"...is to do and say whatever he can to make dubya not look like what he really is, a mental midget and a moral zero."
Rather than rehash Somalia (so that you can go to bashing Clinbton again to hide from the fact that this is Bush's mess and his alone), lets talk instead of the precedent set of turning tail and running in Lebanon by one of your "oh so wise" republican heros.
If Clinton were, as you want to assert, affraid to meet directly with an enemy, we would still to this day be sitting on the sidelines and watching the terrible genocide in Bosnia.
What you want do is to bash Clinton and tell untruths to denegrate a past president, that has no way to correct the mess we have now in order to avoid the facts!
Playing at "I'm the biggest bully on this playground" is exactly what it sounds like, being immature and creating resentment.
posted
How about this idea maybe they should be able to take care of themselves at this point, we have given them that opportunity, we invested enough in that country in lives and money we do not need to send more and more body bags to fill with American soldiers. You are talking to the wrong person to try and use the shock treatment in words, drop by a VA or military hospital if you want a real shock treatment. Maybe we should go to China, Laos, Cambodia etc. It "can" happen there also, I hope there would be more of a reason to stay in a war than what can happen after we leave.
IP: Logged |
posted
Bdgee, what's the difference between discussing the faults of a sitting or a past president? I hear so many things blamed on Bush that were in place long before he took office. Many of the things blamed on Bush were brewing many years before his birth. I haven't any great love for Bush, or any other president for that matter... but if we wish to play the blame game.. shouldn't we atleast try to be remotely accurate?
IP: Logged |
posted
Well well well. You boys gettin' your swagger bag after the pasting you received last weekend? IWISHIHAD - I don't know you but I will save you a Bdgee ramble. I'm a straight ticket republican....... RNC .....blah blah blah...... Rove........ Lock step...... blah blah blah I do wish they were able to take care of themselves. I really go back and forth on this. Sometimes I think the only way they can learn to take care of themselves is if they lose their crutch. But I can also see where that leads to civil war or invasion from Iran. people such as you and my brother who have been to Iraq have a much better perspective of things.
I'm out all. Gotta work fairly late again tonight and most of the weekend. Have a nice discussion
IWISHIHAD - I appreciate your service to your country. Now we may disagree on things, but your service earns my respect.
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: The move to leave right now allows genocide to thrive. As my two cousins re-upped in the last year when they could have retired, which meant a return to Iraq and Afghanistan for both, there are many, many who recognize the need to do the right thing and right colonial and Cold War abuses. That too is "the facts" Cash Cow.
well thats fine and i get your point. however take into consideration how much blood is in the soils of iraq, hell ive even left blood there. when is enough engouh? id rather spill blood on OUR border instead of someone elses. thats another thing...we arent spread out along iraqs borders. we are all hunkered down in the cities playing politics. if we were to do the right thing all the time as you say then we should have troops all over africa because there is daily slaughter and genocide over there. not too many people REALLY know what kinds of things are going on. they are much much worse than saddam. you can just go around doing crap like this saying its the right thing to do.
we should have gone after hezbollah and hamass before going into iraq. hezbollah is very well networked and is a militant arm of iran. if we push them too much they will attack us.
i was all about this war in the beginning. i thought it had to be done and that wont change. i am not for staying there for more YEARS. yes you are right there may be anarchy when we leave. the only way to deal with brutality is be brutal. since we are americans we have to play patty cake for political and media reasons. you just dont send infantry into a country and want them to play police and other things. if we could do a fallujah in every problematic city then this would be over a lot sooner.
this war is great for career soldiers especially officers. its good for their records and gives them bragging rights especially once they need that kind of stuff to get to O-6 and higher.
when the case was made for war there were 2 main points. 1 was get saddam, and 2 was get the WMD
well we got saddam and the WMDs are in syria, and if iraqis dont want to take charge and stand up for a good cause then let them deal with the byproduct. im tired of always having to fix otehr peoples problems and our country giving away our tax dollars to countries like russia who never pay us back. how much money do you think we gave russia to take care of their nukes? billions! and the situation gets worse every day.
oh well.....
