doesn’t it matter what happens this time around? Because NO ONE OF VALUE is running.

          We can choose evil or lesser of evil, but that doesn’t make either of them a good choice.

          The econuts are sniveling about global warming in the next thousand years, I am worried about making it through the next 10 based on our leaders actions. Clearly Global warming is just a distraction.

        • #2564903

          real nice…real real nice

          by jck ·

          In reply to agreed

          just gonna say a few things before i go.

          a) Clinton never went to a wh0rehouse…he either got them in a limo, at the governor’s mansion, in a hotel, or at the white house.

          b) I don’t hate Bush. If anything, I pity that spoiled brat. He’s incompetent…and what’s worse, he’s dumb as a rock. He bankrupted several companies. Now he’s bankrupting our country.

          Clinton might have had a southern drawl, but at least he could put a sentence together and used legitimate English words.

          If anything, I hate the actions of Bush and his administration because they’re a direct reflection of him and his staff: Disgraceful and more under-handed and corrupt than even Hussein or Marcos or Noriega ever thought of being.

          c) I *never* have excused Clinton for being an adulterer. In fact, I think I stated on TR (as well as other sites) that I think Hillary should have full right to cut off his junk.

          Clinton is a good man too from what I have been told by people who knew and worked for him in Arkansas, yet you won’t forgive him for his transgression? Why should I forgive Bush?

          At least Clinton’s adultery didn’t endanger the lives of innocent people on the roads. Bush admitted in interviews he’d drove drunk more than just the time he got the D.U.I. So who’s the worse person? The guy who’ll cheat on his family’s trust, or the one who could run into your sons and their friends with a car while they’re walking down a street and kill them?

          I’ll take the adulterer anyday. At least you can apologize to someone for cheating. You can’t apologize to a dead person.

          d) Do I know anyone that has gotten a DUI? Yeah. Would I want them as the leader of my country? Not anyone I know that has a DUI. But I guess maybe your DUI friends are that much better than mine, right?

          e) and finally…what really torques me

          Never ever imply again that I advocate sexual harassment.

          I have been sexually harassed at a previous job by a female management member, and I’m male and you pretty much have no recourse when you’re a man in the workplace without a tape recording of the violation and threat against your employment. That’s what my lawyer told me.

          It feels like $hit when you’re trying to keep a job at a company that’s laying off so you can pay your bills, and then you get hit smack in the face with the “I can make sure you keep your job” stuff.

          So I’ll make it perfectly clear for you right now, since you seem to think I’m some sort of sicko: I do not advocate sexual harassment. Now, let that soak in for a while.

          That comment was just total $hit though. I hope your boys never have to deal with what I have.

          You’re a real shining example of conservative America and a class act. I’m sure Carl Rove would be proud of you.

          I shoulda known better. Later all.

        • #2562689

          jck – my respose

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to agreed

          Even in your response where you are against harrassment, you still refused to accept that harrassment is what Bills problem was about, not the adultery. You, and his adoring minions refuse to look at his CRIME, and thus ARE excusing his behavior.

          It isn’t that he was an adulter, it was the multiple sexual harrassment suits that he was fighting, and settled out of court because he couldn’t win. He was also guilty of obstruction of justice, to a much higher degree that Libby ever did, yet people gleefully sent him away for alledgely lying about something that wasn’t a crime AND the prosecutor KNEW who had disclosed the name BEFORE Libby was even questioned.

          Quit saying bills problem was adultery and answer me directly. He committed sexual harassment, is that an excuseable act as far as your concerned, or should he have gotten more than just losing his law liscense and paying for damages?

          If it is not, how can you still support him in any way?

          If it is, then you DO excuse sexual harrassment, and it only depends who is doing the harrassment.

          Your call. Can’t have it both ways.

        • #2562604

          facts

          by jck ·

          In reply to agreed

          [i]Even in your response where you are against harrassment, you still refused to accept that harrassment is what Bills problem was about, not the adultery. You, and his adoring minions refuse to look at his CRIME, and thus ARE excusing his behavior.[/i]

          Bill’s problem, in relation to the perjury and other issues you referred to, was not from his sexual harassment activity.

