MERGED --> Impeachment Tour + Mother of US Soldier Vows To Follow Bush Around

[STING2]

Befoer the war, the Bush adm. claimed that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. But the weapons inspections that ended in 2004 found that there was no evidence of the rebuilding of weapons. Even the facilities that are used to build weapons were old and out of date. There was nothing found to show that Saddam even had the intention of rebuilding weapons. The fact is that Bush claimed that Saddam was restarting his weapons program, yet the inspectors found no evidence. Thats why Bush had to bring up the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator AFTER he already decided go into Iraq.




An Iraq/Al-Qaeda link WAS presented as one of the reasons for war. Condolezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld all stated that there are various CIA reports which show strong evidence of a link between the two. However, there was nothing wrong with the intelligence, the intelligence claimed that there might be a connection between the two, however not enough to go to war for. Yet the Bush administration blew these intelligence reports out of proportion because they needed another bogus reason to go to war. The adm. may have never directly claimed that Saddam was involved in 9/11; but whenever Bush gives a speech nowadays, he always says one way or another that the war on Iraq has made the U.S. safer from more "9/11's."

However, it hasn't made the U.S. any safer, in fact it may have made the U.S. more prone to attacks IMO. Look at what happened to Spain and the U.K., they were attacked by radical groups because they were involved in Iraq. I'm sure there are many radicals out there who want to attack the U.S. more so then before this war. Also, if we hadn't gone into Iraq, and focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, we may have already captured Osama bin Laden and many of his top supporters. Most probably, bin Laden is in the tribal regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. One of the reasons we don't have him yet is because Pakistan is not allowing us into their country. Bush should be working with the Pakistani government to try to put U.S. soldiers into Pakistan. And if they still refuse, and worst comes to worst, we may have to force ourselves into Pakistan. The area of Pakistan that bin Laden is hiding is not even controlled by the government, it is controlled by radicals.

It is a fact that actual WMD was not found in Iraq after Saddam was removed and teams of specialist could travel the country without intereference from Saddam's security services. But it does not change the fact that Saddam failed to verifiably disarm of thousands of stocks of WMD and that this WMD to date is still unaccounted for. Simply put, the ability to conceal and hide chemical and biological weapons and programs in a country the size of Iraq far exceed the ability of intelligence to find such materials. The fact that WMD has not been found does not prove that Saddam had no WMD prior to the war, nor does it explain or account for the thousands of stocks of WMD that are still unaccounted for.

As far as the Nuclear program is concerned, the only reason we know that many of the facilities as well as other places were not being used to develop a Nuclear Weapon is because the United States and its coalition forces successfully removed Saddam from power which allowed for the country to be searched in a way that it could not be with Saddam and his security services in power.

Regardless of the current debate about WMD, the central case for war rested on Saddam's failure to cooperate with the international community in the verifiable disarmament of WMD.

After 9/11, it would have been irresponisble of the administration not to have informed the public of any intelligence it had about possible Al Quada/Iraq links. The Bush administration never said that possible links between Al Quada and Iraq was the central case for war.

So you think Al Quada attacked Spain and maybe the UK because they were involved in just Iraq? You really think Al Quada is ok with the UK and Spains involvement with the War in Afghanistan? Al Quada saw an opportunity in Spain because of the elections. They wanted to see if they could scare the population into voting for the opposition party who stated they would withdraw the from Iraq. Al Quada succeeded in its goal in Spain.

In order to judge whether the war in Iraq has made the USA safer or not, you have to go back to why the war was fought in the first place. The war involved the enforcement of UN resolutions covering the disarmament of Saddam which was vital to the security of Persian Gulf Oil Supply. Today with Saddam's regime removed and completely disarmed, the oil supply from the Gulf has not been this safe and secure in decades. The war did indeed achieve its goals, but the reconstrution period must be successful as well if the coalition to prevent the return of new threats in a decade or two.

If any more troops are needed for operations in Afghanistan or Pakistan, the United States does have the forces. Out of a total of 88 US Army, National Guard, and Marine ground combat Brigades, only 17 are currently in Iraq. If more forces were needed in Afghanistan, there are plenty of forces that can be sent.

The idea that there are more terrorist trying to attack the United States now, does not seem to jive with what has happened over the last 4 years since 9/11 with the United States being free of any attacks. There could be an increase and indeed there are more extremist trying to get into Iraq these days than before. But the insurgency in Iraq is being fought by primarily the Saddam loyalist in the Sunni area's. Less than 5% of the insurgency in Iraq is being fought by terrorist from outside the country.

 

[STING2]

It just gets tiresome. It's a good political concept, framing an argument to suit your own agenda. We get it, they had the goods on Hussein. Does this by itself totally absolve EVERYTHING else that occured? They did infact build a case for war built on other factors beside 1441, maybe you should call up Hannity and ask him for the standardized response. I mean this with all due respect, honestly, it's not a personal connotation, it's directed at THIS whole line of thinking in general. Forgive my frustrations.

The case for war was essentially Powell's speech to the UN in Feb 2003.

He spent a lot of time on weapons and made an excellent case and a good amount of time talking about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda.

Don't pretend this was all about enforcing a UN resolution, that is selective memory if I've ever seen it. They wanted the American people and possibly even the UN to beleive that there was a deep seeded fear of what Iraq may do, with their own weapons or by working with Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.
The case for the weapons violations was a lay-up, it was ready-made, why did they go further?

In subsequent speeches and appearances, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, possibly Ari Fleischer grouped and worded IRaq and 9/11-Afghansitan all together, as if it were all one and the same fight/same reasons. There are a bevy of quotes on this, I am sure you have seen them before during the election period. Why is this? Why the constant grouping and quilt by association?

