so whats every1s view on the US/Iraq situaton?

[Alwayslost]

What I find very interesting is a LOT of apples to oranges comparisons.

About the UNSC resolutions, shouldn't we finish old business first, before we start on newer business? There's a small matter of Turkish and Greek troops in Cyprus that has violated UNSC resolutions for many years longer than Iraq has. I don't see anyone crying about the poor opressed people of Cyprus, do you? Oh yeah, they don't have any oil, why should we care? Many of these types of "justifications" for Bush's war on Iraq pretend they exist in a vacuum, and that Iraq and Saddam are the only ones in the world doing these bad things. They're not. They're just the only ones doing these bad things that have oil under their feet.

They also don't have VX or Mustard gas, or ambitions toward a nuclear arsenal, OR close ties to known terrorist groups.

It is also interesting that people like to blame Bush for the current financial problems the US faces. Given the events of the last 2 years I actually think he's going a fine job. I shudder to think what Gore would have done in his place... People have issue with Bush over the politics involved in the election. I am one of those that did not vote, and in my case (in a district where Gore won by like 8:1) it really made no difference.

Our economy was struggling after an explosive growth spurt, that everyone gives credit to Clinton for, (also just a case of coincidence) that HAD to come to a reconing. All the market analysts were predicting it, all the DotComs were operating in a vaccuum, and all it was waiting for was a ripe moment to fall apart.

The current financial problem we face is simply due to the fact that SOME prior president (regan I believe) made the mistake of trying to help Afganistan fight back against the Soviet Union by training Osama Bin Laden in modern guerilla warfare. Silly us that we didn't realize that by helping them we got added to their "The Infadels that set foot on our soil and now must be KILLED" list.

With security now SIGNIFICANTLY more a national issue than at any time in the past, and people struggling to recover from their own financial issues over the last couple years. Too many are just looking to place the blame.

I, for one, am GLAD that we have a president that is stepping up to the challenge and making decisive moves and attempting to solve the problems without having to consult the Polls for every decision and change policy as often as the public changes it's opinion.

Is he the best president we have ever had? Not even close. Is he the worst? Not by a long shot. But I do have this to say.

The country is going through one HELL of a screwed up time at the moment with Al Queda, and Iraq and our own financial issues on top of all the rest. Bush just happens to be at the helm through all this and has to deal with the flack; not an enviable job. I trust him far more than Gore, or many of the other options. Just to put it in perspective, I would trust Dan Quale to do a better job in the current circumstances over Al Gore.

I am not a "Peace Loving Tree Hugger" NOR do I feel that war is the best or first option, but Saddam could care less about the people within the borders of the country he controls. Sanctions will not work. They have accomplished nothing. Inspections will not work if we gave him 2 months or 20 years. It is not up to the INSPECTORS to disarm Iraq, it was up to Iraq.

As long as Saddam is in charge, Iraq will not disarm. But conversely if Saddam were no longer in charge the issue of WMD becomes moot, because it's not the COUNTRY od Iraq that is a threat to stability in the middle east. It is the single man that controls that country in a grip of terror.

[futuro]

Originally posted by cryptorad
Futuro...

You've saved me from a lot of typing. I can unequivocally say that you are spewing Democratic / Liberal standard boilerplate. So, while I could dig up and counter with plain old Republican / Conservative boilerplate I won't bother filling up this forum with the same drivel you can read everyday, anywhere in the press. While I believe many of the things they say, and I know some of your comments are wrong, there is no need for that level of verbal sparring here. It has no point.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Here I went to several different sources to get my information, and I'm accused of using some standard "boilerplate" that I have never seen. And seriously, if you can correct me on any points I made, please be my guest. I'm careful to post information that I've verified, and would like to know if I got some wrong information. I'm all for supported evidence from someone making a point opposite mine.

I will take issue with one of your points, since it's not really a political issue other then politics are the probable source of your comment and it's desired implication that Bush spent the country into deficit. I hope that I can get you to at least think about it, since it seems that you 'missed' a lot of what has happened in the United States as far as costs and budgets go lately, and provide some points to ponder for you so can consider that in your ‘futuro’ decisions.

Yuk, yuk. I haven't missed a thing. What I haven't missed is a president that spends and spends and borrows and borrows. I didn't miss this for 8 years, and I wish I wasn't missing it now. (Um? yeah). Unfortunately, we once again have a president who's solutions to every problem is a tax cut. "Oh, we have surpluses? Let's cut taxes!" "Oh, we have a deficit? LEt's cut taxes!" "Oh, there's a war on terrorism? Let's cut taxes!" "Oh, I have a polyp in my rectum? Let's cut taxes!". Whoops, that last one was Reagan, but don't think Bush wouldn't try it too.

First the fact of a 300 billion dollar deficit. Can you find a 'non Democratic' reference for that figure? Clinton quoted the 300 billion deficit in his debates, he arranged with Bob Dole, which themselves make me laugh. Bill is absolutely partisan, and I actually respect that, but he is also a frequent liar. Not someone accused of lying, like Powell and Bush, but a proven liar who for some reason isn't in jail for lying to a Grand Jury. I guess that's politics. I think you can figure what he says is at best half true.

How's the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED Congressional Budget Office for a non-democratic soure?

CBO'S BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
             (In billions of dollars)  
           As of January As of March                     Change 
Receipts 1,922            1,891              -30   
Outlays  2,121            2,137               17   
Deficit    -199             -246               -47

Just FYI, these projections do not include the cost of any action in Iraq, military or otherwise. I hope you accept this source, probably the same one Clinton used Sunday night.

But.. for sake of argument lets assume 300 billion dollars is actually THE current budgetary deficit. Where could that have come from you ask? Please consider the following before you ask something like that again. These were mostly headlining stories in the US you must have missed.

I guess you missed the 1.2 TRILLION (over ten years) tax cut?

1) Massive US military cuts. It costs money to rebuid an army. Too bad we're missing priceless experience and talent from the first gulf war we can't get back at any price but, that is a Clinton legacy. Iraq is at 40 percent of former strength the liberals love to quote. Their army is 80 percent the size of our army now. By the way.. did I say massive? Least we had a temporary budget surplus. And hell.. that got Billy elected a second time. His first election was courtesy of Ross Perot of course. (Sorry.. shameless partisan dig there).