          He was perjured for lying about his relations with Monica Lewinsky, and not about anything to do with harassing Ms. Jones.

          Nextly, you are *assuming* he is proven to have done so. He has never been convicted, or proven by a court or any other body to have harassed anyone.

          Of course, you want to give Bill Clinton the same rights as you have as an American…right? Innocent until proven guilty?

          [i]It isn’t that he was an adulter, it was the multiple sexual harrassment suits that he was fighting, and settled out of court because he couldn’t win. [/i]

          No one won.

          And again based on the fact we are comparing the people, Bill Clinton was never proven to have committed any crime. Bush was.

          You are again assuming he is guilty.

          I’d like to now give you a quote:

          [i][b]Paula Jones agreed to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on Nov. 13 in return for $850,000 ? but no apology or admission of guilt from the president.

          Two weeks later, when the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, it marked the conclusive end of Clinton’s battle against Jones and her conservative backers. Seven months earlier, the case was dismissed by a district-court judge as having no merit, but Jones appealed. [/i]
          -Washington Post, Dec. 3, 1998[/b]

          Notice:
          1) Two courts dismissed the case…not just one.
          2) One court said the case had no merit
          3) Miss Jones opted for $850,000, rather than to see her harasser convicted and punished.

          One court said she didn’t have enough “merit” to bring it to trial…i.e.- she didn’t have the proof they thought necessary to try the case.

          And, she took the money and ran. I guess she wasn’t so hurt that a little money couldn’t have fixed her distress.

          I would have, if I’d have had the proof I needed, followed through and made sure my harasser was convicted.

          [i]He was also guilty of obstruction of justice, to a much higher degree that Libby ever did, yet people gleefully sent him away for alledgely lying about something that wasn’t a crime AND the prosecutor KNEW who had disclosed the name BEFORE Libby was even questioned.[/i]

          Please reference what case you are referring to in Bill Clinton having obstructed justice. There was more than one accusation.

          And…him lying about a 20 year old intern giving him oral in the hallway of the white house is obstructing investigators from discovering whether or not he harassed Paula Jones 5 years previous?

          Give me a break.

          [i]Quit saying bills problem was adultery and answer me directly.[/i]

          Are you saying adultery isn’t a problem? Are you advocating people cheating on their spouse?

          Answer me directly.

          (now you know how I felt yesterday.)

          [i]He committed sexual harassment, is that an excuseable act as far as your concerned, or should he have gotten more than just losing his law liscense and paying for damages? [/i]

          a) You know my opinion on sexual harassment…just like i know yours on being cheated on.

          b) He was never proven to have committed sexual harassment.

          c) He didn’t lose his license. It was suspended. Losing your license to practice law is disbarment. Two entirely different things.

          [i]If it is not, how can you still support him in any way? [/i]

          The same way you support you would support Bush, except that Bill Clinton was never convicted and Bill Clinton never endangered anyone’s life by getting oral copulation.

          [i]If it is, then you DO excuse sexual harrassment, and it only depends who is doing the harrassment.[/i]

          Again, you’re being obtuse. Don’t be. If I condone sexual harassment, then you must have wanted to get cheated on. Okay? Let’s

          [i]Your call. Can’t have it both ways[/i]

          I can have things anyway I want. It’s called my opinion, and you can’t dictate it for me.

          Just because I don’t agree with your opinion of Bill Clinton doesn’t mean I’m trying to have it both ways. It means I don’t play God, judge and jury and decide definitively who is bad and good without some substantative proof.

          See, you would have me damn Bill Clinton for [b]accusations[/b] made against him.

          But, you’d have me not “bad mouth” George W. Bush, even though he was convicted of having been caught drunk driving.

          Proof of this? Here ya go.

          May I quote Wikipedia:

          [i]”During this time Bush has multiple accounts of substance abuse.In one instance, Bush was arrested near his family’s summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine for driving under the influence of alcohol at the age of thirty on September 4, 1976. He pled guilty, was fined US$150, and had his Maine driver’s license suspended until 1978.”[/i]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

          And, their source for proof of his drunk driving record?

          http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html

          So…the facts are…

          You are assuming Clinton is a sexual offender.

          I am showing you proof Dubya was a drunk driver.

