quote:Originally posted by john wayne: 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....
Thank you for admitting that Glassman.
your welcome...
why is that such a big deal...
you still think it's about party don't you? you're hopeless...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
"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."
Where is the support for our present administration?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a good consipracy theory for you Glassman. Sink your teeth into this one.
The thinking (using the term loosely) of the left's lunatic-fringe is now THE conventional wisdom amongst the Democrats. And who in the Democratic party has the cojones to counter it?
Or maybe that's all part of a master conspiracy, err... plan hatched long ago to manufacture a "moderate" savior for 2008. Like for example, Hillary!
The plan was, no doubt, hatched at a secret meeting in Mena, Arkansas. And, Vince Foster knew about it and was going to blow the lid on it, so he had to commit "suicide". And then there were some Arkansas State Troopers that were flying to Europe on a 747 to reveal the truth in a secure, undisclosed location, so their plane had to be shot down with a missile.
posted
More far far right wing BS about the Clintons to avoid talking about the real problem.
Our country has been taken over by facist and there are Party line fools that want that to be the case.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"More far far right wing BS about the Clintons to avoid talking about the real problem."
I see in your response bdgee that d' Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.
Bdge what was it you said about my opinion about GITMO?
Read the post above, better yet I'll post it here:
"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"
I mean it doesn't get more apparent I am comparing the expectation on one president and another: I criticize Clinton for allowing genocide and Bush for allowing GITMO, citing both actions as violations of international law. Where's the blame I am calling for equal protection under the law.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
You criticise Clinton mostly about crap you imagine and generally to avoid the truth about Bush and his bunch of facist.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Bdgee you really got blown out of the water on that one. If you had done just a little bit of homework you could have found his stance on GITMO.
posted
Yes the suggestion that I am a hypocrite, translates "Griffon caught Bdgee with his facts off." It's okay, it happens to the best of us, BG, no harm, no foul.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
griffon.....if your stance on Gitmo is that Bush is war criminal then POST it as a TOPIC... don't just bury it in the middle of a long thread.. put your money where your mouth is....
i am unfamiliar with a UN convention that says we will invade other countries because we see bad things happening...
i have never said i am for genocide..
BUT?
i will once again tell you that there are very practical problems to overcome in preventing /capturing warcriminals and genocidal maniacs... as we are seeing right now in Iraq...
i am not UNWILLING... i am practical...
you keep harping about one statement made by one Democrat... i recently heard Clinton say he considers it one of his biggest mistakes... BUT? we had just had a little problem in Somalia about that time, and politically? it wouldn't have worked...
why not talk about how Reagan didn't invade Iran for taking our hostages and restoring order there? i was ready to go do that... it was criminal... why didn't he bring them to justice? you are being hypocritical by posting only one topic like this..
calling dems suporters of genocide is extraordinarliy inflammatory... go ahead... do it.... balance it out... is Bush a war criminal? or just a little bit "misguided" about gitmo?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I did plenty on several occasions. Check the number of posts I made on the topic.
"i will once again tell you that there are very practical problems to overcome in preventing /capturing warcriminals and genocidal maniacs... as we are seeing right now in Iraq..."
it took time but we captured many in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia. And certainly of WW2 war criminals. The problems are primarily in the will. See my point Glass is that war was not the only way this could have happened. You are helping me make the case. I am saying there were ways to get Saddam out without war.
"you keep harping about one statement made by one Democrat... i recently heard Clinton say he considers it one of his biggest mistakes... BUT? we had just had a little problem in Somalia about that time, and politically? it wouldn't have worked..."
Somalia was in October/November 1993, because we pulled out, the leaders in Rwanda (from the Frontline report) were emboldened and enlarged their operation. April 1994 the killing began, May not just any Democrat, but our Ambassador to the UN, the spokesperson for the US to the world community is overheard saying let Rwandans die. The request for more troops is voted down. 800,000 people die. I weep to even write that. Six months later Sudan's "insurgency" begins killing in Darfur and Southern Sudan. To date 1.2 million die and the world community sits by and wrings their hands. For Bill Clinton to say he was sorry in front of the Rwandan people in 1998 was a step, but we need to commit ourselves to never let it happen again.