Because it was easier to make the case to the masses.
In post 9/11 America, people were scratching their head asking "why Iraq? why now?" They put out feelers and made it clear that the case was building beginning just after the 9/11 anniversary. People weren't buying it. The UN resolutions and "Sadaam is a bad guy" routine weren't really catching on.

I beleive they trumped up the case, adding to the weapons and UN resolution violations to sell it, using the fear of the masses in a post 9/11 world. I believe that THIS is the most aggregious thing the Bush Administration has done, logistically invading Iraq and toppling Hussein may not have been the worst thing in the world but the execution has been highly questionable. They trumped up the case to go, in Bob Woodwards book he said that Bush wanted Hussein in Spring 2001 before 9/11. The White House didn't dispute anything in his book, he worked with them.

There was a poll right before the election last year that had over 50% of the people polled believing Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Do you think they beleived this by osmosis or sheer ignorance, or was this the way the whole case was framed?
They wanted Hussein, and if it took 10 reasons to get him, they'd give 10 reasons if George Tenet had to fabricate it, Colin Powell had to go against his better instinct, they were going to MAKE the case. They had the case of the weapons, this is all I see in defense of their actions. Who the fuck disputes the UN violations?
The case for war was right there, as you said, why did they go further? Because people weren't buying it.

I've asked a few questions, maybe you can answer those without quoting UN resolutions over and over. That case is easy, it's a lay-up, who really disputes the broken record retorts? You can't, it's not designed for dialogue, which is precisely why it's framed that way. "We got the goods on Hussein" end of story. Unfortunately that is not the end of the story for those trying to be at all objective.

It's the package it took to "sell" this to the public that troubles me, does it bother you? It wasn't outright honest, which is not a surprise from a poltician of any stripe, but to do this on the backs of the 9/11 victims, why aren't more yellow ribboned car sticker families more outraged? I don't think they know the difference. I think they bought the fear that was sold to them.

Its not tiresome, nor is it just a good political concept. The United States central case for war is found in UN Security Council Resolution 1441, just as the central case for war in the 1991 Gulf War is found in UN Security Council Resolution 678. The Security Council Resolutions are the most serious statements that are made to the entire planet on problems of grave concern as well as the means necessary to solve them.

Hannity is not apart of the administration.

The central case for war was NOT Powell's speech to the UN in February 2003. There would not have ever been a Powell speach had the administration decided to not help at Tony Blair's domestic political situation as well as "going the extra mile for support" with drawing up yet another resolution to authorize military action against Saddam. But I'll get back to that later.

Notice that the intelligence Powell used in his February 2003 UN speech was never used in the month after Bush first went to the UN to speak on September 12, 2002 nor during the debate in congress that occured in the month after the speech. Congress voted on October 11, 2002 to give President Bush all the means he needed to enforce UN resolutions and US security requirements in regards to Saddam. On October 11, 2002 , congress approved the use of military force against Saddam by a large majority. None of the major bits in pieces of intelligence that Powell used in the speech to the UN in February were used to convince congress or the public during the debate that occured between the request for congressional authorization and the actual vote on October 11, 2002. Once Congressional authorization for war was given by congress on October 11, 2002, relevant debate about going to war in the USA was essentially over. Only the constant debate that goes on in the media, the Presidents monthly poll numbers, required further speeches from administration officials on the issue domestically.

Powell's Feb. 2003 speech once again was used as a way to help set the stage for a possible second UN resolution that the administration did not need, but felt it could possibly help in securing more allies, help for the operation, as well as helping Tony Blair and his difficult domestic situation. As it was, it became a potential way for countries like France to reverse the vote they had taken back in November 2002 to support military action against Saddam. That is why the new resolution was never drawn up and presented to the UN for a vote. In hindsite, this attempt by the Bush administration to go the extra mile for more collective support around the world as well as to present as many bits and pieces of extra intelligence that they could(Powells Speech) was a waste of time. The President had first already secured the approval of congress for war against Saddam in October 2002 and second had received UN authorization in November of 2002 as well.

The best example of selective memory is when people ignore what the United Nations Security Council has done in regards to the Saddam problem since the 1991 Gulf War, the experience of UN inspectors in Iraq from 1991-1998 as well as the results and how this relates to the security of the region and the world. Its important to remember and understand how Saddam and the international community got to this point. It is vital to understanding the needs for military action. It does not start in 2002 either, it starts back in the 1980s and becomes very important in the 1990s and later.

UN Security Council Resolutions are not some unimportant pieces of paper, they include all of the most serious needs and problems that the international communtiy faces with a particular problem. Even more rare and urgent are UN Security Council Resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN. Only resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules are allowed to be enforced through the use of military force.

The claims that the public was not buying the need for war against Saddam after 9/11 is false. Prior to the Bush administration starting its compaign to convince congress about the need for military action in September 2002, the Pew Research center found that 69% of the American public ALREADY supported a war to remove Saddam from power!

It is the Democrats and strong critics of the administration that has presented the case that after Congress had already given the president the authorization to go to war against Iraq in October of 2002, that the President and his administration went about a campaign of wording certain sentences in speechs so as to subtly link Saddam with Afghanistan or Saddam with 9/11. This is a gross distortion of what the adminstration was doing and laughable as well because the administration had already secured authorization from Congress for war against Iraq in October of 2002, only 4 weeks after the President FIRST started to make his case for war against Iraq!

No one lied, no one tried to mislead anyone. When one studies the history of Saddam and the US responses to him over the past 25 years, especially since the 1991 Gulf War, the efforts of the Bush administration are much easier to understand. But many of the critics fail to take the time to remember and understand the problems in the 1990s in relation to US and international security in the region which are needed to correctly understand current administration policy.