          If proving someone did something is just making an accusation, then I want to say that Bill Gates beat me up last year and I want $3B and I’ll settle out of court too.

          Honestly…

          If you’d have asked me if I thought Bill did it, you might get my opinion…but, you assumed he was guilty even though the Jones case was dismissed twice in federal court…then have tried to shove it down my throat like it’s gospel.

          On the other hand, you’d have me go easy on Bush even though he’s a convicted offender of a crime that is proven to be the murderer of thousands of innocent people every year.

          How fair is your disposition toward Clinton, when that is the case with Bush? You’ll chastise Clinton more than Bush, simply because of what? Political party? Cause Clinton could balance the budget and Bush can’t? Cause Clinton didn’t grow up rich? Cause Clinton was an academic scholar, while Bush got into the pilot program of the reserve with the lowest score possible?

          And besides that…I’d be willing to bet… that most guys you see or hear about who are 30, live at their parents house, get drunk, drunk drive, and spend their parents money. I bet you would call most guys like that low-lifes and useless or a real waste. Well, unless they’re your friends…you do have friends with DUIs…you’ve admitted that.

          I guess because he’s a child of privilege and has lots of money and all, you can forgive him.

          Otherwise if it was just because he’s a former president and governor, you’d give Clinton the same pass.

          BTW…hopefully you have read all the way through this…so I’m gonna state my view on it again.

          I think Bill Clinton was absolutely wrong for having cheated on his wife. And in my opinion, she should have had the right to do anything to him she liked. I in no way condone cheating.

          Sexual harrasment: It is absolutely wrong to sexually harass someone, and I can totally empathize with Paula Jones if her accusation was true.

          But I, like you, can not prove it one way or the other. And, two federal courts dismissed the case. And Miss Jones went after a big settlement rather than make sure he was convicted of that.

          So, her case has less weight with me. I wouldn’t have chased money. I’d have gotten my harasser convicted. Money wouldn’t be what I would be after.

          And actually, I thought about it last night. I have also been harassed sexually by a co-worker, but it was not at work…and it was by a gay male co-worker.

          But, my incident was a verbal only thing. My assailant never exposed anything. I was just told how I could be guaranteed a job as the company was laying folks off. And like I told you in the email, a few weeks later I ended up unemployed because I wouldn’t.

          Anyways…I have spoken my peace. Just give me one bit of definitive proof Clinton sexually harassed anyone. I’d love to see it.

        • #2459582

          If it’s gettign better, set yourself up then.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to So it is a “It depends”

          I close friend has worked in Afghan., Iraq, Dubain and other areas of the middle east over teh last 10 years. When he arrived years agoe, he was greeted with open arms and accepted as a Westerner. More recently, he needed security and a chauffer to get around town, as they do not accept Westerners in the area anymore.

          When he first arrived, he met many Afhgan and iraqi men and women, would go to teh movies with local young men and hang out playign pool, video games etc. Just as we do here.

          Before he left teh Middle East, he was offered a new Mercedes, a very nice home, college for the kids, and a massive paycheck plus more. He walked away without even considering the offer, and nwo lives back in Toronto with his family, he said everyone is leaving town and looking to get the hell out now. Where they once saw great opportunity they now see an ever worsening war and great hatred toward themselves, even by those they once hung out with, worked with and shared weekends hanging at the pool, shopping at the mall etc with.

          Being Canadian, he said his best freind was his Canadian flag on his luggage and clothing, it saved his butt more than once.

          He says the worst violence he has ever seen has been in the klast year and it just keeps getting worse, insurgent wannabe are like street gangs at night, nowhere outside of teh immediate area of a military base is safe, and even then the insurgents operate just metres form the bases and soldiers watch them walking by, shooting at them and plottign against them all day. It’s not like they hide and then have conflict when they choose to attack, they are living and operating right in front of one another.

          He said that since the occpation, Western hatred has grown to the point that once peaceful locals now hate and retaliate aginst the Western troops.

          That women who he once shared gardening and cooking tips or with on weekends are now shut in their homes in fear, that the infrastructure (which he was there working on) was being destroyed in a regular basis, he’d install a new switch, it was terrorized and destroyed within days.