Shameless partisan dig back : Reagan wouldn't have beat Carter without John Anderson. But really, this is something of an amazement to me. You mean that even though Clinton ravaged the military so badly, Bush was able to get it up to speed in just 10 months? On that same CBO site, there's a chart under the historical data section, Historical Budget Data that shows that Clinton's so called "massive" cuts were at most 12 or so percent less than Bush's, and Clinton's last few budgets were increasing military spending.

But don't mind that, blame it all on Clinton

2) War on terrorism. We ARE at war. Troops in Afghanistan and the like. Aid to allies to fight terrorism. New York City devastated. How much of the current budget was slated to rebuild the pentagon do you think? Yeah.. that's probably a deficit too.

I'm curious. Did it ever cross your mind or Bush's mind that perhaps raising taxes to pay for this, or maybe even not cutting taxes might help us pay for this in today's money, and not burden our grandchildren with debt?

3) Airlines. I will remind you that our airline industry was in trouble PRIOR to Sept. 11th. Now.. it's utterly in chaos. The government is paying fo that now. Or, we are actually. I think it's better then letting it collapse. Air travel is actually one of the symbols of our American freedom.

We have the freedom to travel by air, and the airlines also have the freedom to spend themselves into bankruptcy. I don't really think it's our duty as a country to rescue failing airlines, when we refuse to provide basic food and shelter to needy people. Why do the rich owners of failing airlines deserve help, but a single mother with small children doesn't?

4) Education. Bush signed into law the largest education spending bill EVER. You must have missed Ted Kennedy absolutely swooning with happiness during that time frame. Yeap.. it was unbudgeted. Go Figure.

Again, pay as you go. And FYI, Bush has since cut the funding for that education bill, so forget that.

5) Department of Homeland Security. This never existed before. So No, it wasn't budgeted. This cost a few bucks to set up. I am quite aware many of the departments already existed, but the total cost of a Department, due to infratstructure, is far larger then the sum of the cost of parts. Personally, I think the reason the Dem's are so upset about Homeland Security spending is that the Republicans are horning in on their territory by creating deficits and government jobs.

I find it hilarious that conservative are all for adding yet more beauracracy to the federal government. And it might be just me, but that title (Homeland) sends shivers up and down my spine. It smacks of 1984, Brave New World, and dare I say it, The Fatherland...

But if you think it's a good idea, PAY FOR IT! Don't saddle future generations with the bill, while attempting to cut taxes.

6) Economic downturn. Our economy was starting to fall off the 'false' high of the Clinton era before Bush ever took office. I'm not blaming the false high on Clinton. It just happened while he was in office. I don't think Billy really did anything except ride the wave, myself. That was probably a good decision. Now that the facts are starting to be revealed we discover that some of the largest of those 'roaring 90's' were nothing more then faked balance sheets. Fortunately some of those responsible are going to jail but that doesn't change the fact that the economy is down now. We are losing tons of tax revenue from this huge downturn where we now insist that figures are reported factually and actually. Alot harder to do business telling the truth apparently.

As far as the "faked balance sheets" goes, the dummies in the '80's didn't even need that. They were outbidding themselves for companies that were reporting increasing quarterly losses for as far as the eye can see.

But, we're in an economic downturn.... We're losing tax revenues to fund needed programs... Bush's answer? CUT TAXES!

Uh, wait, that didn't work, the economy is getting worse.... Bush's answer? CUT TAXES!

And he'll keep cutting taxes. And cutting taxes, and cutting taxes till the US government defaults on it's obligations, the dollar collapses, and we're all wearing barrels. Good plan.

Let's recap. War, economic downturn, military rebuilding, increased costs, increased aid, much much larger budget. I'm sure I missed quite a few but that should at least get you started so you can start thinking enough to look for basic information before making such wide sweeping statements like the one I quoted above. None of this was hidden from the US public. In fact, I think it was rather blatantly obvious.

I think you're missing something very important. It's slipping my mind.... wait, didn't I mention it above?

Oh, yeah, the tax cut.

I'm sorry you missed out on all of that. It was a helluva ride for the last few years. Maybe you can pick up and carry on from here and it'll make more sense to you now.



j/k .. don't take it personal.

I don't take anything personal, especially on a board where my real name is hidden for fear of reprisals from large international corporations.


However, I didn't miss any of that. I recall just two years ago when Bush first proposed his tax cuts, and prudent people were saying "But what if we get into a recession, or some unexpected expense comes up, shouldn't we keep the revenue and pay down the debt \, so that we'll be in a better position should we need the money?"

BUt did anybody listen? Nooo....

[Alwayslost]

Gremlinz,

Here are a few undisputed facts.

Saddam has used WMD on the people of his own country.

Saddam has imprisoned or outright killed anyone that has spoken out against him.

Saddam has a division (5k) troops that has one function to protect him and carry out his dirty work.

Saddam has and will continue to place his OWN civilians in harms way to make sure the world sees how evil the US is killing his people.

Please go back a page and read the article I posted a link to, it's VERY interesting and seems to be in agreement with most stories and expert opinions on the mindset and expected behaviours of Saddam.

A few more additional facts:

Saddam AGREED to the UNSCOM resolution to disarm. 12 years ago.

One of the aspects of the cease-fire was the southern no fly zone. (that the Iraqis continue to invade rarely but repeatedly shoot at UN air patrols)

Saddam played games with the inspectors for 8 years, restricting access and other Hide-and-seek tactics.

Then he kicked the inspectors out of the country, only to invite them back again 4 years later.

Saddam still has not done so, and has PROVEN that with a continuous flow of "New" information that appears JUST before each new inspection report...


And as a last thing, I don't see that we have become the bullies when our goal is to protect ourselves. We are not pushing anyone into a corner and saying give us your GNP, nor are we charging over a border to claim the country for ourselves as Saddam did to Kuait.

[Alwayslost]

I'm curious. Did it ever cross your mind or Bush's mind that perhaps raising taxes to pay for this, or maybe even not cutting taxes might help us pay for this in today's money, and not burden our grandchildren with debt?