The administration's central case for war was correctly and accurately presented to the USA public, members of congress, and the international community. The central case for military action was laid down in Resolution 1441 for the whole world to see. It covers all of Saddam's violations and how they relate to regional and global security which explains why military action had become a necessity.

 

[STING2]

i understand where you're coming from, but the administration never used UN resolutions as justification for war.

while they might have been justification in a legalistic sense, it would have failed to make the sale to the American people, who generally require a clear and present danger to the US, or a clear and defined mission with an exit strategy as in Kosovo and Gulf War 1.

the Bush admin knew this, and chose to create boogeymen, monsters, scary Death Star weapons, and tales of secret meetings in Prague between Mohammad Atta and some unknown Iraqi agents. was there an outright lie? no. but Senate INtelligence Committee report noted that most of the major key judgements were wrong, and that the intelligence was "eitehr overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."

and it has all blown up in their faces.

the irony is that SH's treatment of his population might have been reason enough to get both the American people, and the UN, and the citizens of France and Germany and Russia, to back the invasion. instead, in a grevious miscalculation, and in typically ethnocentrist fashion, the Bushies made it all about WMDs, 9-11, and a threat to the homeland, essentially isolating the rest of the world already put off by "with us or against us comments." thus, failure was guaranteed from the start, and we are paying the cost in deaths and lost limbs (which i see every day) for this misjudgement.

The Bush administration made its central case for war IN a UN resolution which was UN resolution 1441. The President also made the case to Congress which debated about giving authorization to the President and on October 11, 2002 voted overwhelmingly to give the President authorization to go to war against Saddam. This was long before most of the speeches which democrats and critics alike claim the administration mis-led people. More importantly, the relevant debate about going to war against Saddam was over on October 11, 2002 when Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war. So this idea that the President and his advisors had a playbook to convince a public and congress of going to war filled with lies and half truths is after the October 11, 2002 authorization vote from Congress is simply false.

Clear And Present Danger since March 1991 in regards to Saddam was defined on whether or not Saddam was cooperating in regards to disarmament of WMD as well as other issues stemming from his invasion and occupation of Kuwait. The United States and the UN were not going to make the mistake of waiting for Saddam next invasion before taking action. The American public understood this and supported Bush Sr. Administration policy in regards to Saddam as did they support Clinton administration policy in regards to Saddam.

In the summer of 2002, prior to Bush Administration starting its compaign to convince the public and congress of the need to go to war against Saddam soon, the Pew Research Center found that 69% of the Amercian public already supported removing from Saddam from power through miltiary action.

The operation to remove Saddam's regime from power and insure that he would not longer be able to use or build WMD or other weapons to threaten or invade a vital region of the world, was a success not a failure as you claim.

That the United States and its allies would still be in Iraq years after the invasion was rather obvious. The level of the insurgency currently raging in four of Iraq's 18 provinces was not. But this fact does not constitute a failure or change the necessity of removing Saddam from power.

 

[STING2]

I know this has thread has already gone off-topic, but one more post/reply because I was totally misunderstood by Dreadsox.

Selective memory in terms of repeating over and over like a broken record that the case for war was all about UN resolutions and weapons charges, when it clearly wasn't. Do I need to paste the entire text of the Colin Powell speech talking about Iraq's associations with Al Quaeda? Why did he feel the need to bring it up? Why did he later regret making that speech? Why did Cheney say what he said on Meet The Press as well as other people saying other things?

They were connecting the dots for people themselves, that's why I referenced the poll that said over 50% of the people thought Iraq had something to do with 9/11 prior to the election. THIS IS THE PROBLEM, not that no WMD"s were found. People were not buying it, people wanted to get Bin Laden they felt (rightly) that Hussein was nothing but a mere nuisance doing nothing in 12 years do warrant a full invasion and occupation (or liberation as Cheney and Wolfowitz would say)

Too many holes, too many redundant responses about weapons.
Nobody who supports the war can defend it, it's indefensable.
Why did they sell the war on the backs of the 9/11 victims?
That was what my whole post was about, conceding the weapons charges, and asking the questions about why they sold it the way they did. Yet, the first reply out ot the box is weapons, weapons, weapons, you can't frame the argument away from glaring unanswered questions. I am totally lost on your response, how is it unfair to quote Sting and ask him a question about the quote, an opinon he has repeated over and over.

what am I supposed to beleive?

Bush remarks about getting Hussein while RUNNING for President. It is reported by Woodward in his book that he said something about making the case (March 2001, I beleive).
Then after 9/11, the call is put out to get the goods on Hussein.
Right after the anniversary of 9/11, the politicking begins. The public is not buying it, so here comes the association to 9/11.
They trumped it up, do we need 8,000 other references? The Downing Street memo points to Summer 2002. The wheels were in motion and when the case was finally made, they took the legitimate case and littered it with soem bullshit to make the public scared and to buy it. Does this not bother you?

Once again A+B=C
A=the legitimate case, 1441 etc.
B=the bullshit for the sales jop
C=the case that was actually presented

The public was scared shitless and would have gotten behind the invasion of Canada had a case been made mentioning 9/11 and terrorism 8 thousand times. When all was said and done, they didn't make the legitimate case by itself. It's like the prosecutors in the Michael Jackson trial, knowing they couldnt get a conviction so they conjure up some false witnesses to sell the jury. Why people are okay with the White House doing this is totally beyond me.

The central case for war was embodied in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Sorry if you think thats a broken record, but the same could be said for those who say "Bush lied" or those that indeed have selective memory when it comes to Saddam's actions over the past 12 years as well as his capabilities. The goal of US policy since the 1991 Gulf War was preventing another serious threat from Saddam as well AS ACTING well before Saddam would invade any country again in the Persian Gulf Region.