          People here don’t seem to realize just how widespread this western occupation hatred is now spreading, well beyond the Taliban or AlQaeda that’s for sure. It is now the hatred in the people’s eye too. When the country’s average citizen takes arms against an occupation, it’s time to stop and think about what you started, what little you have done and how the hell you’ll ever fix the damage you have already done to them.

          Sure Bush and a handful of overpatriotic soldiers will have you believe otherwise, but people will always believe what they want to believe, not what the reality is anyway.

        • #2564126

          I would like to propose a hypothetical scenario:

          by the ref ·

          In reply to If it’s gettign better, set yourself up then.

          Muslim forces invade the US to stop the hedonistic destruction of the poor and downtrodden through poverty, street gangs, health insurance scams, oversupply of illegal drugs, etc. They win the initial invasion and are trying to bring a peaceful rebuilding by the removal of weapons by street gangs so people can walk down the street without getting shot.

          Now I ask you ? how many thought ?over my dead body?. Why should people in other countries think otherwise.

        • #2564098

          uh sure

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to I would like to propose a hypothetical scenario:

          I think I see your point, kinda funny scenario actually. It seemed like that was actually happening in Vancouver at one time too. 🙂

      • #2459617

        Not Iraq but Afghanistan

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Oz, only you would change the Iraq war to

        Canada has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq, I haven’t purposely stated that there is any relation to thw two. If I have, please feel free to point out where this could be misintepreted and I will edit to fix any misleading comments.

        I assume you are out of the Canadian media loop so to quickly recap, after you removed the bulk of your forces from Afghanistan, the Canadian Army took over to lead the fight…in Afghanistan. Now the command rotates between the various International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), including US, German, Australian and others.

        I wasn’t tryign to suggest that Iraq had ANY relation in any part at all to Canadian forces, god help me. I don’t think the Canadian government is THAT stupid, close but not quite Bush.

    • #2564157

      Any discussion or debate on Iraq. . . . .

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Iraq- For better or for worse

      ….. as it relates to a better or worse question, or a should we have or shouldn?t we have debate, must take into consideration what would have been had that not happened. Of course, it?s not possible to accurately play the [i]what if game[/i], but it?s entirely relevant.

      I suppose there will be those who will say that 4,000 soldiers would not have been killed, billions of dollars wouldn?t have been spent, and other such things. But what I?m talking about is the bigger picture.

      Try to paint a picture of what would have been today?s reality in that parallel universe had things been approached differently. Where would an Iraq under Saddam be today? What would the threat from Iran be like today? What (and where) would serve as the primary battlefield against those terrorists dedicated to destroy the west?

      Of course, it?s all speculation. But it?s only half of the story to say that something was wrong without defining what things would be like under the opposite scenario ? and supporting the argument that the opposite scenario would have been the better and correct option to pursue.

      It?s easy to say that it was wrong because of the way some things turned out (all of which are debatable and/or a matter of perspective). But how would things have turned out had it not happened at all? I don’t see anyone answering that question (and I don’t just mean my TechRepublic friends).

      • #2564095

        Great post!

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Any discussion or debate on Iraq. . . . .

        Gotta say that wasn’t what I expected to read.

        I actually think that would be a good new thread, not because I want to retain my original post here but that I think it is a far better discussion. This was just something that went through my mind and I figured I’d post the thought.

        I actually do have a what if, but it is simple scenario and one without a conclusion other than a swifter result. You’ve heard my view a thousand times before though…or was it 2000 posts?

        I feel it could/should have been done with the same allied coalition support, just as with Afghanistan. If the original objectives (letting inspectors finish and focusing on Afghanistan) were followed and not rashly disposed of in favour of an immediate invasion of another country, things in both countries may have been as successful as originally planned.

        Allied recommendations and requests for the inspectors to continue a nearly completed mission were ignored, the original plan to only use force to complete inspections was not needed.

        With more attention left in Afghanistan, things would be far better by now and, who knows, (speculation now) there may be a much larger allied force supporting a more successful resolution in Iraq by now too, in fact I think that would be a strong probability.

        Like you said though, it’s all speculative now; but so were many first impressions of the existing conflict.