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: As far as facts, I respect your service Cash. I also disagree with you and that is an ideal you have fought for: our right to express ourselves and disagree with each other. It's a commendable endeavor. But consider this. Within this thread and my recent comments the issue is not "how the war is going." None of us agree with the conduct of the war, but that does not mean we must surrender to the genocide that is continuing as Iran backs the Sunni insurgency. To think, if my idea had been tried, none of this would have needed to happen.
Surely you recognize that the world community must end genocide, do you not? That is the only reason for intervention that I endorsed. I never agreed with the war until our troops, including two of my cousins, were in the conflict. Historically my family has given alot to protect this nation, great uncles buried in Africa, Europe and the Pacific depths, ancestors on both sides of the Civil War, ancestors in the Revolutionary War and one that rode with the Rough Riders.
Never in a war like this. Do I think it's a mistake to not have an exit strategy? Yes! Absolutely. Do I think it's a mistake to keep that exit strategy from the public? Absolutely not!
See I suspect you are making the mistake others on this board have made: assuming that I support this war on the basis of what the administration's agenda is. None of us really know what that agenda is or how pervasively it shapes our present actions. I argue against war as a means to an end. I argue for winning a permanent peace.
"See I suspect you are making the mistake others on this board have made: assuming that I support this war on the basis of what the administration's agenda is."
i dont assume that at all man. u have good thinking
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Cash, nice to meet you. I wo0uld like to know what you and I WISH believe needs to be done over there. It seems both of you would have better perspective than myself.
And Cash Cow- as I said to IWISH .... thank you for serving your country
posted
im not as worried about problems that other countries have. im more worried about domestic issues. we spend more time and more money on other countries that have nothing to offer us in return. too much quid pro quo
it sounds mean, but i think we should only be in iraq one more year and then leave....im not talking about leaving and still keeping american bases there im talking about every last soldier goes home. iraq should have been a special operations war from the get go. we should have focused more on afghanistan. it is a lot more rugged of a country, and we only have 15,000 troops combing the mountains, but we have what something like 120,000 in iraq. we are depleting our resources over there in iraq.
to give you an idea of what is happening....in the army newspaper "the army times" there was an article about how certain army posts in the U.S. are not able to afford things because of all the money being dumped in iraq. it said it was either fort sam houston or fort hood in texas..one of those two is behind its power bill for 3 months because they have no money. the monthly bill is just over 1 million dollars per month on average. fort bragg in north carolina is seeing some units not getting money even for essentials such as pens and printer ink.
all the money is going to iraq. bullets cost a lot of money...especially the .50 cal which is a very common weapon. i was a .50 cal gunner on a humvee over there and i cant even come close to remembering how many 100 round cans i fired off. thats just me....oh and heres a good one...we used to go and visit the local sheik. they have more power over the minds of the people than the govt because they are really religous. anyhow when the money was brought to him it was in the amounts of hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars. cold hard cash....this was basically a bribe for him to preach to the locals to lay down their arms and be peacefull. well hundreds of thousands of dollars later come to find out the sheik was dirty. he was going behind the U.S.'s back and using that money not to help the local population, but instead funding insurgent groups throughout ramadi stashing RPGs and AK47s in mosques.
sure we do good over there like build roads or schools, but they all get blown up sooner or later. you KNOW our govt would love to have some nice oil pipelines coming out of there, and they tried. boom....those were blown up too.
funny before the war started special forces and rangers were sent in early under the cover of darkness to secure the oil fields.
i used to get so mad at people that said the war was all about oil, but after seeing the massive halliburton fields over there...and seeing a subsidary of halliburton (kellog brown and root or KBR) win the contracts to everything ....i kind of wonder now.
this is great business for boeing, northrup grumman, lockheed martin ...etc
just look at the defense stocks
im all about defending this country so dont get me wrong, and i joined the infantry to be in the fight and kick ass. i just now feel like ive been exploited by the govt in this war. the support from the citizens is great i just wish the govt would support us in the same way.
if you want to see a video about how crappy the army treats you when you come back check out a guy from my brigade who took it to CBS...it took him going to CBS for help, and when it aired on TV he was in an office 2 hours after the show getting his ass chewed by his chain of command because it made them look bad. that is just the tip of the iceberg what i write in this post and what you see on the video.
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Bdgee, what's the difference between discussing the faults of a sitting or a past president? I hear so many things blamed on Bush that were in place long before he took office. Many of the things blamed on Bush were brewing many years before his birth. I haven't any great love for Bush, or any other president for that matter... but if we wish to play the blame game.. shouldn't we atleast try to be remotely accurate?