To accomplish this task and to determine when and if an invasion was needed, a large number of obligations were put on Saddam in terms of verifiable disarmament. In addition, the worlds largest and most extensive sanctions and weapons embargo regime was placed on Saddam's Iraq. If that was not enough, limited military forces as well as the use of military strikes were also apart of the containment strategy.

Unfortunately this containment strategy and policy started to come apart in 1998 with the removal of UN inspectors from Iraq. Sanctions and the embargo eroded to the point that Saddam was smuggling Billions of dollars worth of unknown goods across his borders.

The only way to avoid having to invade to remove Saddam was a successful containment strategy with sanctions and an embargo preventing new conventional and WMD weapons and materials from entering Iraq, as well as a disarmament program under which Saddam cooperated with UN inspectors insuring that he no longer had any WMD.

The inspectors failed to verifiably disarm Saddam because he would not fully cooperate in that respect. The tight sanctions and embargo over time came undone and the means to retighten them were politically difficult and in most cases impossible. The other part of US containment strategy, limited military strikes and no fly zones was also in jeopardy because regional governments were having trouble justifying such limited actions to certain sections of their populations. Most Arab governments prefered the removal of Saddam to continued US military presence and limited US military action(sometimes ever week depending on events in the no fly zone).

Containment in the form that was needed for security was dead and the only way to handle the threat that Saddam posed to the vital oil reserves of the planet was through a military invasion to remove him from power.


As I have said before the Colin Powell speech before the UN was directed at an international audiance because the administration was suddenly considering the possiblity of a second UN resolution. Had this not been the case there would not have been a Powell Speech. The speech was an honest attempt to present certain pieces of evidence to members of the international community of the need for military action. The relevant debate in the United Sates had already been over since October 11, 2002 when Congress voted to give George Bush the authority to go to war. Administration speeches since that time were simply in response to the international press and critics of the administration. They were not needed in order to convince the public or congress of the need to go to war because that process had already played out in September and October resulting in congressional authorization for war.

There was already strong support among the American public to remove Saddam from power through military action prior to the start of the Bush administrations compaign to convince the public and congress of the need for miltiary action. In the Summer of 2002, the Pew Research Center found that 69% of the public supported military action to remove Saddam from power!

The Bush administration central case for war has always been Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. For 12 years, the United States and its Allies tried to achieve this while keeping Saddam pinned down with sanctions, embargo and limited military action. But the sanctions came apart, the embargo came apart, the UN inspectors were kicked out, Saddam did not comply and verifiably disarm of thousands of stocks of WMD, and the United States and its allies were faced with an unknown situation in 2002 that would only get worse. Military action at this point to remove Saddam was long overdue.

The critics central case against Bush rest on the failure to find certain specific WMD capabilities after the United States entered Iraq and removed Saddam from power.(It should be noted the only reason we know that this specific intelligence was inaccurate is because the United States and the coalition DID invade and remove Saddam from power) But this is not the first time intelligence has been wrong in regards to Saddam. Just prior to the 1991 Gulf War, the intelligence showed that Saddam was years away from getting a Nuclear Weapon. Once Saddam was defeated in the first Gulf War and the inspectors were allowed access through out Iraq in 1991, they found that Saddam was only MONTHS not years or decades away from getting a Nuclear Weapon. That is why whether military action would be warrented against Saddam in the years following the first Gulf War rested not on various pieces of intelligence but on Saddam's cooperation in verifiably disarming of all WMD under the supervision of UN inspectors.

The central case for war was never Powell's speech involving specific capabiliites and their locations or Cheney's speech etc. I've explained why the Powell speech was done and other administration speeches certainly did reference intelligence that later turned out to be accurate, but such intelligence was not the central case or arguement for action, but rather supporting pieces of intelligence that added to the central case. The American Public was in support of military action even prior to Bush starting his campaign to convince the public and congress back in 2002. After October 11, 2002 , the Bush administration had all the authorization it needed from the US congress to go to war and relevant debate(ie for voting for or against an operation) was over in the United States.

 

[STING2]

Just thought I'd chime into this lovely conversation with some interesting statistics. These come from two moderately right-leaning U.S magazines, both excellent sources, which this avowed moderate leftie reads.

From last weeks's Newsweek:

Amount US consumes a day: 21 millions barrels.
Where the U.S gets its oil:

1)The U.S. --42% (interesting, I thought since our domestic production of oil peaked in 1970, it would be less)
*if the Alaskan Wildlife refuge is developed over the next decade, it might produce 250-800 mil bbl (barrels) a year. That's only how much we consume EVERY 12-38 DAYS. (Makes you sick don't it? Ruining the Tongass forever just for one month's worth of oil a year? Not even that! )
2)Canada 11%
3)Nigeria 7%
4)Russia 7%
5)Indonesia--6%
6)Other countries--28%
7) Mexico-11% (see the real reason for NAFTA?)
8)Venezuela-8%
9)Saudi Arabia--9% (see why this Chavez business is so important for Bush? We get almost as much oil from Venezuela as we do from Saudi Arabia. This was shocking to me! And the last time we got fed up with Cheavez, he was mysteriously ousted in a coup, and the people voted him right back in. Now I'll bet the CIA is gnashing its teeth b/c they WOULD like to "take him out" and can't do it now without looking suspicious. Not good to have an anti-American rrgime--so to speak--over there.
See the REAL reason for the just-passed CAFTA?

10)And finally, Iraq--4 %which I think is a surprisingly high, figuring the insurgents blasting oil pipleines, refineries, etc. )

Amount the US has in the Strategic Oil Reserve (for emergencies): 220 mil bbl. (or enough for only 60-70 days worth?!?!)