"why not talk about how Reagan didn't invade Iran for taking our hostages and restoring order there? i was ready to go do that... it was criminal... why didn't he bring them to justice? you are being hypocritical by posting only one topic like this.."
Where was the genocide in Iran (that is the threshold I set for this thread) in Reagan's despicable action? Wrong, I think so, but Carter would not have agreed with you and I.
"calling dems suporters of genocide is extraordinarliy inflammatory..."
There policies have enabled genocide, is that a lie? Look, you may notice genocide evokes strong passions in me, to a fault. It so often happens to the least, the lost and the lonely. But you have to understand, I sponsor several children because every time I see those faces on TV I have to do something. Maybe my crusade is to draw attention to those "voiceless" people, the starving, the naked and the dying and challenge us to do better.
And I hear your just complaint, there are many that need help right here in the US. You are right, but I can drive to where they are, carry food and medicine. I can teach and empower them. I can and do lobby my congress-people. In short, I can do things for those close at hand, even across this land all the time. And the need is soooooo much greater over-seas. I just want the children to have a chance at life however they choose to live it.
"is Bush a war criminal? or just a little bit "misguided" about gitmo?"
More than misguided and I think a tribunal would have to determine the war criminal part, but at least the case could be presented.
"politically? it wouldn't have worked..."
That is the cost to sit in the big chair Glass. To lead is to sometimes have to make horrible decisions. Churchill in WWII allowed English citizens to be bombed and killed to preserve the secret of Ultra. Being a leader, sitting in the Oval Office, means doing what is right and getting crucified for it politically. I would never want to be in that office on that side of the desk, but for Bill Clinton that's all he ever wanted. Jesus once said, "If you want to teach (lead?) a much higher standard is expected of you." And I guess that is how our last several leaders have disappointed me. More people died at the hands of their own governments in the last century than in all the wars of history.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
See my point Glass is that war was not the only way this could have happened. You are helping me make the case. I am saying there were ways to get Saddam out without war.
and i made the same point here over and over during the 04 campaign... you shoulda seen the heat i took....
i had five and six people at a time tryin' to tear chunks outa me here.... called me all kinds of things worse than democrat too...
funny tho, calling me a dem pisses me off more...
mostly cuz i am alot of those other things, but i'm not a democrat...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"and i made the same point here over and over during the 04 campaign...you shoulda seen the heat i took...."
All people who try to navigate the waters of war, terror and genocide, issues like that evoke strong passions. Because of my understanding, I have been called fascist, communist and much worse. I had phone call threats. You should not have received angry heat from people, but broken humanity can be very cruel.
In our debates we practice to boil down our ideas to present in the public square Glass. This is something of a crucible to forge strong ideas to contribute to the public debate. One thing I learned, which I had underestimated, was how my words do not look on the thread the way I mean them. I think I am getting the hang of that better now.
I have to turn in, but I look forward to more vigorous debate possibly tomorrow after church but most likely in the evening.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Your theory for war does not seem to get a lot of support on this board from what i see. If you were giving this post as a sermon at your church and many of us here were your audience you might have a empty house. To me these Iraq's you are talking about saving are the same people that watch and hide while the bad guys kill Americans and others. If they wanted to stop what's going on there they can step forward and defend it themselves, if they are not doing it by now then we as a nation are there forever. The word civilian is always used so loosely since Vietnam. We as Americans have been so conditioned to this word which seems to take on the meaning good people, it tends to lean more to women and children to really get are sympathy, the enemy knows this and uses this to their advantage. I have always wondered what age range do we consider children i am guessing up to 18 years old . The enemy uses these civilians as cover and helps get their support by different methods to make sure they get their job done. We are not going to change that, in fact the enemy the soldiers are fighting right now will only increase their hold because not enough Iraq's appear to care enough to change this. The only way we might change the course of this war the way its going now would be to change are tactics and take the tactics the enemy uses and you know a lot of Americans would not allow that.