If these problems were the result of what Clinton did, why hasn't Bush corrected the problems in six years. After all, if it was Clinton that cause these problems, then, as President. it is Bush's reesponsibility to have corrected the problems and he hasn't so much as tried.
And exactly where have I been inaccurate. It is Bush that has brought us this mess in the middle east. Then there is Korea, his rediculous take on global warming, the foolish far right wing religious attack on stem cell researh just to get started naming a few things that Clinton had no possible part in..
The problem is in office, not in retirement!
Play the blame game? That's the way you right wingers approach everything that considers what this disgraceful administration has done, "blame Clinton" instead of admit the facts.
NO!
Clinton didn't pick an unnecessary fight with Iraq over the objections of the CIA and the Pentagon.
Clinton didn't insult and openly dare the Koreans to refuse to follow up on the agreements they were living up to before dubya decided to threaten them and blame his own failures on them.
BUSH LIED IN ORDER TO INVADE A PEACEFUL ARAB COUNTRY THAT WAS THE BEST DEFENSE WE HAD AGAINST AL QAEDA.
Get off blaming Clinton and realize it is a true embarrassment and a serious danger we have in the White House.
Can you not mention anything without attacking Clinton and blaming him?
Don't accuse me of playing the blame game, it is you!
IP: Logged |
posted
"Clinton didn't pick an unnecessary fight with Iraq over the objections of the CIA and the Pentagon."
You're right Clinton said 400,000 Iraqis that were killed by Saddam weren't enough to justify ending his reign. No Clinton just let the genocide in Rwanda happen. His own staff person Warren Christopher said let the Rwandans die.
"Don't accuse me of playing the blame game, it is you!"
Funny Bdgee listen to your own words:
"It is Bush that has brought us this mess in the middle east." I'm sure you weren't blaming there. And incorrectly I might add.
No it isn't it's the failed policy of 60 years finally come to roost. It's the pillaging of the Middle EAst in 300 years of colonial rule followed by the neo-colonialism of Cold War politics.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
Cash said: "im not as worried about problems that other countries have. im more worried about domestic issues. we spend more time and more money on other countries that have nothing to offer us in return. too much quid pro quo"
I would like to agree Cash, but 9/11 is the case where problems abroad hit us at home. The documents I cited above demonstrate that the US has engaged in entangling alliances for the good of the world community because it is in our national interest to begin to undo the hundreds of yers of greed in colonial rule. We fought a Cold War in which we left some barbarous leaders behind, it is our responsibility as a partner in the world to do what is right: end genocide and ethnic cleansing.
"if we were to do the right thing all the time as you say then we should have troops all over africa because there is daily slaughter and genocide over there. not too many people REALLY know what kinds of things are going on. they are much much worse than saddam."
Now you and I agree thoroughly. I favored buying Saddam off and turning the saved money into an effort to forgive debt, fix hospitals, build schools, universities and infrastructure around Africa, while the colonial powers that pillaged Africa convinced those dictators to leave either by purchase or force, then we could have dramatically increased stability throughout the region and beyond.
Could you agree that the best way we can honor our troops service is to find diplomatic ways to never have to commit them to combat? That means letting diplomacy and indigenous cultural development gradually eliminate the need for war? Can you agree that even in the midst of war, NGOs must begin the work of reconstruction, as Iran's money to Hezbollah did for recruiting Palestinians to Iran's side. How's that sound?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
"If Clinton were, as you want to assert, affraid to meet directly with an enemy, we would still to this day be sitting on the sidelines and watching the terrible genocide in Bosnia."
Bdgee, I have consistently said, Clinton reserved his fight over genocide for Bosnia where the people looked more like us. He chose to stay away from defending people of color. Go back and look my friend, I said Clinton got involved in the former Yugoslavia, but in places where mere skin pigmentation was different he chose not to.
"Rather than rehash Somalia (so that you can go to bashing Clinbton again to hide from the fact that this is Bush's mess and his alone), lets talk instead of the precedent set of turning tail and running in Lebanon by one of your "oh so wise" republican heros."