I'm sorry, I don't buy this line of thinking.

With unemployment at a near record high in the last 10 years, inflation pushed lower and lower to encourage spending to fix the economy of our country. You want to take money OUT of circulation? If you do that, less goods are purchased, less goods are produced, less jobs are needed, and more people become unemployed.

Regan spent us into the ground, and as a teen at the time I heard all the rhetoric from the Democrats telling the kids of our nation that because of the Republicans, your grandchildren will have to pay for what Ronnie is spending on "Star Wars"...

Well, as fate has it, the internet and the information Age kick in just as a Democrat is elected into office and our economy booms. The Democrats take credit and Al Gore tries to claim credit for inventing the internet. I have not stopped laughing at him since.

But LO! and BEHOLD! that massive deficit that Ronnie created was wiped out by things just working themselves out.

Yes, the man in power has the ability to help things out one way or the other, but there is no WAY the the president alone has the power to make or break the economy of our country. (with a few notable exceptions from the past) We are smarter then we were, we have more access to information and are able to stay on top of current events on a global level.

[futuro]

Originally posted by Alwayslost
What I find very interesting is a LOT of apples to oranges comparisons.



They also don't have VX or Mustard gas, or ambitions toward a nuclear arsenal, OR close ties to known terrorist groups.

You pulled my comment that was specifally aimed toward the UN resolutions being presented as an agruement for war. Not fair!

But I'll address your other points, anyway. Sure, he might have biological weapons. So do many other countries. I live in one. And he might be trying to get nuclear weapons. I live in a country that has more nukes than anyone else combined. I'm wondering if you read the stuff about Saddam's well demonstrated sense of self-preservation. Do you really think he's going to insure self-annilalation by actually using wmd against the US?

And this cannard about "close ties" to terrorist groups is just about the biggest lie going. The recent letter purported to be from Bin Laden, while expressing support for the Iragi people, called Saddam "infidel". This is NOT a term of endearment amongst Muslims.

It is also interesting that people like to blame Bush for the current financial problems the US faces. Given the events of the last 2 years I actually think he's going a fine job. I shudder to think what Gore would have done in his place... People have issue with Bush over the politics involved in the election. I am one of those that did not vote, and in my case (in a district where Gore won by like 8:1) it really made no difference.

Point one : Many people are blaming Clinton for the current economy, many are blaming Bush. Makes no matter to me, except Bush's answer is to take us from surpluses back to deficits with a tax cut. THAT I blame him for.

Point Two : VOTE, goddammit.

Our economy was struggling after an explosive growth spurt, that everyone gives credit to Clinton for, (also just a case of coincidence) that HAD to come to a reconing. All the market analysts were predicting it, all the DotComs were operating in a vaccuum, and all it was waiting for was a ripe moment to fall apart.

I won't argue the point, except to say that the dotcom bubble bursting wasn't the thing that hosed the economy. It was (and is) the increasing exodus of good paying American jobs leaving the country for places like India. I wonder how long the corporations think they can keep doing this and still have people in the US able to buy their products?

The current financial problem we face is simply due to the fact that SOME prior president (regan I believe) made the mistake of trying to help Afganistan fight back against the Soviet Union by training Osama Bin Laden in modern guerilla warfare. Silly us that we didn't realize that by helping them we got added to their "The Infadels that set foot on our soil and now must be KILLED" list.

It was much more than that. Reagan also aided Saddam with money and contacts to buy weapons so he could fight Iran, too. Both are things that cooler heads might have objected to. IIRC, they did. I have a priceless photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand in 1983, I believe. I won't burden the board with the bandwidth. (Hehe, I've probable put more text bytes in the last few days than that picture takes)

With security now SIGNIFICANTLY more a national issue than at any time in the past, and people struggling to recover from their own financial issues over the last couple years. Too many are just looking to place the blame.

No, I'm looking for someone with the correct solutions, not just another tax cut, not just another war, not just another usurping of our freedoms.

I, for one, am GLAD that we have a president that is stepping up to the challenge and making decisive moves and attempting to solve the problems without having to consult the Polls for every decision and change policy as often as the public changes it's opinion.

Silly me. Here I thought we live in a semi-democracy, where the people's opinions count.

Is he the best president we have ever had? Not even close. Is he the worst? Not by a long shot. But I do have this to say.

Those judgments aren't for us to make. We're still too close in time to judge even Reagan's tenure. I'lll bet people in 1929 tought their leaders were quite the 23-skiddo, they way they dealt tough with Germany at the end of WWI. Little did they know that it was exactly that tough treatment that paved the way for Hitler's rise to power. Why do you think we spent so much time and money rebuilding Europe and Japan after WWII? At least we learned from history that time.

The country is going through one HELL of a screwed up time at the moment with Al Queda, and Iraq and our own financial issues on top of all the rest. Bush just happens to be at the helm through all this and has to deal with the flack; not an enviable job. I trust him far more than Gore, or many of the other options. Just to put it in perspective, I would trust Dan Quale to do a better job in the current circumstances over Al Gore.

And, of course, this is a totally your opinion, and you could never make a case for it. I think that Jimmy Carter would have been much better than Bush right now, but that's the same type of thing, so I don't even bother saying it. Oh, what the hell.... Perhaps Gore might have put better qualified people in charge of the intelligence community, they would have figured something was up around July of 2001, put surveilence on Atta and his gang, found out what they were up to, and arrested the whole lot on September 10.
Then this whole Iraq thing would just be a minor policy concern, Saddam would have faded quietly into oblivion, and people could be working at the real problems facing the US?

My scenario is just as likely as any you could come up with, and just as useless.

I am not a "Peace Loving Tree Hugger" NOR do I feel that war is the best or first option, but Saddam could care less about the people within the borders of the country he controls. Sanctions will not work. They have accomplished nothing. Inspections will not work if we gave him 2 months or 20 years. It is not up to the INSPECTORS to disarm Iraq, it was up to Iraq.

And it's not up to the US to change the regime, it's up to the people of Iraq.

And speaking of caring less, I saw an article about the Bush administration ensuring Iraqi retirees that their pensions would be taken care of, should the US invade. Why can't Bush do that for his own people?