Here is a question for you, Does the big business of religion grow during war times? It appears that it is a time when religious individuals can access people they might not get to if there was not a war, they say more more wars are fought over religion and politics than anything else, it appears all the wars are fought over these issues i could be wrong on that.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Griffon is a hypocrite is not a suggestion, it is a fact based on Griffon's never ending bashing of Clinton for exactly those things he supports Reagan and Bushes for.
It wasn't Clinton that taught our military it was ok to chicken out and turn tail and run from terrorist, it was Reagan in Lebanon.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
you know sometimes you need to ask yourself....what would you do? if you were in iraq and there was an occupying country there would you not take up arms? if mexico invaded the states would you not grab a weapon and hold your ground? look at israel...they are fighting for their life because they have a whole region that wants to destroy them. i dont blame israel at all...and i dont blame the palestinians for fighting back either. regardless of who is right and wrong you have to admit if you were in any of their shoes you would be doing the same thing. thats just the way it is.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Does the big business of religion grow during war times?"
Since religion is not business, this is an irrelevant question. However, business
"If you were giving this post as a sermon at your church and many of us here were your audience you might have a empty house."
Do you mean the part where I say we could have found alternative ways to deal with Saddam and prevent this war in the first place? Yes, preaching that we must find alternative paths to peace has often been an unpopular message. You see the business world hates us preachers gettin' uppity like that. Or the preaching no more genocide? Yes that too is unpopular preaching. Teaching another path to peace than the sword...yes after 9/11 that too is unpopular, but thoroughly Biblical.
Bdgee said: "It wasn't Clinton that taught our military it was ok to chicken out and turn tail and run from terrorist, it was Reagan in Lebanon."
Follow the Blackhawks Bdgee, they will help you understand. Follow the testimony at the Hague. Aside from your statement being less than true Bdgee, it wasn't Reagan that let 800,000 Rwandans die as his spokesperson at the UN said let them die. Or for that matter, it wasn't Reagan that let 1,200,000 Sudanese die saying, despite our signature on treaties of international law, "not in our national interest." When exactly did Reagan say that?
Bdgee said: "Griffon is a hypocrite is not a suggestion, it is a fact based on Griffon's never ending bashing of Clinton for exactly those things he supports Reagan and Bushes for"
Read my words again bdgee:
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"
"I mean it doesn't get more apparent I am comparing the expectation on one president and another: I criticize Clinton for allowing genocide and Bush for allowing GITMO, citing both actions as violations of international law. Where's the blame I am calling for equal protection under the law."
Where's the hypocricy? That was posted on this page of this thread from last night which was originally posted at least Friday night. Not sure how to make that more plain.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
some light reading...since you keep pounding this drum which is over 10 years old and irrelevant to todays crisis'...
Clinton meets Rwanda genocide survivors Bizimungu and Clinton Bizimungu with Clinton after his arrival Announces U.S. aid March 25, 1998
KIGALI, Rwanda (CNN) -- U.S. President Bill Clinton on Wednesday told Rwandans that the international community had failed to act to prevent the country's genocide in 1994, and he urged measures to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
"The international community must bear its share of responsibility for this tragedy," Clinton said in a speech at the airport of the Rwandan capital Kigali, where he met with the country's leaders and with survivors of the massacres.
How can it be "irrelevant" when it's happening again in Sudan, when that intensified in 1995 and continues to this day? What were Clinton's words? Where is the call to a world response from Clinton or Bush recorded from 1995 to the present? Who was in office when the worst of it began? Clinton. Who has failed to deal with since he came to office? Bush.