I already criticized Reagan for that friend, as to your denial of the significance of Somalia, I think the families of 18 US soldiers and millions of Africans will never forget its significnce. Remember Bdgee: "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
"You are talking to the wrong person to try and use the shock treatment in words, drop by a VA or military hospital if you want a real shock treatment"
As a pastor, Iwish, I get to the VA hospital just about weekly. I see people in recovering from all manner of injuries from the past and the present conflicts. I have funerals at times on military cemeteries. I saw those hecklers of our soldiers' funerals at one of the services I did.
"I hope there would be more of a reason to stay in a war than what can happen after we leave."
Yes, Clinton said that in Somalia, genocide resulted in Rwanda and ethnic cleansing in Sudan. Best not reflect on the consequences of our actions? It's easy to say, we'll just leave and everything will work itself out. Americans have a reputation for that after Somalia. The test of our fiber, of our metal, is do we stay to stabilize the region? What we also have a repuration for is not learning from our past. It's a real problem in our system of governance.
The side out of power wants to forget the very reasons they lost, the party in power wants to accentuate the positive. Too bad there aren't more apolitical people who are willing to look at all of history, the good and the bad of the present and to offer ideas about the future. It makes for fun discussion.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
Cash, I just saw upon re-reading that you suggest a year timeline. That has excellent potential and I sincerely pray every day and night, in VA hospitals and in watches of the night, that stability can be achieved by then. I also think a timeline is necessary to give this tottering Iraqi government a kind of ultimatum to get their act together.
Ultimately, as we have both been to Iraq though for different reasons, and my two cousins re-upped to return to Iraq because they see a light at the end of the tunnel where coalition forces will leave with dignity and high honor. For them it was not about WMDs, it was about finishing what we started in eliminating Saddam and dealing with the human rights issues.
I can appreciate your battle-weary sentiment, you have fought and faced the specter of death and you feel the Iraqi people must take over. I would agree, as far as that goes, but are the Iraqi people equipped for that eventuality? If they are not, then everything our troops are struggling, and in reality at times dying, for will be lost and we will eventually find ourselves going back to the Middle East to fight, future generations of our children will die in a war that will go on for decades.
Leaving before contending with the situation on the ground now means factional fighting, no governmental structure and the rise of another dictator. Have we not placed enough brutal leaders on the Middle Eastern thrones? Would you suggest that we abandon the mess we created? If so then WE are like the sinner about whom the gospel musician sings:
No hiding place, down here No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here No hiding place And they went to the rock to hide their face But the rock cried out No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here And the sinners are gonna be running At the knowledge of their fate They'll run to the rocks and the mountains But their prayers will be too late They forgot about Jesus Not knowing the end was near At the end they'll try to find a hiding place When it comes their time to die
No hiding place in the mountains No hiding place in the waters No hiding place Down here No hiding place And they went to the rock to hide their face But the rock cried out No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here
Can't you see old gambler running Saying 'Lord, save my soul' Saying 'Lord, Lord, have mercy, won't you save my soul' Saying 'Lord, Lord, have mercy, won't you save my soul'
No hiding place, down here No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here Yeah I went to the rock to hide my face But the rock cried out No hiding place There's no hiding place Down here
Leaving Iraq now is irresponsible; as irresponsible as having no exit strategy, but your year timeline has potential. One big concern though. If as I hear some people on these threads suggest (Glass, Tex, Bdgee, Sunnyside, Dustoff), Iran is next, then should we leave an Iraq that is otherwise vulnerable to Iran's plan? Given that Iran vowed today that Israel has signed its own death sentence, how do we respond to that threat? Do we get out of the way?
As I said, I respect your battle-weariness; I just believe leaving now creates the environment that means our future generations will face the same battle weary sentiments. The job should have been finished in 1991, but Russia and China threatened to intervene if Saddy was toppled. At the time three of my cousins were in Desert Storm and every one of them wondered how we just let Saddam keep his office. And as we sent one cousin off a couple months ago we growled about inept leadership that can't articulate a vision of what the end is.
Now Israel sits engaged on two fronts with a huge bully in Iran threatening an attack and Syria amping its Saddam provided weapons for potential attack. Tell me, what would the situation be if the coalition had not dealt with Afghanistan and Iraq?