        I think most people that originally supported the war thought it would be over long before now (nobody even knew why you were going to war, there were too many mixed messages), I think that’s what people were lead to believe when given such evasive comments from the President when asked.

        Although he always said it would be a long time and you wouldn’t leave until the job was done, I think many former supporters have only now realized what you were getting in to.

        Oh well, maybe start a new thread, I think you’ve got another shot at TR’s longest thread here.

    • #2564089

      The fundimental Problem

      by j-mart ·

      In reply to Iraq- For better or for worse

      The situation we are experiencing in the
      Middle East is the end result of years of
      interference by the West and I doubt if
      more meddling is going to easily fix the
      problem.

      At the beginning of the 20th century it was
      all part of the Turkish Otterman Empire.
      During the First World War the British sent
      T. E Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), a
      British Army Intelligence Officer, to talk
      the Arabs into helping them fight against
      the Turks. The British already had made a
      balls up of the Gallipoli campain and the
      help of the Arabs against their common
      enemy seemed a good way of defeating the
      Turks, Allies of Germany. Of course the
      Arabs wanted their fair share from the
      deal, so Lawrence came with a promiss to
      the Arabs that the British would help them
      set up an automatis Arab area they could
      control.

      Unknown to the Arabs though, Britain and
      France had already decided between
      themselves this was not going to happen and
      had made alternative plans for this region
      after the war was over. How could they
      trust these “savages” with all that oil, of
      course forgetting completely that this part
      of the world was one of the “cradles of
      civilization” that also gave us much of our
      science and mathematics basics. The Arabs
      took from this experience ” Be carefull of
      the West, they can’t always be trusted”.

      Since this time what have the Arabs had
      from the West ?. The West has decided that
      they are not intelligent or responsible
      enough to be allowed complete control of
      their most valuable asset. The West has set
      up Governments in many of these Arab
      nations and directly interfered in their
      politics based on not what their people
      want, but on them controlling the flow of
      Oil. The West shored up the Shah in Iran
      though unpopular with his own people, the
      West assisted Saddam in his early career.
      because they thought he would be able to be
      controlled, used him against Iran, for a
      while, and at the same time, used Iran
      against him.

      What all this meddling that has taken place
      for nearly 100 years has done to this
      region is prevented political stability
      from evolving with governments that are
      either Western puppets ruled by unpopular
      regimes that only look after a priveliged
      few, to radical extremists with a distorted
      view of the world, either way the general
      population gets screwed, making them bitter
      and twisted along the way and easy prey to
      the next lunatic to come along with a
      promiss of a better life.

      What is needed is to give these people the
      chance to sort themselves out, control
      their own destiny. Without outside
      interference and control of their own
      destiny. At the end of the First World War
      much of this area may have developed stable
      fair governments with every one having the
      same oportunity if they had been given the
      chance to work it out for themselves. It is
      a lot harder to make a suicide bomber out
      of a happy content person’s living the good
      live that it is from one who has been
      screwed over by everyone, has only a
      miserable future with no hope for a better
      life.

      The problem is that what’s gone before
      makes this more and more difficult With
      Iraq, we have a country that, in the last
      twenty or so years, has suffered under a
      vicious dictator, had the infrastructure of
      their country totally destroyed (eg.
      electrical network, sewrage treatment water
      suplies) all destroyed by being bombed out
      of existence, seen their children die from
      easily cured common illnesses due to the
      blocking of medical supplies, then when
      their “Liberators” save them from Saddam
      the first priority was to get the oil
      pipelines fixed, so having been shafted by
      the West many times in the past they are
      not confident everything is being done for
      their benefit. They needed to have been
      allowed to sort themselves out eighty odd
      years ago, the stakes are getting much
      higher all the time with the possibility as
      radical factions who hate each other to
      the point of no reason could become nuclear
      armed.

      After the Second World War a much more
      intelligent approach was taken with Japan
      and Germany, priority was given to
      rebuilding and making life better for their
      people as fast as possible as happy people
      are less likely to follow extreme political
      views. Hitler was able to get his initial
      foothold in Germany due to the pound of
      flesh the French and British demanded after
      the First World War.

Viewing 3 reply threads