More people die in Sudan daily than die in Iraq weekly, are they not both crises?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Along with being a hypocrite, you are a bore......a terribly windy bore too.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee, you need some new material. You lost the "hypocrite" thing. No evidence. Showed you plain and simple, said no harm no foul. Moved on. Why we keep revisiting it?
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
you know sometimes you need to ask yourself....what would you do? if you were in iraq and there was an occupying country there would you not take up arms? if mexico invaded the states would you not grab a weapon and hold your ground? look at israel...they are fighting for their life because they have a whole region that wants to destroy them. i dont blame israel at all...and i dont blame the palestinians for fighting back either. regardless of who is right and wrong you have to admit if you were in any of their shoes you would be doing the same thing. thats just the way it is.
CashCowMoo- Well said -------------------------------------------------
so? it's still big business...
don't confuse faith with religion..
Pat Robertson does enough of that for US all...
Glassman- Well said also.
-------------------------------------------------
Do you mean the part where I say we could have found alternative ways to deal with Saddam and prevent this war in the first place? Yes, preaching that we must find alternative paths to peace has often been an unpopular message. You see the business world hates us preachers getting' uppity like that. Or the preaching no more genocide? Yes that too is unpopular preaching. Teaching another path to peace than the sword...yes after 9/11 that too is unpopular, but thoroughly Biblical.
Griffon,
You write very good like so many other people on this board, i am always a little jealous of that. You seem to have misunderstood me because i have never made a comment on the issue that there might not have been a better way to solve the Iraq problem we will never know at this point, to me the important thing now is not what we might have done before going to war, but how to we save American lives and prevent more soldiers from going into combat in Iraq. You seem to be stuck on the idea that no one cares about genocide you are so wrong and believe me business people also care but what do we do put our troops everywhere in the world where we think this "might" happen we do not have enough people to do that, this is where your alternative plans we help. We need to get are troops out of Harms Way in Iraq because i doubt if our policy is going to change...thus the war is not going to change just more American casualties. When i made my statement about religion being a big business i did not mean it's bad its just big business and a some individuals have got very rich from it like any business. The thing that is very important to state here is that it is our responsibility to try and make sure that we pass on the mistakes we make in entering into these wars(Vietnam,Iraq) to try and prevent this from happening unless there is no other option. Americans supported this war when it started but many people were also warning that they did not want another Vietnam, if you recall from history we found excuse after excuse to stay in Vietnam until the end. It is going to be the responsibility of younger generation to try and stop the politicians from starting another war unless there is no other option, of course it did not seem to help this time. I hope this Iraq war will turn out to be worth all the American casualties but i really do not see that happening.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
"You write very good like so many other people on this board, i am always a little jealous of that."
I do not deserve the above, because many times I do not adequately express myself and people misunderstand which causes huge discussions. You and I agree on one big issue: war is never good and should never be anything but a last resort.
Case in point: The focus on genocide is not that we need to be preventive in our application of force (as we thought we were in this war regarding WMDs), but we need to be responsive to genocide and responsive to UN Peacekeeper calls for help in the peace-keeping role.
"We need to get are troops out of Harms Way in Iraq because i doubt if our policy is going to change...thus the war is not going to change just more American casualties."
In the above articles, a similar suggestion was made at the UN about Rwanda following our departure from Somalia which was a precipitous event. The reduction, as opposed to increase of peace-keepers, led to the emboldening of the Hutu extremists. That continued though for 100 days as the Clinton Administration blocked action. That in turn emboldened the Sudanese and that situation is on-going. As the articles I present would suggest, I am not advocating US involvement in every conflict, but I ask my government not to obstruct UN action and in fact to demand the UN do something to end those actions. If the world community would stand up to these acts of genocide consistently, the cowards that might be tempted to abuse their power in such ways might be cowed into not beginning it and restricting themselves to their palaces.
My point is not making a political party statement but calling upon the US to live up to the promisory note engendered in the Convention on Genocide that we signed.
