<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 5 2004, 01:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 5 2004, 01:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did you just completely ignore the post above yours or are you completely unable to accept that Bush is lawfully president? If there is a flaw it would be the system it's self, but I think it worked fine in this instance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you just misread my post? I never once said that Bush wasn't the legal president, I simply stated that it was odd that he was the president even though more people wanted Gore. I don't know if the system is flawed or not, but when a larger portion of the nation wants a president in office yet someone else gets the job, I think the system <i>might</i> need some looking in to.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Jun 6 2004, 02:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Jun 6 2004, 02:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually reasa... under the final count, Gore won Florida and two other states that were initially marked to Bush. It's just that the final count was not permitted to be completed until after Bush had been appointed. Hail to the thief, baby.
Well according to this which was last updated in December of 2001, which for elections that had taken place more then a year ago we can assume all "final" counts have taken place, Bush wins the electoral vote. Under the final count Bush won Florida’s electoral votes, and all the others he needed to be the lawful president of the US. You can argue the facts to death because you hate the man but that does not change the fact that he DID win the election and he IS president.
If these states need so much time to get their "final" count in then perhaps they need to fix their voting systems, Bush can not be held accountable for certain states inability to hold an election. In other words take it up with them.
Yes Bush did indeed win the election fair and square.
Saying other wise falls into the realms of conspiracy theories and are a waste of forum space.
On the other hand, however, many people have thought that the electorate system is flawed, which is a far more legit argument, but still doesn't change the fact Bush won legally.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Jun 6 2004, 12:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Jun 6 2004, 12:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On the other hand, however, many people have thought that the electorate system is flawed, which is a far more legit argument, but still doesn't change the fact Bush won legally.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So true. The electoral system is a relic from a time when the leaders of our government didn't trust the people to pick the "right" president. Considering that the political parties pretty much give us a choice of two candidates right now, the electoral college is pretty pointless and just makes the whole thing more confusing than it has to be.
Oh yeah, I'm backing Marine01. He's countered pretty much every argument you've thrown at him, and I still am not seeing strong arguments from the other side.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 6 2004, 06:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 6 2004, 06:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 7 2004, 02:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 7 2004, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, come on. Prisoners in the US have rights, and you know it. You cannot be held for more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime, you have access to a lawyer etc. That very clearly isn't going on in Iraq. I'm not going to argue that it should be, but please don't act like it is the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Prisoners in the US have rights as US citizens. These people are NOT US citizens, they are illegal combatants. They refuse to wear uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers of an army, and as such are unprotected by the Geneva convention statutes pertaining to the treatment of Prisoners of War - see <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
I was just trying to show that his statement was stupid when applied to both A) the situation in the American Democracy and B) the Iraq conflict. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa! don't you think that we should give the same rights to prisoners that we have in the United States? If you are trying to use the Geneva Convention as your defense then you should say that we shouldn't even be here. By attacking Iraq we totally ignored the Geneva Convention. As well as it being a couple? Try hundreds. There were THOUSANDS of pictures of INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING TORTURED. How can you say that we didn't know this was happening? There were video tapes of prisoners doing some of the nastiest and immoral things and they were to be sent to the prisoners family if he didn't continue to perform their abominations. Bush knew about what was happening months before it was released, he couldn't stop it from coming out because there was too much to cover up. In fact there was news of other countries even helping in!
Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ummm no. This is no way rivals what Hitler or Stalin have done. Wrong, yes; but not as bad as it is being made out to be.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 6 2004, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 6 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In fact there was news of other countries even helping in! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wait, what? What other countries? Kinda puts a dampener on the whole "Bush let it happen" if other countries' governments authorized it as well.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 6 2004, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 6 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 6 2004, 06:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 6 2004, 06:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 7 2004, 02:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 7 2004, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, come on. Prisoners in the US have rights, and you know it. You cannot be held for more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime, you have access to a lawyer etc. That very clearly isn't going on in Iraq. I'm not going to argue that it should be, but please don't act like it is the same thing. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Prisoners in the US have rights as US citizens. These people are NOT US citizens, they are illegal combatants. They refuse to wear uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers of an army, and as such are unprotected by the Geneva convention statutes pertaining to the treatment of Prisoners of War - see <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
I was just trying to show that his statement was stupid when applied to both A) the situation in the American Democracy and B) the Iraq conflict. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa! don't you think that we should give the same rights to prisoners that we have in the United States? If you are trying to use the Geneva Convention as your defense then you should say that we shouldn't even be here. By attacking Iraq we totally ignored the Geneva Convention. As well as it being a couple? Try hundreds. There were THOUSANDS of pictures of INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING TORTURED. How can you say that we didn't know this was happening? There were video tapes of prisoners doing some of the nastiest and immoral things and they were to be sent to the prisoners family if he didn't continue to perform their abominations. Bush knew about what was happening months before it was released, he couldn't stop it from coming out because there was too much to cover up. In fact there was news of other countries even helping in!
Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is WAR we are at, WAR! In war, you don't go through the book and head through the formalities, the Commanders distinguish their captors through MILITARY judging and MILITARY imprisonment. The common US prison when at war and in another country is GONE.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whoa! don't you think that we should give the same rights to prisoners that we have in the United States? If you are trying to use the Geneva Convention as your defense then you should say that we shouldn't even be here. By attacking Iraq we totally ignored the Geneva Convention.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Got anything to back that up? Got quotes and links to the relevant portions of the Geneva Convention? Which bit specifically outlaws the Americans from being there? In case you didnt realise, the Geneva Convention is just rules for warfare - not rules about when starting war is legal. I would be highly interested in hearing how the Americans ignored the Geneva Convention by starting a war in Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As well as it being a couple? Try hundreds. There were THOUSANDS of pictures of INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING TORTURED. How can you say that we didn't know this was happening? There were video tapes of prisoners doing some of the nastiest and immoral things and they were to be sent to the prisoners family if he didn't continue to perform their abominations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. Hundreds of photo's and tapes, only a select few soldiers repeatedly shown in the pictures. Abu Graib prison is one prison in Iraq - did you never wonder why you kept seeing Miss England and her mustached friend over and over again in those pictures if hundreds of American troops where taking part in it? The American Government did know about it. Thats why earlier this year (like in February) they investigated it. Miss England around this time warned her mother that she was going to see some nasty stuff soon.
The military then tried to keep it under wraps to avoid a massive setback to the war effort. I believe they specifically DIDNT tell Rumsfeld and Bush so that both of them could claim deniability. Was it Bush's fault that those soldiers went off, was it Rumsfeld's? No. So I suspect a case of "Do I really want to hear this soldier, wink nudge coughwillineeddeniabilitylatercough". "Uhhh, No, sir. Good day sir." It aint pretty, but thats politics.
Oh, and there was never any intention of sending those tapes to the prisoners families, that was just bs the guards thought up to further terrorise the prisoners. Despite your erroneous claims that those abused were innocent, I'll leave that little kettle of fish alone, because innocent or not they should not have been treated like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush knew about what was happening months before it was released, he couldn't stop it from coming out because there was too much to cover up. In fact there was news of other countries even helping in! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Bush knew is unprovable. I hope when you are talking about "other countries even helping in" you arent talking about Peirs Morgan and the crew from the Daily Mirror - who published fake pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse and got pounded for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This happened because poorly trained, racist reservist American troops were given free reign over Iraqi prisoners. That does NOT go to prove the Americans aren't a civilised nation. Thats why these people are being prosecuted. If you had the slightest idea of the machinations of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein - you wouldn't be making that comparision. Hitler gased nearly 10 million Jew's, Stalin's personal frag count is so extreme no-one can really ever figure out how many he tortured and murdered. The most conservative efforts not including war dead bring his total to 20 million people. Several soldiers abusing multiple Iraqi's - 30 million murdered.
Those American jailers are small potatoes compared to Stalin and Hitler.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 6 2004, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 6 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush knew about what was happening months before it was released, he couldn't stop it from coming out because there was too much to cover up. In fact there was news of other countries even helping in!
Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes I believe a few British soldiers were also caught doing similar acts, I haven’t heard anything about any other countries though. As Marine said, I would love for you to prove that Bush knew this stuff, do you have his personal diary?
The fact that you are even trying to compare anything we have done in Iraq to Hitler and Stalin negates your entire argument, that is just completely absurd.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 6 2004, 05:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 6 2004, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The fact that you are even trying to compare anything we have done in Iraq to Hitler and Stalin negates your entire argument, that is just completely absurd. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Seconded. Let's keep this in perspective people.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 6 2004, 02:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 6 2004, 02:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 6 2004, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 6 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush knew about what was happening months before it was released, he couldn't stop it from coming out because there was too much to cover up. In fact there was news of other countries even helping in!
Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes I believe a few British soldiers were also caught doing similar acts, I haven’t heard anything about any other countries though. As Marine said, I would love for you to prove that Bush knew this stuff, do you have his personal diary?
The fact that you are even trying to compare anything we have done in Iraq to Hitler and Stalin negates your entire argument, that is just completely absurd. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, of course it isn't the same, I was saying the torture and the methods of punishment were similar or worse than that of the Hitler and Stalin. But the funniest thing about all of this was that we shouldn't even be there. The whole reason we were there was to find WMD's which we haven't found. We could have let the UN weapon's inspectors do that! Instead we have let almost one thousand American lives perish in this war and thousands of innocent Iraqi's(and when I say Iraqi's I am including their army aswell because they had wives didn't they? You can't call someone a terrorist for defending their country). There is nothing you can say that changes the fact that we should not be there. If you truly believe in this war, then why don't you sign up and go march yourself over there and get yourself killed. Once your dead maybe you'll realize you died for no purpose.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 6 2004, 07:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 6 2004, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you truly believe in this war, then why don't you sign up and go march yourself over there and get yourself killed. Once your dead maybe you'll realize you died for no purpose. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, so everyone who supports this war should go fight in it, so my grandfather should fight this war? So should my Mom fight this war? We have a highly trained professional army, every one of those soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed up. I would like you to go over to Iraq and tell those men they are fighting for no purpose, because allot of them seem to think they are fighting for something. So we didn't find WMD's, most people knew there weren’t any there to begin with. We are in Iraq now, and nothing can change that, this kind of attitude is why wars are lost. Those troops can be fighting for the betterment of the Iraqi people, extension of democracy, removal of a brutal dictator. Don't say they are fighting for nothing, because that’s not true.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited June 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 6 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 6 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So we didn't find WMD's, most people knew there weren’t any there to begin with. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now back up a second. I was skeptical myself, but when the President of the United States said that a country has weapons of mass destruction, an advanced nuclear program, and is an imminent threat, etc. I believed him. I didn't see the evidence, but I assumed that there was plenty of top secret information that I just wasn't privy to. I was willing to accept the fact that he knew what he was talking about, and that I was out of the loop. I was lied to about a very important fact by the President of the United States (who is supposed to know these things, and be honest about them).
That is the primary reason I wouldn't even consider voting for Bush. People are dying because he lied.
So I ask you, if most people knew that there weren't any there to begin with, how can you excuse our president? He either knew less than "most people" or he blatantly lied.
Most of the arguing about the treatment of Iraqi prisioners in Iraq is about civilians being tortured. This is in no way acceptable. Maybe in WWI or WWII, but 2004? The most proffesional country in the world? Get a grip. There is no excuse why civilians should be tortured, there are better and legal ways to get information out of them, and why the US arent using them I don't understand. This is a war on terrorists, not Iraq, people seem to miss that point. You can't just round up 20 people off the street, torture them and maybe get 1 terrorist. How would you like it if Iraq had invaded the USA and were torturing you and your friends because a small group of people in USA were fighting for what they believed in. I'm not saying terrorism is justified, but to them it is, so they are fighting the US army. The civilians are the innocent bystanders.
Like many have said before, just because terrorists are bringing themselves down to slaugtering people and suicide bombing civilians, it doesn't mean the US should go out and carpet bomb a playground.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 6 2004, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 6 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 6 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 6 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So we didn't find WMD's, most people knew there weren’t any there to begin with. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now back up a second. I was skeptical myself, but when the President of the United States said that a country has weapons of mass destruction, an advanced nuclear program, and is an imminent threat, etc. I believed him. I didn't see the evidence, but I assumed that there was plenty of top secret information that I just wasn't privy to. I was willing to accept the fact that he knew what he was talking about, and that I was out of the loop. I was lied to about a very important fact by the President of the United States (who is supposed to know these things, and be honest about them).
That is the primary reason I wouldn't even consider voting for Bush. People are dying because he lied.
So I ask you, if most people knew that there weren't any there to begin with, how can you excuse our president? He either knew less than "most people" or he blatantly lied. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How is it a lie if the President believed what he was saying as well?