As long as Saddam is in charge, Iraq will not disarm. But conversely if Saddam were no longer in charge the issue of WMD becomes moot, because it's not the COUNTRY od Iraq that is a threat to stability in the middle east. It is the single man that controls that country in a grip of terror.

Point one : If I was in charge of Iraq, with the US warmachine breathing down my neck, you could be DAMN sure I'd be getting as many WMDs as I could, and threatening to use them immediately upon invasion. Since I certainly can't prove a negative (go ahead, prove you don't have a stack of porno magazines in your house), and everybody is so damn sure I have them, and when they can't find them, I'm accused of hiding them, well, I'm gonna get me some, dammit!

Point two : Do you really think one man is capable of keeping control of an entire country? I don't. I think that there are thousands of people that support Saddam in Iraq, for whatever reasons they have, and we might just put another, even worse one in charge once we invade. Remember, we once thought Bin Laden was a good guy...

The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. And making a policy of pre-emptively changing leaders of countries when we don't like what they're doing is just making the US into the world's biggest bully. Should we continue this unwise course, one day, the entire world might rise up against us, and the conservtives worst nightmare might come true. We might end up as a protectorate of the UN!

[futuro]

Originally posted by Alwayslost


I'm sorry, I don't buy this line of thinking.

Not selling you anything...

With unemployment at a near record high in the last 10 years, inflation pushed lower and lower to encourage spending to fix the economy of our country. You want to take money OUT of circulation? If you do that, less goods are purchased, less goods are produced, less jobs are needed, and more people become unemployed.

I was more reffering to not cutting taxes, than increasing them. Bush's first cut did nothing at all to spur the economy, and more will just increase the national debt. But here's a shocker for you. I say, make the high income earners and corporations carry a larger burden than they're carrying now. They're the ones that benefitted from Reagan's and Bush's cuts, and they're the ones deriving more benefit from this great country than the average working man. Even if you want to remain revenue neutral, give a tax cut to working people, and increase correspondingly the taxs on incomes over say $300,000 and unearned income. That's the way to spur economic growth, not throwing more money at people who don't know what to do with what they have now. For example, Microsoft is sitting on $40 BILLION in cash. Giving them another tax break isn't going to make them spend or invest any more, in a climate that they don't see any opportunities in.

Regan spent us into the ground, and as a teen at the time I heard all the rhetoric from the Democrats telling the kids of our nation that because of the Republicans, your grandchildren will have to pay for what Ronnie is spending on "Star Wars"...

Welcome to the furture. 20% of your federal tax dollar goes to paying interest on the debt. And Bush is working on increasing that figure much, much huigher. How much are you willing to pay of your tax dollar in interest to the holders of US notes?
25%? 30%? 50%? Hold on, you tell us when to stop. And oh yeah, that nice Interstate near your house? Well, we have to close it down, becuse we're paying so much interest on the debt that we can't afford to maintain it, since you don't want taxes raised.

Well, as fate has it, the internet and the information Age kick in just as a Democrat is elected into office and our economy booms. The Democrats take credit and Al Gore tries to claim credit for inventing the internet. I have not stopped laughing at him since.

Laugh at this link Article from The Register

Also, he never tried to claim "credit for inventing the internet". In the article is his actual quote about "taking the initiative in creating the internet". He was answering a question about his knwoledge of technology and how the goverment can help. He rightly claimed to be the point man in the House and Senate for developing the internet as it is now. Even Newt Gingrich agreed! And in searching for Gingrich's comment, I came upon this very interesting piece

[QUOTE]
But LO! and BEHOLD! that massive deficit that Ronnie created was wiped out by things just working themselves out.{/QUOTE]

But LO! and BEHOLD! Nope. Tax increase under Bush I and Clinton kind of helped, don't you think?

And we're still saddled with $6 TRILLION dollars in debt THAT INTEREST MUST BE PAID ON!

Yes, the man in power has the ability to help things out one way or the other, but there is no WAY the the president alone has the power to make or break the economy of our country. (with a few notable exceptions from the past) We are smarter then we were, we have more access to information and are able to stay on top of current events on a global level.

No offense, but I think you need to stay a little bit more on top. Deficits are back in a big way, the national debt in increasing the economy is tanking farther and farther down and Bush wants more tax cuts, this time, geared to the RICH! Wonderful, they get extra money to buy the T-bills that we need to fund the tax cut, and we pay them interest!

How do I get off this bus?

[gremlinz]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alwayslost
[B]Gremlinz,
_____________________________
Here are a few undisputed facts.
_____________________________

I am ready
______________________________________________
Saddam has used WMD on the people of his own country.
______________________________________________

Sorry to be a prick on this one but how does that make a threat to us. How is this our problem. I feel if we are going to crush a horrible regime we should crush all horrible regimes, not just the profitable one. Also where is you research on this.

__________________________________________________
Saddam has imprisoned or outright killed anyone that has spoken out against him.
__________________________________________________ _



You just spoke out against, lord knows half the people in the known world do. This point is not a fact.
__________________________________________________ __
Saddam has a division (5k) troops that has one function to protect him and carry out his dirty work.
__________________________________________________ _


How are we different. Yet again where is your research or at least a source here.

__________________________________________________ __
Saddam has and will continue to place his OWN civilians in harms way to make sure the world sees how evil the US is killing his people.
__________________________________________________ __

Ok this is not a fact you can not predict the future so stop trying. If we kill innocents ceivilians we are evil deal with it. This also does not proof for war, if we were not fucking with him he would not have to put people in his way.


__________________________________________________ _
Please go back a page and read the article I posted a link to, it's VERY interesting and seems to be in agreement with most stories and expert opinions on the mindset and expected behaviours of Saddam.
__________________________________________________ __


Read that and more. I am not saying Saddam is not a bad man. I'm saying we are acting no better.


__________________________________________________ __
A few more additional facts:

Saddam AGREED to the UNSCOM resolution to disarm. 12 years ago.
_________________________________________________


This is the first solid fact presented. But did he do so of his own free will or did we make him sign in under threat of wiping is country off the face of the planet.


