Disturbing political news

[jlangdale]

I don't really usually get involved in politics. However, this hits close to my heart. With Amercians dying in Iraq on a near frequently daily basis, I have to think for what reason.

I served in the USAF for 4 year, albeit no real sacrifice. I was on a tropical island for about 3 years diving and having fun, drinking pre-21. However, I was 18 years old when I joined during Dessert Storm. Joining up you take an oath and are trained to some extend (the Air Force basic is something of a joke) that you may be called upon or be ordered to give your life for others. When you're that young, you get very emotional & idealogical.

Dessert Storm was a clear violation by Iraq. Sure, Sadam is a bad dude then and has been. Not to say that he wasn't soley alone nor was he soley responsible for the things that have occured in a FOREIGN country (his sons for example).

Bottom line, I'm not sure sure the recent Iraq operations were properly justified to warrant the DEATHS of American WOMEN and men. It's a real tough call to question this. But... from my limited media infected point-of-view it seems quite likely that Sadam had no real clear and present ties to the terrorists of 9/11 and no real threat considering the false reports that Iraq was close to obtaining nuclear weapons. I'm thinking that nearly 500 Amercian military men and women have died to accomplish a personal vendetta and support and administration rather than to provide any real tangible protection of US citizens. Not to mention the thousands of veterans injured nor the health benefits that have been cut to those in the military. Oh and not to mention the fact that we would otherwise place more value on the lifes of 500 amercians injured or thousands of injured Amercians that we forget to bear in mind the countless non-Amercian's Iraq innocients killed or injured. On a complete tangent, has anyone else noticed marked increases in their health care plans this year? Hmmm.

Maybe the deaths others doesn't hit as close to home as your pocket book does. Then I'll draw attention to the costs of war we are paying if not the cost in human life. If not to question whether the questionable contracts being handed out are to even to our own benefit or to the benefit of the corporate elite only and Cheney's former company.

So, read this.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/index.html

Asuming this is true. Just assuming for a second that it is true... what type of conclusions can one draw?

I'm not sure this is true, but it seems at least possible. That Bush wanted to get rid of Sadam and looked for a reason. 9/11 was his reason. That in some where in the back of his mind, he was glad he had a reason to go after Sadam. That his political handling of the situation was 'fortunate' for him in a very distguisting way. That perhaps this was the only way to balance out the negative aspects of his administration in reguard to fiscal issues (economy, funding, education, surplus, etc.). Perhaps it was even partially justified in his mind that it would benefit US citizens, but in no way totally. Moreso, to avenge the attemps of Sadam on his father and to finish what his father couldn't because of the pressure to back off during Dessert Storm. All the rest was just a way to justify it to the public.

I mean, it does seem at least plausible. Given Bush's obvious 'bring it on,' 'dead or alive,' pretzel choaking nature. And that is disturbing. I won't even get into the whole previous legally won Gore/Bush presidental election crap.

*sigh*

Botton line: Would you goto Iraq right now and die? And for what reason? The 'threat' of terrorisim from Iraq?

 

[Stephen]

Goodness knows there's no such thing as a disgruntled fired employee throwing around negative criticsm about his boss.

All indications were that Saddam would hit the US as soon as he had the capability. He was known to have met personally with Al Queda operatives, and allowed them to train unhindered and unthreatened from within his borders. He advertised that he had WMD's to his neighbors, and used them on his own people. Given the opportunity, he would have harmed the US in any way possible.

It would be unwise to let him be, and suffer consequences of imminent attacks later on down the road. The previous administration made that mistake with Osama, and we paid a heavy price for it.

Cheney has no connection with Haliburton... he had to sever all ties when he took office. Saying Haliburton benefits from Cheney in office is like saying that the Rangers benefit from Bush being there. If that's true, then why are they both having problems (cf, Haliburton repaying for fuel overcharges)?

The government plays constant scenarios, what-ifs, so that it can repsond in timely manners to crises as they arise. This (attacking saddam) was a probable scenario, seeing as how the previous 2 administrations took military action against Iraq. I credit it as good wisdom to be thinking a few moves ahead. Try playing chess by planning your next move by itself... you'll be dead in 7 moves or less.