Had we simply bought Saddam off, it would have been cheaper than this war. Had we bought him off, Iraq would be a stable nation right now. Perhaps we could have had an ally to stand against Iran's threats against Israel. Or perhaps the same mess would have happened that we saw in another conglomerate nation: Yugoslavia. We will never know, but we can recognize the situation now and see abandoning Iraq now means sacrificing Israel on the altar as well.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how you can walk through those hospitals and go to funerals and console these soldiers and families and yet on the other hand feel that we need to have more American soldiers killed and injured to fight a war for what ever reason you think is right. Do you express your opinion when you talk to these soldiers and their families? I have not been around many pastors maybe there is a reason for that, just to let you know i could not turn the other cheek if i saw these jerks show up to try and put down our dead soldiers at a military funeral. You are better off discussing this issue with someone else you might have a lot better luck, when i see these soldiers that have been injured in the Iraq war it makes me sick what a waste, we are suppose to learn from our mistakes(Vietnam) to many other issues involved and saving human life is not the reason for this war especially at this point. I wish we could stop all the bad things that are being done in this world but our population is not big enough to fight all those wars we will have no youth left and you know there is no way most of these politicians or their families are going to lose their blood for the cause.
IP: Logged |
posted
"I don't see how you can walk through those hospitals and go to funerals and console these soldiers and families and yet on the other hand feel that we need to have more American soldiers killed and injured to fight a war for what ever reason you think is right."
Is an American life more valuable than an Iraqi life?
"Do you express your opinion when you talk to these soldiers and their families? I have not been around many pastors maybe there is a reason for that, just to let you know i could not turn the other cheek if i saw these jerks show up to try and put down our dead soldiers at a military funeral."
Iwish, I can hear in your good words the pain this evil situation is causing you. How close a personal connection do you have to the war? I have buried one close friend and worked with a dozen or so wounded soldiers. You are exactly right about our leaders and their children/grandchildren.
I usually let families do the talking because it's not about me and my opinions. In fact, I consider it malpractice to discuss my political views with families I minister to in any setting. When they speak about the war, I generally hear a mixture of anger and resolution about finishing the job we started. The people I have worked with that have been in either Gulf War understood the mission in their own terms so to say they would agree with the administration's reasons would not be true. Neither did I agree with Bush's decision.
In funerals, I had the help of some biker dudes that kept those protesters about a block away, but we are being sued over the event for violating free speech rights. It will be interesting to see how this all comes out. But again in funerals, I talk about sacrifice, "No greater love has a person than that they would lay down their life for another." I talk about justice and the day when swords will be beat into plowshares and there will be no more war.
"I wish we could stop all the bad things that are being done in this world but our population is not big enough to fight all those wars"
Absolutely agreed, nor should we resort to war as our foreign policy. That is what I have consistently criticized Bush for. I am working to find an alternative to war that may cost as much but doesn't involve killing. This war exists and we must work for its ending, but not at the expense of the Iraqi and the Israeli people. My reason for staying is not to support war, corporations or Bush, but because to leave now is to surrender Iraq and Israel to Iran. That would mean more deaths of American youths.
"when i see these soldiers that have been injured in the Iraq war it makes me sick what a waste"
I agree, war is always sin, but so was the waste of 1,400,000 Iraqis, Iranians, Kuwaitis and Sauds under Saddam Hussein. I respect your principled position and I'm grateful that you express your ideas with such grace. But we still have to take responsibility, as do all the colonial and Cold War powers for the dictators we have created.
What we have done in third world countries, Iwish, is to steal their goods, cause ethnic and religious strife and then leave them poor, often uneducated and without the means to administer a country. 32,000 children die every day from hunger, one every 2.3 seconds. We as the "first world" failed them because we have the means but we lack the will to provide food if there's no money in it.
In Rwanda, Hutu and Tutsi did not have racial tensions, were not aware of two different ethnicities. But to administrate the population, the Belgian colonial authorities started to measure noses to tell them who was what ethnicity. In short, there really was no ethnic difference; the Belgians made it up to play one side against the other. That arrogant act led to genocidal retribution over the last few decades. In 1994, when the biggest one of all came up, after Clinton pulled troops from Somalia, no one intervened. The Canadian General pleaded for 5000 more troops because those armed Western troops could have prevented the war in his opinion. Instead, 800,000 people died.