__________________________________________________ _
One of the aspects of the cease-fire was the southern no fly zone. (that the Iraqis continue to invade rarely but repeatedly shoot at UN air patrols)
__________________________________________________ _

This is true also, can we garuntee though that those planes were shot down by his orders??


__________________________________________________ __
Saddam played games with the inspectors for 8 years, restricting access and other Hide-and-seek tactics.
__________________________________________________ __

If i had the USA coming down on me I would too.

"My mom didn't give me any lunch money today"

__________________________________________________ _
Then he kicked the inspectors out of the country, only to invite them back again 4 years later.
__________________________________________________ _

Yeah when we threatend to give him a curb stomping

"Ok i have my money it is in my backpack"

__________________________________________________
Saddam still has not done so, and has PROVEN that with a continuous flow of "New" information that appears JUST before each new inspection report...
__________________________________________________ _


Not sure exactlly what you are talking about here.


__________________________________________________ _
And as a last thing, I don't see that we have become the bullies when our goal is to protect ourselves. We are not pushing anyone into a corner and saying give us your GNP, nor are we charging over a border to claim the country for ourselves as Saddam did to Kuait.
__________________________________________________ _

OMFG!!!! Bullies force themselves or what they want on a person

US forces our rules and even our theory of democracy on that country. That is what we are trying to do set them up to be a democracy. Democracy is supposed to be about freedom and the right to choose. Where is the freedom in saying here you will use this system of government. Our founding fathers are turning in the grave at how we have become. We our forcing our will on other ocuntires all the time. We are bullies. So you have maybe 3 at the very most solid facts. You also state no research or even sources. Your just spewing propaganda at me, that still has absolutly no reason for us to attack. If i want propaganda I can read the web if you want to debate things, then do it properly



Seriously folks I do not mean to sound mean but I am very sick of the proganda that gets flown at me every time I turn on a tv read a news paper, even go web surfing, and even when I go to lunch.

Here are some definitions for you folks.
__________________________________________________ __
free·dom ( P ) Pronunciation Key (frdm)
n.
The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

Political independence.
Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.

The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).
__________________________________________________ _

Which we are not giving to Iraw but taking away.

__________________________________________________ _
de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
__________________________________________________ __

What we do not have any more and something you can not force some one to use.

__________________________________________________ __

. bul·lied, bul·ly·ing, bul·lies
v. tr.
To treat in an overbearing or intimidating manner. See Synonyms at intimidate.
To make (one's way) aggressively.


bully

\Bul"ly\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Bullied; p. pr. & vb. n. Bullying.] To intimidate with threats and by an overbearing, swaggering demeanor; to act the part of a bully toward.

For the last fortnight there have been prodigious shoals of volunteers gone over to bully the French, upon hearing the peace was just signing. --Tatler.

Syn: To bluster; swagger; hector; domineer.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


bully

\Bul"ly\, v. i. To act as a bully.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
__________________________________________________ __


Wow thats us

[Alwayslost]

Unfortunately I'm wayy too tired to reply at length.


Futuro,

Good points!

/bow



gremlinz,

/boggle

/sigh

[puppet]

I am sure that if a person has their mind up, this post will not change it. However you asked for some proof. I am hoping that you will read these articles and at least shift your position some. I don’t want to go to War, I wish we could avoid it. But we have come to a point where it looks like we have to force our hand. I do feel sorry for the loss of life that will be felt in Iraq and to our service members (I believe Iraq will use WMD in the war, you know the ones Iraq says they don’t have) I hope that after the War the USA will help rebuild Iraq and help the citizens. But we don’t have a very good track record here.


I have included your reply and the statement you were replying to in my quotes since it would not be clear what you were responding to without the original statement. I hope this is not to confusing to read.

______________________________________________
Saddam has used WMD on the people of his own country.
______________________________________________

Sorry to be a prick on this one but how does that make a threat to us. How is this our problem. I feel if we are going to crush a horrible regime we should crush all horrible regimes, not just the profitable one. Also where is you research on this.

Here are a few links from outside sources that could be used as research on this.

Human Rights Watch report

And a quote from that site:

“Human Rights Watch is fully aware of the toll of recurrent and horrific human rights abuses committed by the government of Iraq. For this reason, we urge the Security Council to establish an international criminal tribunal, such as those the Council has authorized for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to indict and bring to justice Iraqi government officials and former officials against whom there is credible evidence of responsibility for acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The tribunal's writ should include the 1988 campaign to evacuate the Kurdish countryside as a site for anti-regime insurgency, in which the government destroyed more than 2,000 villages and a dozen towns, seized every Kurd in the "prohibited area," trucked off an estimated 100,000 civilians for execution, and used chemical weapons against its own citizens”

Guardian report on Human Rights Violations

__________________________________________________

Saddam has imprisoned or outright killed anyone that has spoken out against him.
__________________________________________________
_

You just spoke out against, lord knows half the people in the known world do. This point is not a fact.

The original poster may not have been specific enough for you but I have some facts for you. Many other examples can be found in reports that detail his human rights violations

Report from the British government

From the Guardian link provided above.

Saddam has, through the RCC, issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties (amputation, branding, cutting off of ears, or other forms of mutilation) for criminal offences. In mid-2000, the RCC approved amputation of the tongue as a new penalty for slander or abusive remarks about the President or his family. These punishments are practiced mainly on political dissenters.

__________________________________________________
__
Saddam has and will continue to place his OWN civilians in harms way to make sure the world sees how evil the US is killing his people.
__________________________________________________
__

Ok this is not a fact you can not predict the future so stop trying.

This is a fact. This is not the first conflict with Saddam, he has used the tactic of “human shields” before. In fact some people from other countries have flow to Iraq for the sole purpose of acting as shields. The link below provides a few details, it also mentions Saddams human rights violations along with his use of chemical weapons.

Physicians for Human Rights Statement on War in Iraq

[gremlinz]

Puppet excellent post I did read every post you included and some I had read before. I am not in any way saying that saddam isn't a horrible person. I know this every one does. But, there are many horrible people in the world that some one should do something about. But we have not touched any of those. I have a few specific issues.