He may have been mistaken; but lying no. Go look up the definition of lie.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 7 2004, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 7 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now back up a second. I was skeptical myself, but when the President of the United States said that a country has weapons of mass destruction, an advanced nuclear program, and is an imminent threat, etc. I believed him. I didn't see the evidence, but I assumed that there was plenty of top secret information that I just wasn't privy to. I was willing to accept the fact that he knew what he was talking about, and that I was out of the loop. I was lied to about a very important fact by the President of the United States (who is supposed to know these things, and be honest about them).
That is the primary reason I wouldn't even consider voting for Bush. People are dying because he lied.
So I ask you, if most people knew that there weren't any there to begin with, how can you excuse our president? He either knew less than "most people" or he blatantly lied. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The fact that the President and allies made such a big deal about the WMD's in the first place is probably the best evidence they honestly believed Saddam had them. There is no way in hell that if they were 100% sure Saddam DIDNT have them they would have used that as the trump justification in the build up for war.
The failure to find WMD's has been excruitiatingly embarrasing for the President - question his intellect though people do, he is not so stupid that he'd actually deliberately get into that position.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Duke professor of political science Peter Feaver writes: “How could even the all-powerful neocons have manipulated the intelligence estimates of the Clinton administration, French intelligence, British intelligence, German intelligence, and all the other ‘coconspirators’ who concurred on the fundamentals of the Bush assessment?” Belief that Saddam had WMD was so universal that one blogger, Calpundit.com, launched a contest of sorts seeking the names of any serious analysts who publicly doubted the actual existence of WMD in Iraq before September of 2002, when the U.N. inspections resumed. The blogger and his readers identified two people who qualified: Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The point here is unmissable. The huge consensus about WMD in Iraq was wrong, and the arrow is pointing toward the intelligence services<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most significantly, the President’s critics seem determined to ignore the reality that virtually everyone who had monitored Saddam Hussein’s activities since the first Persian Gulf War (notably, the United Nations, the French, German and Russian intelligence services, the U.S. Congress, most of the Democratic presidential contenders, etc.), had concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was seeking to increase their numbers and lethal capabilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much everyone thought he had them, and that included the US President. He didnt lie to anyone, he told what he thought was truth.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Jun 6 2004, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Jun 6 2004, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Jun 6 2004, 09:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Jun 6 2004, 09:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So we didn't find WMD's, most people knew there weren’t any there to begin with. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now back up a second. I was skeptical myself, but when the President of the United States said that a country has weapons of mass destruction, an advanced nuclear program, and is an imminent threat, etc. I believed him. I didn't see the evidence, but I assumed that there was plenty of top secret information that I just wasn't privy to. I was willing to accept the fact that he knew what he was talking about, and that I was out of the loop. I was lied to about a very important fact by the President of the United States (who is supposed to know these things, and be honest about them).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I believed him also. I'm sure most of America did.
IMO he basically gambled on the fact that Saddam had WMD to justify a war motivated by greed and various other nasty personal agenda items. Iraq was simply a target of opportunity after 9/11.
Sure the people there are better off without Saddam in the long run, but I don't think this was the best way to go about doing that. The whole Iraq thing really seems like "surgery gone awry".
People have argued here that "either way, people in Iraq would have died" in an attempt to justify civillian casualties as a result of the US invasion. I have a problem with this people, I really do.
Several reasons: i) It "cheapens" the life of an Iraqi by saying "oh well, either way you were screwed mate. Sorry, life sucks for you". These people have <b> families and loved ones </b> for crying out loud ! I don't think many people here in the US would appreciate being bombed by some foreign power in the name of liberation. This brings me to my next point: Liberation
ii) We're supposedly over there to "liberate" people right ? So by this logic you would think that we would avoid using things like cluster bombs ? Even if tactically speaking they would spare American lives - IMO an Iraqi life takes priority over a US life in this situation. Remember, this is our idea and our responsibility. Each innocent life lost over there is on our hands.
And before anybody reading this decides to label me as 'anti-war' I would like to point out that I support the US operations in Afghanistan.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believed him also. I'm sure most of America did.
IMO he basically gambled on the fact that Saddam had WMD to justify a war motivated by greed and various other nasty personal agenda items. Iraq was simply a target of opportunity after 9/11.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He wasnt gambling. He was sure. He was wrong, but he was sure. And whats this about greed? How much personal wealth does Bush stand to gain from the invasion of Iraq?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sure the people there are better off without Saddam in the long run, but I don't think this was the best way to go about doing that. The whole Iraq thing really seems like "surgery gone awry".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, please outline to me a brilliant plan for removing Saddam that doesnt involve an invasion or start with "If we hadnt supported him to start off with...."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People have argued here that "either way, people in Iraq would have died" in an attempt to justify civillian casualties as a result of the US invasion. I have a problem with this people, I really do.