*************

From Businessweek, percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for the world, projected from 2005-2050:

For 2005:

U.S.--28%
EU--34%
Other--20%
Japan--12%
China--4%
India--2%

For 2025:

U.S.--27%
EU:--25%
Other:--21%
Japan:--7%
China:--15%
India:--5%

For 2050:

U.S.--26%
EU--15%
Other--10%
Japan--4%
China--28%
India--17%

Now picture this. I'm just tossing conjectures out here.

Say a civil war begins in Iraq, or even if it doesn't, the security situation remains precarious for another 5 yrs, (as is likely with Iran's infleunce over the country, or Sunni anger.) The projected cost of the war reaches a trillion dollars over the next decade--as has been recently projected. Who is finding this? How can the US economy keep this up?

This is not 1970, when we were awash in domestic oil profits, nobody's else's economy measured up to ours in terms of GDP, we had a booming manufacturing center, we were a creditor nation whose citizens saved, and had stable, lifetime jobs or jobs that provided a decent living wage, and health care was mostly covered by employers and most of it was fee-for-service. Back then , we were so rich we we could literally throw obscene amounts of money at both Vietnam AND the Apollo Space Program at the same time and the economy would barely hiccup. And oh yes, more than half the poulation was under 30. Now, the country is getting older, healthcare costs are rsing, and the kinds of jobs that would support the retirees are being outsourced....the jobs left are unhstable and there will be far fewer workers to support them. By contrast, India's population is 60% under 19, and they'll surpass China and have a population of 1.6 bil by 2050. I'm getting OT..the point is, a lot of this war is being funded by China. China has a roaring trade surplus in its coffers and its citizens don't spend their time on Gameboys or watching TiVo. They're in what we call "geek and nerd school"--math, science, and engineering--millions of them. And they SAVE. THis 60 bil a yr is not coming from the US! Not all of it!

If we pull out of Iraq, guess who is waiting in the wings. China, insatiable in her thirst for oil to fuel her explosive economy. I'm sure they are watching what we're doing in Iraq very carefully. If they were to go into Iraq in out place, they would I am sure NOT make our mistakes. Every country with warring factions is ultimately pacifiable, as Marshall Tito proved with Yugoslavia. They'd saturate Iraq with a million troops, if necessary, with a population of 1.3 bil, a million is just peanuts, and turn the country into an armed camp. And they'd not have our (relative) squemishness about human rights violations, they'd commit them right out in the open. China has a history of ruthless Emperors and brutal supression of rebellions, the Boxer rebellion, etc, they've never been ruled by a democracy. Hate to sound like this, but it IS aprt of their culture. They're similar to Japan. Most of today's Japanese came from China anyway. They're the ones sucking Sudan's oil out with a giant straw right now, turning a blind eye to the genocide in Darfur, aren't they?) They'd beat the country into submission, and Iran be right now and get away with it--China is the only country we can't tell what to do, they coukd thimb their nose at us if they wanted. US corporations are scared stiff of having bad relations with China and souring business relationships. And not having gone through something like Vietnam, the Chinese would not care about casualties either. They'd be patriotic about it ("for China's greatness!" etc. The unspoken message being a sort of COld-war with Russia- like Challenge to the U.S. for global dominance.)

You can talk about having beaten "the Vietnam syndrome" all you want, but the fact even the White House knows is, we never will. Every war now is fought with casualties in mind, and public opinion won't tolerate thiusands of casualties. Every war before Vietnam, except for the little ones like the "splendid little war" in Panama in 1897), we had tens and even hundreds of thousands of casualties, and the people suffered in silence, it was for good of the country. No more....the public won't "suffer" so again....

Right now, al big topic in the Chinese military is the Strait of Malacca, a narrow passage between two small islands in the Indonesian archipelago, where all the Pacific's oil tanker traffic must pass. The U.S. patrols it and has control of the area. Needless to say, whoever controls Malacca controls most of the world's oil supply. It's like the Suez canal 100 yrs ago. Why the miltary buildup of China? Is it to invade Iraq if we leave? To invade Taiwan? To challenge CINCPAC in the Pacific, as eventualy it must, in its need for oil? Honestly, I don't know if (God forbid) WWIII comes, who we'll fight..some Radical Islamic wacko with a nuke in his pocket, or if we'll be spoilsports about having to share economic dominance with China. And remember, China has a huge grudge against the West,, for 19th-century donestic meddling (the opium wars, etc). What if they decide it's payback time? What if Iraq is the first skirmish in a Sino-US war?

Those of yopu in the US, you should really puck up the China and India Businessweek issue, it should be required reading. It should still be on store shelves right now.

Eventually, the longer we stay in Iraq, the more it is going to put a strain on the American way of life. And the Chinese will be desperate for alternative sources of oil by 2010==remember, they're 4 times bigger than we are, both in terms of goegrpahy and population, they're going to be like 4 Americas burning up more oil. Eventually, Whoever is President then is going to have to get rid of the bulls*** and tell the American people just what the REAL story is. It would have been SOOOO much easier if Bush would ease the future strain on his sucessors in the White House and just UP AND LEVEL with the American people, as to why all this blood we cannot afford to lose and treasure that isn't ours is being spent. This "democracy" BS is pointless, I am sure they are looking at the situation on the ground and the text of the Constitution; they know Iran is the real projected winner here.

Unless we really ARE prepared to spend a trillion dollars ro guaruntee Israel's stability..I doubt it. Bush knows Iraq didn't attack us either. And Queda is already opating there right now..so much for keeping them out, they're already in.