1. We go in kill him, win war, and setup new government. This new government will be a democracy of some sorts and will "help" the people of Iraq. I just wonder who gave us the right to decide how other countries run their governments. What we are doing is going in wiping out their homes, business, churches and most importantly family memebers and then forcing our government upon them. This is my issue. What if the people of Iraq do not want their country set up as a democracy, what if they want a monarchy or dictatorship. We are taking over that country and forcing them to act how we want them to or what we feel is in their best intrest. We are dictating what we want and become a dictatorship over that country. We are not freeing them. We are making them what we want them to be.

2. We are not in the long run helping the people of Iraq. Part of the reason most of the people in the USA love the US is because family members have died to give us the freedom we have. We fought for it and one. We earned this democracy and it was our choice. This fight and bloodshed has nade us strong and has given us something to rally around and feel pride in. When the people of Iraq think of their democracy they will think of their families dead and how the US set up their government like a construction company throws up a track house. If we want to help the people end the tyranny of their country, then we help them, we show them how, we do not do it for them. They will not learn the value of what they have, nor will they appreciate it.

I do not disagree with the war. I know eventually it will happen. I understand that Saddam needs to go down. The questions I have is why him and not some other dictator? Why are we so quick to jump in on it? Why are the American people not being allowed to lead our country like we were supposed to be, instead of being lead by the president. How can this war be called with out congress's support? Why is it that every time a war happens with our countires our personal freedoms get lesser and lesser? How come we never hear anything in the news about the french thoughts on the matter or any one else's thoughts? We are given the views of our country and the british and we do not get a whole picture. We get to see it from the side of the people who want war. I want to see both side of the pictures, i want all the information and be allowed to chose wether or not he is such a hydra that we need to go in and stomp him out. As of this current time he has done nothing that I have seen proof of to hurt us? At least not recently. So when I ask for proof that is what I want. I want to see the issue between Iraq and the US. Where is the threat. The WMD's is not something I would like to hear unless he is pointing them at us. Becuase jumping and beating the hell out of some one becuase you thought they might beat you up is not an answer or an intelligent thing to do. If any one can answer my questions please do so.

[puppet]

1) I have no idea how the government of Iraq will be setup after the War. I am sure we will back someone who is friendly with the USA. But the great thing about a democratic government is that if the people of Iraq don’t like him then they can vote someone they do like into office on the next election. The USA does not have a good record on puppet governments but you have to remember that we helped re-build and stabilize Japan and Germany after WWII.

2) The people of Iraq have suffered more than we did in the New World before we broke away. I believe that the people of Iraq will appreciate freedom as much as anyone can. If you would like you can look into the difference between the ruling party’s in Iraq vs. the Ruling party over the New World. Find out what would have happened if the New World was run like present day Iraq

I understand that Saddam needs to go down. The questions I have is why him and not some other dictator? Why are we so quick to jump in on it?

There are many bad people\dictators in this world. I think if you read the information provided before you will see why we are after Saddam. Many people do some of the things that he does but I don’t know of any that does as much as he does for the same length of time. Many people ask why we are going to War with Iraq over Nuclear weapons when N Korea has then and has said they will use them. N Korea has many problems and has had them for awhile. But they have just stepped up the problems by withdrawing from many key agreements and such. The administration believes that they can solve N Koreas problems thru negotiations and avoid a War with N Korea. Remember that N Korea has nukes and the means to deliver them to remote locations (not believed to be able to hit the mainland of the US at this point I don’t believe), a war with them could get very ugly very fast. We are trying to stop Saddam from reaching this level.

We are also not “quick to jump in” this cat and mouse game with Saddam has been going on for a very long time.

How come we never hear anything in the news about the french thoughts on the matter or any one else's thoughts? We are given the views of our country and the british and we do not get a whole picture. We get to see it from the side of the people who want war. I want to see both side of the pictures, i want all the information and be allowed to chose wether or not he is such a hydra that we need to go in and stomp him out

I don’t know what news you watch but I hear about the thoughts of the French all to often. I also see about all the Anti-war protests across the USA and the World. Most talk shows have a person on that represents both sides of an argument.

I mean no offence but it sounds like you want everything spoon feed to you. All the information you need is out there, you need to go find it. But remember that many places that post their thoughts on the War (or anything else) sometimes have an agenda, This applies to both sides of any topic.

The WMD's is not something I would like to hear unless he is pointing them at us. Becuase jumping and beating the hell out of some one because you thought they might beat you up is not an answer or an intelligent thing to do.

(I am NOT trying to make a tie between Iraq and Al Quada here)

Did Al Quada have a WMD pointed at us before 9-11? The old days are gone, it does not take a ballistic missile pointed at us to be a threat anymore (it does help though) The reports I linked before show that Saddam does not have any problems using WMD. Would you like to wait until he has the tech to manufacture long range Ballistic weapons with a nuclear warheads and he launches one. I agree we are on a slippery slope and must be careful but to me the facts seem clear.

Not that it is a huge deal but Iraq does regularly target our planes patrolling the Iraq no fly zone with Radar. Once targeted they can be locked for a missile launch. I don’t know how often they fire on us and I have not heard of a hit for a long time but it is a threatening stance and against the UN resolutions. Granted when the Rader station goes hot we can target them also and we do destroy them.

##Edit## corrected spelling of threatening thanks to Alwayslost quote

[Alwayslost]

Originally posted by Futuro
And this cannard about "close ties" to terrorist groups is just about the biggest lie going. The recent letter purported to be from Bin Laden, while expressing support for the Iragi people, called Saddam "infidel". This is NOT a term of endearment amongst Muslims.

This is true, BUT remember Osama Bin Laden was MORE than happy to accept the help of another group of Infidels when they were fighting the Soviet Union. I have ZERO doubt that if Bin Ladin could get VX from Saddam to use against the US (his biggest enemy at the time) that he would. "The enemy of my enemy ..." and all that. I also have LESS doubt that Saddam would be willing to CONTINUE to sponsor terrorist acts to further his power.

Originally posted by gremlinz
2. We are not in the long run helping the people of Iraq. ... This fight and bloodshed has nade us strong and has given us something to rally around and feel pride in. When the people of Iraq think of their democracy they will think of their families dead and how the US set up their government like a construction company throws up a track house. If we want to help the people end the tyranny of their country, then we help them, we show them how, we do not do it for them. They will not learn the value of what they have, nor will they appreciate it.