Iwish you state a very good case, with good reasons for bringing our troops home. And well spoken. My position is that we cannot do that without risking a similar fate for the minority Sunni or a three-way Civil War. I think we take different lessons from our experiences in Iraq and from history and that's okay. You and I disagree on methodology for bringing the troops home, but never let your voice be stifled, and never be intimidated by popularity or eloquence. The younger generation is not just the future as some "mature" adults will tell you: you are the NOW!
"I hope this Iraq war will turn out to be worth all the American casualties but i really do not see that happening."
You know, my point of contention with the administration is: how can we know if we succeeded or failed with no goals? I really feel like we set no objectives so measuring success is going to be hard. Maybe it could be argued that we are an interdictory force preventing Iran from running the board in the Middle East, but that was never a stated goal. But really isn't that what we should be told from the start?
See, I think the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam is only real on one part: there is no clear exit strategy, no measure of success. And honestly I think we are over there now because we had an inadequate exit strategy in Desert Storm, and we let too many cooks interpret the UN decision: Russia and China in particular who convinced us not to capture Saddam then. So at this point given the situation in Iran because of poor planning from the start, I think US forces are in place to restrain the rapracity of Ahminajad which was never a stated objective and should not even be on the table without another vote of Congress.
-------------------- God's peace be with you A salaam a lakum Shalom Chevarim Posts: 896 | From: Iowa | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
I do not know a lot about the UN. or politics but what i have read they are kind of one in the same, it would be great if the UN would get more involved to solve problems of the world. As far as the analogy between Vietnam and Iraq I feel from talking to veterans of both wars that they have a lot more similarities than just an exit strategy i draw my conclusion more from the soldiers that spent a lot of their time in combat. I will list a few things that i think are similar and i am sure someone will let me know if i am wrong. 1. Guerilla Wars 2.Hard to know the good guys from the bad guys even though they tell you they are the good guys. 3.Information is given from the good people to the bad people about American positions and activities. 4.The bad guys are not limited to the same rules as the Americans. 5. It's hot in both places 5.The soldiers in general are happy to get out of the war zone and they do not want to stay till the end. 6.The longer we stay in this type of war the more hardcore our soldiers get, it appears at this point that the American Iraq soldier is not as bad as the American Vietnam soldier and that is good from what i have read, but they are getting there. 7. Lots of frustration among our soldiers... I will stop here.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"can only deduce that you are not the genuine article"
This from the guy who claims to be a republican but spends his time here ripping: Bush Jr Bush Sr Reagan Kissinger Nixon Ford Lincoln Jefferson Grant McCaine Quayle Schwartzenneger Harding Teddy Roosevelt Goldwater Dole
Why can we assume you are the genuine article Glassman? A republican that has yet to say one good thing about republicans. I know you've got this secret identity stuff goin' on but you could at least claim to be Nadar supporter. Cause the crap your slinging doesn't fool anybody.
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can we assume you are the genuine article Glassman? A republican that has yet to say one good thing about republicans. I know you've got this secret identity stuff goin' on but you could at least claim to be Nadar supporter. Cause the crap your slinging doesn't fool anybody
you have been here since February? and you claim i haveyet to say one good thing about republican
you are just wrong... and? it's no surprise, since you have no idea what you are talking about most of the time...
it's a waste of time even posting to you and "brother" the jesus freak that wants US to go kill "bad" people..
Grant was a drunk...
i voted for Dole..
Quayle was an idiot with a silver spoon...
i haven't ripped Bush Sr too much.. i even posted that i voted for him, TWICE..
here's the deal JW... i don't need to be told what to think by rove...
you obviously do... maybe? maybe you even work for him? i can see how they could afford to pay you minimum wage to post your posts...that's about what it's worth...
in case you haven't noticed? Bush's numbers are dropping agian cuz he has done a poor job... it's that simple.. LOL...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