While the United States or any other country that imports its oil from a wide variety of sources may seem to be protected from a sudden cut off from supply from the Persian Gulf, this is in fact not the case. 70% of the worlds proven oil reserves are in the Persian Gulf. While some countries may only import a fraction of their oil from the Persian Gulf, supply of oil from the persian gulf has the greatest impact on the global price of oil which is what determines the price in every part of the world regardless of where a country directly imports its oil from. When the global supply of oil that is available to the world gets substantially reduced, this causes the price of oil to rise dramatically. The impact of the seizure and sabotage of Persian Gulf Oil supply would be to raise prices worldwide to such a degree that a worldwide economic depression would insue.

As for the cost of the war, it is currently running at 1 Billion dollars a week or 50 Billion dollars a year. The United States currently spends less on the military and military activities like Iraq as a percentage of GDP as it did during the 1980s under Ronald Reagan. The Military Budget every year now runs close to 400 Billion dollars. This is only 3% of GDP. The cost of the Iraq operation itself is only .4% of GDP. Realize that US GDP is nearly 12 Trillion dollars a year and the US government collects over 2 Trillion dollars a year in tax revenue.

It is true that the United States has a very large national debt, about 65% of GDP. But there are countries in Europe that also have similar levels of debt or debt that is even a higher percentage of GDP.

China currently has a national debt that is 31% of their GDP. Thats nearly 2.5 Trillion dollars of debt.

In any event, this is not the worst debt situation the United States has ever been in. Following World War II, the national debt of the country was 140% of GDP!

The United States currently has a strong economy with 4.4% annual growth and one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world at 5%. The standard of living measure by the annual Human Development Index is currently #8 in the world. China is currently at #94, not much better than the Palestinian Occupied Territories at #102.

Economically the United States is on much stronger ground that it was in the 1970s. GDP adjusted for inflation is 3 to 4 times higher than it was in the 1970s which has led to huge rise in per capita GDP. Americans are better educated, and healthier as life expectancy continues to improve.

Economically to some degree China is indirectly helping to fund what goes on in Iraq which is both good for China and the United States.

China has 2.2 million man military force, but has very limited capacity to project this military force beyond countries that it currently borders. To project military force across the ocean beyond its borders, a country needs an exstensive logistical capacity to transport and support a large military force so far from home. It requires hundreds and thousands of ships for sea lift capacity to carry large numbers of armored vehicles and other equipment. It requires a large Navy to protect such a large transport capability. The ability to transport large number of troops by air is also needed.

China currently only has a sea lift and airlift capacity for about 15,000 troops and and a few hundred tanks. The shocking reality is that this is not enough to even take Taiwan let alone operate in Iraq or the Persian Gulf as the United States does. Whats more, the Chinese Navy is very small and not large enough to escort and support and operation in Iraq.

China, like most other countries, has no military option it can take in Iraq. China like most of the world is dependent on the United States to insure the steady, secure and free flow of oil supplies from the Persian Gulf.

The US economy is the healthiest it has been in Years and the war in Iraq is not having any impact on the economy as the monetary cost are a fraction of the annual defense budget even in peace time. China's economy is growing rapidlly and is nearly the sole reason why Oil prices have jumped over the past 5 years so much. It is just as vital to China that the supply of Oil from the Persian Gulf remain secure and flow freely to the global economy as it is to the United States. But China is dependent on the United States to insure that Gulf oil supplies is safe as it has near zero capability for a military operation of any significant size thousands of miles from its borders.

 

[BonosSaint]

Do you think the American public would have really cared whether or not Hussein had 10,000 violations?

That being said, I think if we had been able to get in an out of Iraq within 90 days with an asskicking victory, the Americans probably wouldn't have cared whether the justification had been carrying a concealed weapon.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well you can go ahead and do that, go in destroy hostile governments and then bugger off leaving the country to be run over by whatever.

The US won against the Husein regime, it beat it very quickly. The matter of nation building is what takes time and effort and that is a humanitarian effort that pays dividends in regional security post-war. Of course bombing a country to shit and leaving it to the dogs is another way to go but that generally delivers harsh blowback.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I'm glad you all read the request to bring the thread back on topic.

This thread will now be moved to the WAR forum.

 

[BonosSaint]

Well you can go ahead and do that, go in destroy hostile governments and then bugger off leaving the country to be run over by whatever.

The US won against the Husein regime, it beat it very quickly. The matter of nation building is what takes time and effort and that is a humanitarian effort that pays dividends in regional security post-war. Of course bombing a country to shit and leaving it to the dogs is another way to go but that generally delivers harsh blowback.

I'm not disagreeing. I was merely speculating on how much of a case you need to build vs. the amount of American blood, time and money are going to be lost.

For better or worse, the modern American experience with war is Kosova or Gulf 1. We were sold on shock and awe, not nation building.

Everyone knew we were going to take the country. It was post invasion the Administration was pretty vague on. It was presented with rose glasses. Now taking either side--that that is how the Administration truly viewed it or that was how they cynically presented it--does not create confidence for me.

They may have made a case that was satisfactory to much of the America people to invade. They did not make a satisfactory case for the cost of staying, nor were they very clear about that cost.
Not discussing the right or wrong about the war and that is a discussion I'll stay out of, they did not prepare the country for the cost of occupation.

 

[Irvine511]

The Bush administration made its central case for war IN a UN resolution which was UN resolution 1441. The President also made the case to Congress which debated about giving authorization to the President and on October 11, 2002 voted overwhelmingly to give the President authorization to go to war against Saddam. This was long before most of the speeches which democrats and critics alike claim the administration mis-led people. More importantly, the relevant debate about going to war against Saddam was over on October 11, 2002 when Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war. So this idea that the President and his advisors had a playbook to convince a public and congress of going to war filled with lies and half truths is after the October 11, 2002 authorization vote from Congress is simply false.

you see, STING, this is exactly the problem. many of us have pointed towards documented, quoted examples of the administration misleading the american public in regards to the threat of WMDs that Saddam supposedly had, and he supposedly had the intention to pass them off to Al-Qaeda and then someone would float a nuke up the east river and flatten the Upper West Side. no one is claiming anything; this is all on record, it is fact, it was part of a presentation to the UN, part of speeches given by Bush, Condi, Rumsfeld, and on the Sunday morning talk shows like Meet the Press.

however, you ignore all that evidence, and simply restate the information -- UN resolutions -- that prompted the original questions and evidence to the contrary.

thus, it's impossible to have a real debate when you refuse to engage evidence and arguments to the contrary.