Let me remind you that it was the Democrat's who tried to change election law in Florida by forcing recounts (in only a few districts where it might have helped them) after the results had been certified. And that no less than 3 national newspapers have gone back and performed recounts since then, all confirming that Bush was the winner.

I would go to Iraq. I would probably not die. The post-war death rate is far lower than following any other war in American history. It has been completely blown out of proportion by a doom and gloom media. For every one story of casualty or accident, there are hundreds of positive humanitarian stories daily that are ignored by a sensationalist media. Spend some time reading the journals of those that are over there, and are seeing what is really going on. You'll be surprised. (Further suggested reading:: http://www.chrisburch.com/)

Ler me add one more thing: If I were ordered over by a President that I didn't vote for and didn't approve of, I would still go. My love and respect for this country and that office far outweigh my personal judgements of an individual.

Time for bed.

-T

 

[riverc0il]

"you're either with us, or against us"

that sums up this administration. i'm all for a peaceful resolution while holding a gun to someone's head. fire a warning shot if needed. but going in guns a blazing should be a last solution only, only when properly provoked. what if we resolved the cold war like this? good bye world. i mean, we would never have attacked iraq if they weren't a completley defenseless conutry. we haven't handled korea in the same way, that's for sure. and korea is FAR more dangerous than iraq. but... let's make an example outta iraq and the rest of the world will fall in line, right? i guess it's a question of if the means justify the ends.

any ways, at least with desert storm, another country had been invaded. a REAL and VISIBLE and PROVEABLE offense to the global community. it was a real coalition... no just one of the so called 'willing.' it involved the united nations and more than just one other global power. we set a precident that invading another country "pre-emptively" is justified.

personally, i believe we've laid the ground work and international foundation and justification for korea to attack us pre-emptively. or any other country (and there are quite a few) that feel threatened by this country.

all i wanna know is where is osama and his gang. i sure as heck know this... the terror warning wasn't increased over the holidays because of iraq. and i know this as well... afghanistan is in ruins, far worse than before we so called "liberated" it. although, going after osama was justified in my view... but how about repairing the first country we ruined before going after another one?

any ways, to answer your question... i wouldn't fight in iraq. i wouldn't even be part of a support service for a unit. the most patriotic and american thing i can to is voice my opposition. actually, it would take quite a huge threat to 'global peace' (whatever that is, we've never had it) for me to join a sanctioned killing unit. i think world war ii was the last event that fit this bill.

*sigh*

get out and vote is all i can say. and begin the rally call to fix are flawed election system. not saying that because of the gore-bush fiasco... i've been saying that since i was in 8th grade and learned how the electoral college worked. makes so little sense and accounts for why so many people think they don't have a voice... when a couple hundred ballots tip the scales for over a dozen electoral votes. etc.

 

[Greg]

It would be unwise to let him be, and suffer consequences of imminent attacks later on down the road. The previous administration made that mistake with Osama, and we paid a heavy price for it.

Well said, the8re! Yes, Jon, 9/11 was a perfect reason to get rid of Saddam and I feel his removal was justified. He's possessed WMD in the past, would expand his capability if he could, and was sympathetic to terrorist organizations. The threat was never Saddam launching a missile full of chemical weapons at the U.S. It was the possibility of these weapons landing in the hands of terrorists that concerned me. It's been 2 1/3 years since 9/11/01 and I feel some American are becoming complacent.

 

[Stephen]

Does this qualify as hate speech?

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattmo3.htm

Of course not, they're only talking about white male European Republicans... :angry:

 

[jlangdale]

Does this qualify as hate speech?

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattmo3.htm

Of course not, they're only talking about white male European Republicans... :angry:

I think it qualifies as comedy. You know you just can't say one thing without saying it about the other. Neither are more or less better or worse. Democrats or Republicans. The only issue here is you can't say the same about the Rebulicans because by in large they don't have a sense of humor.

I love Al... I think he is getting his own talk show.

I'm Al Franken. I'm here to present the funniest ad award. I'm a last-minute substitution, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was supposed to be the presenter, but unfortunately he was murdered.