Several reasons: i) It "cheapens" the life of an Iraqi by saying "oh well, either way you were screwed mate. Sorry, life sucks for you". These people have <b> families and loved ones </b> for crying out loud ! I don't think many people here in the US would appreciate being bombed by some foreign power in the name of liberation. This brings me to my next point: Liberation <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does not cheapen the life of an Iraqi. Their lives are unfortunately already cheap. Saddam started selling them off at a bullet each, and the market pretty much bottomed out at 6g of sarin gas per kurd/shi-ite resistance. There is simply no where to go once you've hit rock bottom. Being slaughtered by Saddam, being accidentally shot/exploded by Americans - either way it sucks. But at the end of the Saddam way, all you get is more slaughter. Hopefully, if the American way pans out, they get peace.
Monse started a post a while back about "Would you like to be invaded" and asked people that if their country was under a bloody dictator - would they like the US to come and save them? I dont think a single person said no - and half way through monse was prompted to say this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Has this topic died the death of 'I cannot tell the truth because it would contradict my liberalism' which seems to send so many able postings to an early grave? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It kinda perked up a little, but with no one actually able to stand up and say "Hell no I wouldnt want the Americans to save me", it died out pretty quickly after that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ii) We're supposedly over there to "liberate" people right ? So by this logic you would think that we would avoid using things like cluster bombs ? Even if tactically speaking they would spare American lives - IMO an Iraqi life takes priority over a US life in this situation. Remember, this is our idea and our responsibility. Each innocent life lost over there is on our hands.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, limiting the American death toll takes precendence. Democracies no longer have the stomach for sacrafice, especially not with the media hyping "argh american's dying all over the place its a quagmire its vietnam all over again we're screwed omg we're screwed we're evil" etc etc. American casualties must be minimised to keep public support for the war. Each innocent life lost over their is on our hands. I say the same for each innocent life lost over his 30 year bloody reign. I say the same for the million innocent lives lost in Rwanda while the West stood by and let genocide take place.
Anything worth doing takes sacrifice. The Iraqi's are sacrificing, the Americans are sacrificing - if we hold the course here, they will reap the benefits like no other Middle Eastern nation save Israel can imagine.
To oppose or condemn this war based around supposed care for Iraqi innocents is hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I still think one can expect to hold the president accountable for the accuracy of his information. Whether he deliberately decieved the country, or just screwed up, he failed in an enormous fashion in his job as president. But furthurmore, I would also question his judgement when he is recieving intelligence reports that read "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." but still doesn't think twice about risking American lives.
For direct evidence of Donald Rumsfeld blatantly lying on camera for the president, watch this video. <a href='http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/' target='_blank'>http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/</a>
We can argue about intent all day and all night-- whether this administration technically lied, or mishandled, or overestimated, or mismanaged, or whatever, ad nauseum.
The fact that they <b>believed</b> it-- if that is true-- doesn't mean that they're any less incompetent.
To paraphrase David Cross, <b>can we please stop treating these people like they came in third place in the Special Olympics?</b> Please forgive me if I don't want to give George W. Bush a cookie and a pat on the back because he 'tried his hardest'.
Given some of the the dubious sources where we received much of our intelligence (*cough* Chalabi *cough* Niger Report *cough* Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans *cough*) which led to these rock solid convictions, if they weren't lying, then they were duped. In my opinion, one is only marginally worse than the other.
Take that with the fact that Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the war-- appearing before Congress a few weeks ago-- was mistaken about the number of troops killed in Iraq by <b>200</b> (a roughly 30% slip), and that shows me an incredibly offensive, callous level of negligence by a high ranking administration offical who doesn't seem to <i>care or be paying attention</i> to the results of his screw-up.
I'm sorry, but even if everyone involved in the planning of this war was being entirely honest (and I <b>do</b> believe Bush believed what he said-- my doubts are entirely with the influential Perle, Wolfowitz, Chalabi, and Feith) then they're not exactly the most competent bunch I've ever seen.
Were they lying, incompetent, or wearing ideological blinders? I don't know, and I don't care at this point, because it's besides the point.