 

[I'm Ready]

damn a lot of good discussion has occured in this thread

and it got killed once it was moved to the war forum

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You just can't help but love this crazy nut job running around the president's ranch yelling about how much she hates America.

 

[BVS]

...yelling about how much she hates America.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[BVS]

 

[Macfistowannabe]

"I was raised in a country by a public school system that taught us that America was good, that America was just. America has been killing people... since we first stepped on this continent; we have been responsible for death and destruction. I passed on that bulls**t to my son, and my son enlisted. I'm going all over the country telling moms this country is not worth dying for."
- Cindy Sheehan

 

[BVS]

Saying it's bullshit and hate are two different things.

You don't have to agree and love everything about America to live here.

I think Ashlee Simpson's singing is bullshit, but I don't hate her.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Saying it's bullshit and hate are two different things.

You don't have to agree and love everything about America to live here.

I think Ashlee Simpson's singing is bullshit, but I don't hate her.

Anyways, she said it all right here.

"America has been killing people... since we first stepped on this continent"

"I'm going all over the country telling moms this country is not worth dying for."

I'm surprised you missed it. Maybe the lib elite from the New York Times failed to report anything that would possibly make her sound like a madwoman.

If not hatred, then flat out loathe and contempt for sure. You don't have to defend this woman if you don't want to. All she's doing is degrading her son's bravery and death, while making an ass of herself in the process. Yep, America hater alright.

 

[BVS]

Anyways, she said it all right here.

"America has been killing people... since we first stepped on this continent"

"I'm going all over the country telling moms this country is not worth dying for."

I'm surprised you missed it. Maybe the lib elite from the New York Times failed to report anything that would possibly make her sound like a madwoman.

If not hatred, then flat out loathe and contempt for sure. You don't have to defend this woman if you don't want to. All she's doing is degrading her son's bravery and death, while making an ass of herself in the process. Yep, America hater alright.

I don't agree with her comments, but this is the difference between you and I, I am capable of defending somone I disagree with. She has every right to say what she's saying and still she has not said she hates this country. This country does have a lot of blood on it's hands, this is truth doesn't mean I hate the country. "Not worth dying for" in this current war, I agree with her, doesn't mean I hate this country.

And seriously Mac, quit with the "lib elite" bullshit it's getting really old.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I don't agree with her comments, but this is the difference between you and I, I am capable of defending somone I disagree with. She has every right to say what she's saying and still she has not said she hates this country. This country does have a lot of blood on it's hands, this is truth doesn't mean I hate the country. "Not worth dying for" in this current war, I agree with her, doesn't mean I hate this country.

I'm not calling for the Sedition Act to throw this woman in jail, and she has the right to say what has been said. Just as I have the right to question her logic. I admit we've had diplomatic failures in the past, but who hasn't? I will however expose a radical agitator who doesn't seem to realize how fortunate she is to live in a free country, which could not have been established without its people standing up for themselves and giving the ultimate sacrifice so that we can decide as ordinary people what is best for our society.

She couldn’t have dishonored her son any worse than playing the “dying in vain” card. She couldn’t have dishonored her country any worse than harping that America isn’t worth dying for, that America is unjust, that all America has been doing is killing people since the time we first settled on this land. Does she not realize what she is saying? I don’t think she does. How about what she is doing? Hatemongering, demoralizing the troops, and constantly undermining her son’s bravery and willingness to serve and die for his country. Most sickeningly, she’s never had so much fun in her life! What, you don’t believe me? She smiled as she was arrested, so don’t tell me she’s not a tragedy pimp. She enjoys any publicity she can get, and any opportunity given to her to attack those who know that there is no noble cause more worthy of sacrifice than freedom and democracy. If freedom isn’t worth defending, you tell me what is.

No deed can be higher than dying for your loved ones. Her propaganda to leave our duties of protecting and expanding the free world is dangerous, as is her assistance from Ramsey Clark, George Galloway, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and all the other irrationalists who want to abandon our duties of establishing a peaceful and free society in Iraq.

We are not living in a time of peace. We aren't responsible for the Jihad that has been declared upon us by the islamofascists. We are however responsible for preserving our very survival, as well as standing up to the world's most dangerous oppressors. How do we win the peace? Peace talks with the Anthrax Mafia is out of the question. We must eliminate those who want us converted, killed, or both. There is a synchronicity between this conflict and the conflict we faced as allied nations during World War II. If we haven’t fought that war, most of us wouldn’t have been born, while the rest of us would be speaking German and kissing Hitler’s right foot. We were attacked on Pearl Harbor, and the people of America answered the call of defense for their very survival. We didn’t want to get involved, but we had to. The same situation existed after 9/11, when New York, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania were attacked, we saw our civilization under attack, and nothing could be said to pacify our hateful enemies. Back to World War II, which we almost lost by the way, we fought what would be considered a sickeningly politically incorrect and illegal war by the anti-war lobby in this country. Harry Truman couldn’t have made a tougher call in his time than to develop the most advanced weapons of his time before our enemies did, and use them against our enemies before they could use them against us. He didn’t enjoy bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he didn’t enjoy killing Japanese people, but he did what he had to do to force our enemies to surrender. Yes, it was a tragedy that we had to resolve our conflict by killing so many innocent people, but what other alternatives did we have?