I agree with you that war is absolutely evil, war is absolutely sin. War is a consequence of broken-ness of human sin in the world. I do not believe it is right, I do not believe it is just. But even the Bible warns us that because we are sinful, war will happen because evil leaders will exist. My prefered way to deal with them is to buy them into exile with no right of return and try them after they are dead. Over and over I have said that, believed it and lived it.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
I lost most of my interest in the Dodgers and the Angels when they started trading most of their veteran players away. I am still mad at the Dodgers because they traded Mike Piazza away many years ago, i am more of a Mariner fan. Not to get to much off the topic but today i saw the funniest thing at the Beach Pier, A bull dog skateboarding, he stands on the board with 3 legs and pushes with his other leg, i would put this dog against any good human skateboarder.
Griffon,
When you look at the American casualties for Iraq you can add 100,000's maybe millions to the list of injuries that will be shown.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. And add Paul Loduca to that list. Oh for the days of Tommy. Beltre still struggling for the M's? Sounds like your skateboarder dog has me beat. Wish I could have seen it.
posted
"When you look at the American casualties for Iraq you can add 100,000's maybe millions to the list of injuries that will be shown."
Yes, Iwish, it is absolutely terrible and inexcusable but I have to ask you, what of the Iraqis that died as a result of sanctions? What about the 1.4 million that died as a result of Saddam's orders. Should their blood be silent to perpetuate Saddam's power? There are too many deaths of Iraqis, but not millions of Iraqis dead as a result of toppling Saddam.
Unfortunately, UN policy on Iraq kept Saddam in power as he authorized killing between 5000 and 6000 people every year. Human beings tortured and murdered. Look at what Saddam did to some of his own family. That on top of thousands of children dying for lack of incubators, neo-natal care and medicine.
Sanctions were never going to be lifted while Saddam was in power and look at these reports on the suffering caused by sanctions:
Now with all of that, we know those sanctions were never going to be lifted. After all we have such a long memory we won't lift sanctions on Cuba and they are about as impotent as a mollusk. So the concern I have with being inactive in the face of those things is this: how many Iraqis must die under unending sanctions before it's worth removing Saddam from power?
My idea to remove Saddam was to bribe him to go into exile. See I am caught between two ethical negatives: war and genocide. As a pastor I am opposed to all war, all violence, and all genocide. I mean consider this: in World War II, imagine if we had decided, war is more expensive than genocide, so let's just let genocide go on.
There is no "good" answer, only necessity. That war was necessary. In the case of Saddam Hussein, sanctions and genocide, there is a potential "good" answer and I have suggested it, in the bribe. Dirty way of doing things but it would have saved lives. That option was not taken. I was opposed to war, but I am also opposed to genocide. There was no good answer. There can be no good war. The only thing good about war is its ending, that's the plain, simple fact.
I commend your desire for bringing the troops home! As I said earlier, the best way to honor our troops is to find diplomatic ways to build peace so they never have to be placed in hostile territory again. Can we agree on that? Can we agree that our goal in war and in peace is to bring the troops home safe and sound? Can we agree that the lack of an exit strategy, lack of clear, measureable objectives, was a serious mistake on the part of this administration?
Then if we can agree on those three premises, is it possible (just possible) that coming up with an exit strategy and dealing with stability in the Middle East now offers a better hope that future generations will not be committed to such a war, in such a place again? My earnest hope and prayer is that we leave in such a way this time that American troops never have to be committed in such a way again. As signatores of the Convention on Genocide, to have that assurance we need to enforce the convention even when other countries cower from the world community's responsibility. I want an end to war everywhere, the Biblical principle: beat swords into plows; love God and love your neighbor. I do not want to be an idyllic illusion we have only in the US as brutality is waged elsewhere. My fear is our too soon withdrawl will lead to us going back into the theater in 6 months to stop renewed genocide, more deaths on all sides and a mauled Israel thrown in for extra measure.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Griffon: Cash said: "im not as worried about problems that other countries have. im more worried about domestic issues. we spend more time and more money on other countries that have nothing to offer us in return. too much quid pro quo"
I would like to agree Cash, but 9/11 is the case where problems abroad hit us at home. The documents I cited above demonstrate that the US has engaged in entangling alliances for the good of the world community because it is in our national interest to begin to undo the hundreds of yers of greed in colonial rule. We fought a Cold War in which we left some barbarous leaders behind, it is our responsibility as a partner in the world to do what is right: end genocide and ethnic cleansing.