This war would pay for itself through Oil. This war would only need 130,000 troops. There were stockpiles of WMDs and an active nuclear program. We would be greeted as liberators. Mission accomplished!
If not lies, these are gross simplifications and miscalculations. In the real world, most people who screw up this royally don't get the benefit of the doubt, they get <b>fired</b>.
Now thats a little fairer. I still balk at claims of incompetence though, every nation in the world save russia was convinced he had them. As I said in the above articles, the finger is pointing squarely at intelligence failures in the CIA, MI6, French Intelligence, Mossad (well probably not the mossad - they would have said anything to get the US to attack) etc. Dont confuse an administration with its intelligence services.
At the end of the day, they'd still get my vote. Not because I'm 100% sure they'd be 100% correct on everything, but because I believe despite all their mistakes, they made the right decision.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 8 2004, 12:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 8 2004, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now thats a little fairer. I still balk at claims of incompetence though, every nation in the world save russia was convinced he had them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Now where do you have <i>that</i> from? Absolutely nobody on this planet save a few Americans believed any word of what the US administration said about WMDS <i>before</i> the war. And now, nearly 2 years after the propaganda boom, it becomes obvious even in the USA that the whole policy was based on lies or misconceptions or whatever you may call it. How come you say that it wasn't apparent back then? Because CNN or any other US media didn't report it in a critical way?
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+Jun 6 2004, 07:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ Jun 6 2004, 07:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, of course it isn't the same, I was saying the torture and the methods of punishment were similar or worse than that of the Hitler and Stalin. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Humiliation < Special Shower Time I repeat, let's keep this in perspective people.
<!--QuoteBegin-eggmac+Jun 8 2004, 11:31 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Jun 8 2004, 11:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Jun 8 2004, 12:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jun 8 2004, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now thats a little fairer. I still balk at claims of incompetence though, every nation in the world save russia was convinced he had them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Now where do you have <i>that</i> from? Absolutely nobody on this planet save a few Americans believed any word of what the US administration said about WMDS <i>before</i> the war. And now, nearly 2 years after the propaganda boom, it becomes obvious even in the USA that the whole policy was based on lies or misconceptions or whatever you may call it. How come you say that it wasn't apparent back then? Because CNN or any other US media didn't report it in a critical way? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets not rewrite history here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Duke professor of political science Peter Feaver writes: “How could even the all-powerful neocons have manipulated the intelligence estimates of the Clinton administration, French intelligence, British intelligence, German intelligence, and all the other ‘coconspirators’ who concurred on the fundamentals of the Bush assessment?” Belief that Saddam had WMD was so universal that one blogger, Calpundit.com, launched a contest of sorts seeking the names of any serious analysts who publicly doubted the actual existence of WMD in Iraq before September of 2002, when the U.N. inspections resumed. The blogger and his readers identified two people who qualified: Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The point here is unmissable. The huge consensus about WMD in Iraq was wrong, and the arrow is pointing toward the intelligence services<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most significantly, the President’s critics seem determined to ignore the reality that virtually everyone who had monitored Saddam Hussein’s activities since the first Persian Gulf War (notably, the United Nations, the French, German and Russian intelligence services, the U.S. Congress, most of the Democratic presidential contenders, etc.), had concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was seeking to increase their numbers and lethal capabilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He wasnt gambling. He was sure. He was wrong, but he was sure. And whats this about greed? How much personal wealth does Bush stand to gain from the invasion of Iraq? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not so much wealth directly going to Bush but to his various business associates ( I'm sure they'll help fund his election run though). I'd say Bush is more interested in fame i.e. being known as the president that "liberated" Iraq. Money and glory... nothing new here in the history of our troubled planet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay, please outline to me a brilliant plan for removing Saddam that doesnt involve an invasion or start with "If we hadnt supported him to start off with...." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, quite frankly I'm really not the best person to answer this. I don't have access to a special panel of advisors and my pay cheque is not exactly presidential. However, how about back-channel negotiations ? Seems like not all options were exhausted there. Invading is really a drastic option. Here's some food for thought <a href='http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/iraq-n07.shtml' target='_blank'>food</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It does not cheapen the life of an Iraqi. Their lives are unfortunately already cheap. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. When you make a statement that essentially boils down to "civillian deaths are justified because Saddam would have killed them anyway" you are essentially saying this:
As long as Iraqi deaths caused by US forces are less than or equal to Saddam's death quota we're doing "ok". So essentially following this logic to its natural conclusion you are assigning the qualifier "ok" to 1000 deaths, 10 000 deaths, 100 000 deaths and so on. It seems devaluing to equate 1000 deaths with 10 000, does it not ?