What part of "They fear for their lives daily" do you not understand? I have seen interviews with Iraqis that have come to America, I have yet to see an interview with an Iraqi that has any love for Saddam. I also heard that if you are alive today and a citizen of Iraq, you have lost at least one relative to Saddam's Regieme. Yes this is HEARSAY, but when enough people say it that have FLED from the source of their fear, I tend to believe it.

If you seriously think there is any possibility of the US teaching the "average" Iraqi citizen how to overthrow Saddam let me give you a far simpler task: Teach the chickens in the coop how to kill the mountain lion that breaks in and eats them. That has a better chance of success.

Originally posted by gremlinz
Why are the American people not being allowed to lead our country like we were supposed to be, instead of being lead by the president.

With a population of about 281 million people you have to elect people to make the decisions for us all...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gremlinz
[B]How can this war be called with out congress's support?

It was and is.

Originally posted by gremlinz
How come we never hear anything in the news about the french thoughts on the matter or any one else's thoughts?

You have internet, go to their websites, get their news, They translate it to english.

Originally posted by gremlinz
We are given the views of our country and the british and we do not get a whole picture. We get to see it from the side of the people who want war. I want to see both side of the pictures, i want all the information and be allowed to chose wether or not he is such a hydra that we need to go in and stomp him out.

If you were President of the US you WOULD have all the information. CIA, NSA, FBI, and all the rest would give you daily breifings.

So YOU want to be the deciding vote? Now you are leaving out the remainder of the other 281 mil US citizens.

[dbrot]

I read this and thought is was kind of interesting. I guess it helps when mommy and daddy are influential.


Bush's stance on affirmative action belies a student who received some conspicuous legs up.

by Peter Dreier

President George W. Bush was an affirmative-action beneficiary, at Yale University and then at Harvard Business School. Now he wants the University of Michigan to end its policy of considering applicants' race, among other factors, in admitting students. According to Bush, this approach "amounts to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based on their race."

Bush was admitted to Yale in 1964 under an affirmative-action policy for children of alumni -- what colleges call a "legacy" system. legacy preferences still exist, of course, at most selective schools, including Michigan and Yale. But they no longer carry quite the same weight they did at schools such as Yale, Princeton University and Harvard University when Bush was applying to colleges in 1964.

The president never released his high-school grades from Andover -- an elite New England prep school that his father had also attended -- or his SAT scores. But several years ago, The New Yorker got hold of Bush's Yale records and discovered that he scored a 566 on the verbal SAT and a 640 on the math SAT -- 180 points below the median score for his Yale classmates.

From what is known about Bush's academic performance at Andover, it is doubtful that he would have been admitted to Yale unless his father (at the time a Texas businessman running for the U.S. Senate in a race he eventually lost) and grandfather (Prescott Bush, a former Republican U.S. senator who represented Connecticut from 1952 to 1962) had been Yalies (from, respectively, the classes of 1948 and 1917). In fact, as a student, Bush studied in the Yale library's Prescott Walker Bush Memorial Wing.

Back then, Yale's student body was disproportionately made up of white, upper-class students from the nation's most elite prep schools. But without a Yale legacy, even a student from the most select private high school needed excellent grades and SAT scores to get in. Like other Ivy League colleges, Yale at the time had its own criteria for "diversity." It looked for students with strong athletic abilities or special skills such as musical or theatrical talent, as well as students from different parts of the country. These non-legacy students had to meet Yale's basic academic standards, of course, though the college no doubt rejected plenty of one-dimensional students who may have had higher grades and SAT scores but lacked other qualities Yale was looking for. (At the time, however, Yale made little effort to recruit minorities. In the fall of 1964, there were only 28 African-American students out of 4,093 undergraduates.)

Other than being a legacy, Bush had no qualities that would have gotten him into Yale. Had he been a National Merit Scholar finalist, an outstanding athlete or actor or editor of the Andover newspaper, or had he perhaps organized his fellow students to tutor underprivileged kids, we probably would know by now. In fact, he was a mediocre student -- he never made the honor roll -- and demonstrated no particularly outstanding talents to warrant being admitted to Yale. He was head cheerleader during his senior year, organized the school's stickball league and played baseball, basketball and football. But, unlike his father, who was an outstanding baseball player, W. was not a star athlete, and certainly not good enough to be recruited by Yale's coaches. Perhaps Yale was looking for students from west Texas to add some cultural and regional diversity, but, if so, why accept a kid from Midland, Texas who had attended prep school in Massachusetts?

It probably didn't hurt that three of the seven members of Yale's admissions committee who reviewed Bush's application had been in Skull and Bones, the exclusive college club that also included W.'s grandfather and father among its members (and would later "tap" W. for membership during his junior year). The fact is that, just a few years later, when Yale began admitting women and tightened its legacy policy, it is unlikely that Bush - even with all his connections - would have gotten in.

And has anyone asked the president how he got into Harvard Business School, the nation's premier training ground for corporate executives? We like to think that the school selects students based on meritocratic criteria: college grades, scores on the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) or some experience in the real world of business that would demonstrate the skills necessary to run a major corporation.

But Bush's Yale transcript shows that he was a C student. He got particularly poor grades in political science and economics. In his freshman year - the only year for which The New Yorker obtained rankings - Bush was in the 21st percentile of his class. In other words, 79 percent of the students had better grades than he did. Indeed, when he gave a speech at Yale's 2001 commencement ceremony, he joked, "to the C students I say, you, too, can be president of the United States."

Bush has never released his GMAT scores. During the five years between his graduation from Yale in 1968 and his application to Harvard Business School in 1973, he had no obvious career trajectory or major accomplishments. In 1970 he worked on his father's second unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate. He had never worked in the business world except for nine months in 1971, when he was a management trainee with Stratford of Texas, an agricultural and ranching company. In 1973 he worked for nine months as a counselor at the Professional United Leadership League, a program that provided mentors from professional sports leagues to Houston's inner-city children.