"if we were to do the right thing all the time as you say then we should have troops all over africa because there is daily slaughter and genocide over there. not too many people REALLY know what kinds of things are going on. they are much much worse than saddam."
Now you and I agree thoroughly. I favored buying Saddam off and turning the saved money into an effort to forgive debt, fix hospitals, build schools, universities and infrastructure around Africa, while the colonial powers that pillaged Africa convinced those dictators to leave either by purchase or force, then we could have dramatically increased stability throughout the region and beyond.
Could you agree that the best way we can honor our troops service is to find diplomatic ways to never have to commit them to combat? That means letting diplomacy and indigenous cultural development gradually eliminate the need for war? Can you agree that even in the midst of war, NGOs must begin the work of reconstruction, as Iran's money to Hezbollah did for recruiting Palestinians to Iran's side. How's that sound?
griffon you say you are a pastor or involved in the church so i will stray off subject here.
let me quote something for you from the bible: "there will be wars and rumors of wars"
sound familiar? if you agree with revelation then you will see what is unfolding before your very eyes. there is no solution to these wars..it is...inevitable. we are seeing signs of the times. the exodus of the jews from russia to israel recently speaks mass volumes. am i saying the world will end tomorrow? no of course not..events must take place and be carried out.
there is no fix to this...we are fighting an enemy who will never quit. islamic soldiers are fighting for a cause that makes them dangerous in battle. a man who is in combat and feels if he dies he goes to heaven with 7 virgins is someone you should not be weak against. the war in iraq will never end. what was bush thinking? did he think that once we took over there would never be resistance? iraq is a lost cause. it was amazing where i was when i was there....i was at a post on the banks of the euphratese river. a piece of land rich in history. it truly is...holy land.
i asked my chaplain if i could be baptized in the euphratese but he reminded me as i knew that where we were a ceremony like that is asking for a insurgent sniper to have the time of his life.
its ok..there is so much raw sewage now in that river i saved myself from some getting sick.
so anyway....not to be a pessimist but this is what it is and its not going to get better.
look at it..
1. iraq 2. israel and the fight they have 3. north korea going nutty 4. africa's genocide 5. china and the stregnthening of their military 6. i believe russia has serious instability 7. the U.N. and their ultimate global controll 8. the decomposing of americas culture and values
the list goes on and on......how do we come out from that? there is no magic wand...and many here on this board who do not believe in christianity (no offense) do not realize what is now going on.
F*** it and pull the trigger, thats how you stay alive
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.
IP: Logged |
posted
since this thread seems to be a feeble attempt to justify invading Iraq by saying regime change was needed? let me remind you that regime change was not acceptable as a sole reason to the American people before nor is it after....
this is a portion of:
Interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney, NBC, "Meet the Press," Transcript for March 16, 2003.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MR. RUSSERT: The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial about the administration and its rationale for war. And let me read it to you and give you a chance to respond: “The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding ‘regime change,’ the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about ‘nation-building’ and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost. Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”
What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We’ve got, again, a long record here. It’s not as though this is a fresh issue. In the late ’70s, Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear reactors from the French. 1981, the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor and stopped his nuclear weapons development at the time. Throughout the ’80s, he mounted a new effort. I was told when I was defense secretary before the Gulf War that he was eight to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. And we found out after the Gulf War that he was within one or two years of having a nuclear weapon because he had a massive effort under way that involved four or five different technologies for enriching uranium to produce fissile material.
We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.
"And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" so?he says right here that he believed sadam had nukes.... nah he was just mistaken...even tho nobody has ever shown any type of evidence to support THAT statement....
i say that Dubya didn't even know Cheney set all this up... Dubya should have known...so he's guilty of not doing his DD, but Cheney is the driving force behind the bad intel IMO...
posted
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
simply amazing isn't it...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
MR. RUSSERT: Every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t say that, Tim. There are estimates out there. It’s important, though, to recognize that we’ve got a different set of circumstances than we’ve had in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan you’ve got a nation without significant resources. In Iraq you’ve got a nation that’s got the second-largest oil reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. It will generate billions of dollars a year in cash flow if they get back to their production of roughly three million barrels of oil a day, in the relatively near future. And that flow of resources, obviously, belongs to the Iraqi people, needs to be put to use by the Iraqi people for the Iraqi people and that will be one of our major objectives.
unbelievable....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
"since this thread seems to be a feeble attempt"
Not at all feeble because you are mistaken about the intent. It is a thread to ask why the Democratic policies supported and now were willing to accept genocide as Warren Christopher said in May 1994.