I don’t believe for one second that freedom is free. Our fathers poured oceans of blood, sweat, and tears to liberate themselves from tyranny, whether it’s eighteenth century Britain, whether it’s the Confederate Army, whether it’s Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or WWII-era Japan. Freedom has never been free, and it never will be. Peace is never achieved without taking arms against those who want you annihilated from existence, who want you molded into a sandscarf, who want to rape your wife, and who want Allah to give them seven virgins as a reward for their evildoings. If we leave Iraq right now, it will become a greater global threat to every nation in existence, free or not. The entire country could be turned into a factory for terrorism and death camps. It will not only mean three years of risking our lives to establish a democracy, but it will mean that nations will be overtaken by islamofascists and millions of innocent people will be ruthlessly murdered by every last rotten throat-cutter in the Middle East.

And seriously Mac, quit with the "lib elite" bullshit it's getting really old.

I will inform others on what doesn't make the headlines, thank you very much.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm going all over the country telling moms this country is not worth dying for."
- Cindy Sheehan

There was a time when love and respect of country meant something. How quickly we forget those who did step up to the plate and died for this country.

 

[Dreadsox]

I have really held back from posting some of the things I have read that she has said.

I posted a link to the radio interview....which I felt she sounded reasonable at times, but, scary at others.

 

[Irvine511]

There was a time when love and respect of country meant something. How quickly we forget those who did step up to the plate and died for this country.

or, maybe, this country was once worth dying for; but given the current adventures this country is undertaking, it is no longer worth dying for under these circumstances and for these leaders.

i'll tell you right now: i would have marched over to Europe and fought Hitler with all my might if it were 1943.

there is no way i'd ever, ever die -- or would want anyone i loved to die -- in the sands of Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[randhail]

or, maybe, this country was once worth dying for; but given the current adventures this country is undertaking, it is no longer worth dying for under these circumstances and for these leaders.

i'll tell you right now: i would have marched over to Europe and fought Hitler with all my might if it were 1943.

there is no way i'd ever, ever die -- or would want anyone i loved to die -- in the sands of Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think it's safe to say that Tom Brokaw won't be call calling this generation "The Greatest Generation."

 

[BVS]

I will inform others on what doesn't make the headlines, thank you very much.

You can inform us of any kind of information you want, even the stuff we've heard over and over, it's just the condescending tone that because I don't agree with you means I have read the same things as you is old. Plus it just really weakens your arguments. The whining just distracts from anything you say sometimes.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

i'll tell you right now: i would have marched over to Europe and fought Hitler with all my might if it were 1943.

I would like to know why you think that Islamic terrorism is not a threat worth taking on.

 

[financeguy]

I would like to know why you think that Islamic terrorism is not a threat worth taking on.

There was no 'islamic terrorism' in Iraq until Bush/Blair/Howard invaded it.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

There was no 'islamic terrorism' in Iraq until Bush/Blair/Howard invaded it.

1. Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.
2. Saddam Hussein’s government supported terrorism by paying "bonuses" of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. Eleven Israelies were murdered while 52 were wounded. A little over three months after that carnage, Mrs. Khaldiya Isma’il Abd al-Aziz al-Hurani collected a check for $25,000 as a bonus for her son’s suicide and his homicide of nearly a dozen others. The following check was a “President Saddam Hussein’s Grant” paid via the Palestine Investment Bank. These funds were transferred on June 23, 2002.
3. Usama Muhammad Id Bahr and Nabil Mahmud Jamil Halbiyyah blew themselves up in Jerusalem's Zion Square on December 1, 2001. Before setting off to "martyrdom," they also left a car bomb set on a timer two blocks away. It exploded just as rescue workers and emergency personnel arrived on the scene. Alas, the human toll was far more severe, what with 11 deaths and 188 injuries. The only people who benefitted from this barbarism were the relatives of these two bombers who received President Saddam Hussein Grants here, as well.
4. In addition to funds, Saddam Hussein's government provided diplomatic help to Islamic extremists. This is Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front. He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism. The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours.

And that, for now, concludes Saddam's welfare handouts for terrorists and their families. Thank you.

 

[VertigoGal]

or, maybe, this country was once worth dying for; but given the current adventures this country is undertaking, it is no longer worth dying for under these circumstances and for these leaders.

i'll tell you right now: i would have marched over to Europe and fought Hitler with all my might if it were 1943.

there is no way i'd ever, ever die -- or would want anyone i loved to die -- in the sands of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Maybe the mood has changed, however I don't think you can really say this was a better country to live in in the 1940s, at least not if you were a Japanese-American or an African-American in the South. Maybe it has to do with post-Vietnam mistrust, I honestly have no idea. It's interesting you say that the war in Afghanistan isn't something you think is worth fighting for either, considering this was pre-Iraq war and right after 9/11. Seeing 3000 of your countrymen killed on TV is a pretty strong emotional image, imo. The unity seems to have disintegrated, but I do think there was a similar spirit of "love of country" after that.

If being the "greatest generation" means lots of kids dying, then I'd rather not be it. It's not like WW2 was really anything noble on our part; we liberated the Jews about as much as Lincoln freed the slaves. All you have to do is look at the immigration figures...

Anyway, I do think there is less of a naive "we can do it" culture these days, but I don't think it's really because it's a worse place to live at all. Personally, there's almost nothing I would go to war for. Not because I don't think there are things worth fighting for, but because I'm selfish and as hard as I try to be a good agnostic, death scares the shit out of me.

 

[VertigoGal]

There was no 'islamic terrorism' in Iraq until Bush/Blair/Howard invaded it.

A lot of people seem to convienently forget that.

There was state terror however, which I suppose was more tribal than sectarian?