During this five-year period, Bush served part time in the Texas National Guard. And even his acceptance to the National Guard's pilot-training program required special treatment. Bush scored only 25 percent on a pilot-aptitude test, the lowest acceptable grade. Nevertheless, commanders of the Texas Guard, aware that Bush's father was then a U.S. congressman from Texas, swore W. in as an airman the same day he applied.

In 1973 he was discharged from the National Guard in order to enter Harvard Business School. By that time, Bush had already been rejected in his home state by the University of Texas' law school because of his lackluster performance at Yale. So when the admissions directors at Harvard Business School looked at Bush's transcript and application, they must have seen something that allowed them to take a chance on an applicant who could charitably be labeled an "at-risk" student. (And it probably wasn't that he'd been president of his fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, known as the hardest-drinking jock house at Yale.)

At the time Bush's application landed at Harvard Business School, Bush Senior - who had recovered from his defeated bids for U.S. Senate in 1964 and 1970 and was by then a former congressman from Texas, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former U.S. diplomatic liaison to China - was chairman of the Republican National Committee. Might Senior's fame have played a role?

It isn't clear if the business school's forms asked if applicants had ever been arrested. But if so, Bush's application might have stood out - for the wrong reasons. He was not arrested for protesting for civil rights or against the Vietnam War. Rather, as a 20-year-old Yale junior, Bush was arrested for stealing a wreath from a New Haven hotel. He was charged with disorderly conduct, though the charge was later dropped. Perhaps Harvard's admissions committee saw this experience as good training for someone who might later run a Texas oil company or, as president, have to decide how to deal with such corporate lawbreakers as Enron and WorldCom executives.

Regardless of his own privileged background - and the obvious ways that Yale and Harvard ignored his grades and test scores when admitting him - Bush is entitled to his opinions about affirmative action. What he seems to misunderstand is that Michigan's affirmative-action policy does not allow the admittance of students who are unqualified or unable to handle the academic work. No selective school simply uses grades and test scores in deciding which students to accept. Colleges accept students whose high-school grades and SAT scores meet a basic threshold, and then give extra points to students with various characteristics, based on such factors as athletic or artistic ability; urban, suburban or rural background; demonstrated commitment to public service; attendance at public, private or religious high schools; and ethnic and racial backgrounds. All of this is done merely in the name of creating a diverse student body, a goal that Bush says he supports.

Bush, a mediocre student, got into Andover, Yale, Harvard Business School and the Texas National Guard's pilot-training program because he was rich and well-connected. His subsequent business career - including his early efforts to start an oil company, the financial favoritism that allowed him to buy part of the Texas Rangers baseball team with hardly any of his own money, the political favoritism that allowed him to persuade the city of Arlington, Texas, to subsidize a new stadium - was due in large part to his family and social connections. These connections laid the groundwork for Bush to enter politics and helped catapult him to the presidency.

The University of Michigan's affirmative-action program seeks to help qualified students without these sorts of connections - indeed, to help some students who have had to cope with considerable economic and social disadvantages, including racism - in order t level the playing field.

Bush says he wants college admissions to be "race neutral" because racial background isn't something you earn, it's something into which you're born. So the question for Bush is whether he would also have wanted college admissions to be "legacy neutral" for the exact same reasons - and where in life he would be right now if they were.

[Alwayslost]

Originally posted by puppet
Not that it is a huge deal but Iraq does regularly target our planes patrolling the Iraq no fly zone with Radar. Once targeted they can be locked for a missile launch. I don’t know how often they fire on us and I have not heard of a hit for a long time but it is a treating stance and against the UN resolutions. Granted when the Rader station goes hot we can target them also and we do destroy them.

Additional Note:

Those radar units are MOBILE and usually parked at churches and schools, so that when HARM's take them out there are civilian casualties that they can show to the world.

And in a delayed reply to an earlier statement:

can we garuntee though that those planes were shot down by his orders??

NOTHING happens in Iraq without Saddam's express permission/knowledge/orders, not if those passing out the orders want to live long.

[cryptorad]

Seems I can contribute one little factoid to help define the fine line of 'targeting' and 'firing'.

According to the "rules of engagement" of international law, locking a targeting radar signal onto an aircraft is an offensive act and is considered an attack. A targeting radar works quite differently then a radar that is just scanning and tracking you .. or showing your path. There is only one reason to lock a targeting radar onto you.. and that is to direct the radar guided missle into you 20 seconds later. Since their is no time or ability to know if the missle is going to be launched, you have to assume it is going to be and take immediate defensive / evasive countermeasures. This is why it is considered an agressive action and an attack.

Many liberals / dems state that the US broke the cease fire by being the first to fire. Actually.. Iraq did by targeting our aircraft. Which resulted in our destroying the AA site. Typical protocol and something which is to be expected if you know how this stuff works. Saddam does know how it works. The Lib/dems also make the statement that the 'no fly zones' don't actually exist. Because we 'just made them up'.

Well, we DID just make them up. And they DO actually exist. Ask Iraq. We made them up in an attempt to stop the genocide Saddam was inflicting on people revolting in his country against his rule. He was using chemical biological weapons on them to keep them under control (dead people are considered under control I guess).

This is why there is a game of cat and mouse in those 'no fly' zones all the time. Iraq claiming 'you can't do that' and certain people in this world backing him up (<--- liberal democrats /French /some of the UN). We (the US) doing it anyway. Which I see as our right under spoils of war. WE fought the war.. we issued the cease fire rules. Our rules.. our ball.. our game. Don't like it.. tough. Should have thought of the consequences before you took us on.

So .. he is always setting up AA sams and targetting our aircraft. We keep shooting them. He is simply doing it to find the weak link. He's 'practicing' the AA setup so he can find a way to make his AA effective by finding SOME way that we don't just instantly destroy his AA missles as soon as they lock on. Practice makes perfect.. AND.. if he manages to find a trick that works.. that spells big trouble for our air superiority in any fight.

Based on the frequency of his AA attacks of last month I personally think he is on to something. He wouldn't be wasting that many AA batteries if he didn't have a trick that is almost working for him. Or maybe it IS working and we (the general public of the US) just don't know it yet. If that is true, and the US military hasn't figured it out, then alot of US pilots are going to pay for it, maybe with their lives.

Just FYI.


Vive la France! Vive la Liberals!