"to justify invading Iraq by saying regime change was needed?"
Again you proceed from a false assumption, as that was not why the thread started. Since I have already demonstrated I do not support Bush, suggesting regime change was needed has been my agenda since 1988 when Saddam gased Kurds. Do you believe we should obey the treaties we signed Glass? In the face of an already posted UN Convention on Genocide of which we are signatores, Articles 2-7 lay out the responsibility of every signatore to end genocide.
If you believe in obeying the treaties we sign, we were compelled in Iraq in 1988 and before if you follow other treaties, Rwanda in 1994, and Sudan by 1995. That is if you believe we are bound by treaty. Now if you believe we can ignore our treaties, then you are in the same boat our current president is with his violating international law at GITMO.
See, it doesn't work both ways. You don't get to say we can ignore international treaties when it comes to genocide, but the president should be held accountable for GITMO because of international treaty. What you are trying to apply is a logical inconsistency that sounds an awful lot like political opportunism. My point is the US is engaged in entangling alliances that make us responsible for ending genocidal regimes within the broader world community and we are also bound to demand an end to the illegal practices at GITMO. There is a consistency to that.
Yet Warren Christopher was perfectly willing to let Rwandans die as the representative of his administration. I affirmed that most were not overtly racist but their policies in combatting racism were hamstringed by the Clinton Administration's willingness to let Africans die, again people of color, as long as Americans don't have to.
So once again I ask you Glass, why was that statement made by the Democratic official? I mean when it was a European tribe under attack, Clinton had time, but not for people of color. That is what this thread is about. Why is it the Democratic leadership endorses policies that do not prevent genocide in regions of the world where persons of color live?
As to the need for regime change in Iraq, which under the UN Convention on Genocide, we were bound to effect after 1988 gasing of Kurds, and later with the draining of the marshland to get rid of the Marsh Arabs. It is an entangling alliance that we are obliged to, period.
But consider this: would it even have been considered if Bill Clinton had done his job? UBL on tape in Afghanistan, UBL in Sudan, UBL in Yemen all under Bill Clinton. Two towers fell, thousands of Americans died and conspiracy theorists are dying to talk about conspiracies, how about the reality Clinton had reasonable opportunities to kill or capture UBL before GB was even president and passed them by.
My point in this thread which is yet to be refuted is that Democratic foreign policy, and platform up to the present, is Euro-centric avoiding the harsh realities of the larger world. Remember Glass, "All it takes for evil to flourish, is for good people to sit by and do nothing."
Now I know, you have argued before, you think Saddam was a misunderstood person. Think about it Glass, for your position on regime change to be correct, you have to say those 88,000 or so Kurds deserved what they got. For Saddam to be leader of a peaceful Iraq, you have to ignore 1980-1988, 1991, 1994, 1998. Out of what a nearly 30 year reign, 12 years he had major pogroms. And Carter got the ball rolling by giving the green light to invade Iran.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim
IP: Logged |
posted
Remember Glass, "All it takes for evil to flourish, is for good people to sit by and do nothing."
remember griffo.... your argument is a very good argument to take over the whole third world on "moral grounds".... you are preaching colonialism...it's the only way to "control" all those bad people
your party line is disingenuous...the only way there will be any justice served to the people that have perpetrated the current war is if democrats take control of the house and senate... you are fighting hard to try to keep that from happening...
sad... a preacherman claiming to seek justice by defending liars and cheats....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Now I know, you have argued before, you think Saddam was a misunderstood person.
this is crapola...
i have posted that sadam is as much a product of his society as his society is a product of him.... you on the other hand want to blame US for him, and it seems that you want to blame the democrats the most which is dumb IMO... he was in power before we started to help him fight our ENEMY Iran...
and Carter (maybe)gave a greeen light, BUT the GOP sent him money and guns and all kinds of other nice toys to go kill OUR ENEMY....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