Short version: It devalues life to think in terms of "acceptable losses".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It kinda perked up a little, but with no one actually able to stand up and say "Hell no I wouldnt want the Americans to save me", it died out pretty quickly after that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds interesting. Did anyone actually discuss the specifics though, about how exactly this invasion would take place ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Anything worth doing takes sacrifice. The Iraqi's are sacrificing, the Americans are sacrificing - if we hold the course here, they will reap the benefits like no other Middle Eastern nation save Israel can imagine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's not so much wealth directly going to Bush but to his various business associates ( I'm sure they'll help fund his election run though). I'd say Bush is more interested in fame i.e. being known as the president that "liberated" Iraq. Money and glory... nothing new here in the history of our troubled planet.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a definate possibility. He might also have some moral convictions to go along side with that, but the potential for fame and glory certainly cant be far from his mind. Still - people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons are fine by me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, quite frankly I'm really not the best person to answer this. I don't have access to a special panel of advisors and my pay cheque is not exactly presidential. However, how about back-channel negotiations ? Seems like not all options were exhausted there. Invading is really a drastic option. Here's some food for thought <a href='http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/iraq-n07.shtml' target='_blank'>food</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a bit of a rhetorical question yeah. The point is that several times the Iraqi's had risen up against Saddam, even after his army was decimated, and and still managed to put them down. He wasnt bothered by international sanctions - the only thing that he really feared was full scale American invasion.
I read your article. It was very hard to keep a huge grin off my face when I realised it was from the World Socialist Website. Still, I dont think that it was telling out and out lies. I wouldnt be surprised if the Iraqi's had made a last ditch effort in the final day before the war began. Judging by the things the Iraqi's were offering (a few Iraqi intel officers, not Saddam himself and definately not diplomats) I wouldnt have taken them seriously either. Allow American troops into Iraq? Hold free elections? That sounds like desperate last ditch stalling efforts rather than a serious bid for peace. However - it is something to think about as you said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree. When you make a statement that essentially boils down to "civillian deaths are justified because Saddam would have killed them anyway" you are essentially saying this:
As long as Iraqi deaths caused by US forces are less than or equal to Saddam's death quota we're doing "ok". So essentially following this logic to its natural conclusion you are assigning the qualifier "ok" to 1000 deaths, 10 000 deaths, 100 000 deaths and so on. It seems devaluing to equate 1000 deaths with 10 000, does it not ?
Short version: It devalues life to think in terms of "acceptable losses".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I certainly hope the military commanders dont see it quite the way you are putting it. I would hope that civilian casualty minimisation only plays second fiddle to american troop safety, not "Sir, this will kill 100 Iraqi's, but hey we're doing better than Saddam - give the order to fire?"
It might devalue life, but its the only way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It kinda perked up a little, but with no one actually able to stand up and say "Hell no I wouldnt want the Americans to save me", it died out pretty quickly after that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62307&hl=invaded' target='_blank'>Would you like to be invaded?</a>
Thats the thread, tell me what you think.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hope this turns out to be so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to say everyone is hoping so, but I dont think that hope is universal <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marine, he did not live to the standards of the NG, as he was under ACTIVE TRAINING when he disappeared. He was transferred, arrived and reported in. Everything happy. Then he was transferred *back*. He didn't report in... so each of his COs thought he was at the other base, when in fact he was off dicking around somewhere that he will not admit to. He did not live up to the NG standards, as he missed a scheduled physical and refused to take the previous one. He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some things you are saying there serve to give me the impression you aint reading my posts :/. He failed to arrive for a physical test, and for that he was grounded. Notice they GROUNDED HIM, not hauled before a military tribunal - that doesnt constitute desertion. He forefilled the requirements of active training, as clearly evidenced by my quotes in the earlier post. He recieved 9 points for active training, and 31 points for inactive training.
There are two sourced quotes below in my post disputing your claim they saw nothing of him for twelve months. These quotes are based around material released in 2004. You simply cant claim he didnt live up to NG standards when he fullfilled the minimum requirements of a Guardsman - when he got the required 50 points. He may have been grounded for failing a physical by non attendance - but he passed overall requirements.
To requote me and then you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On February 10 Boston Globe reporter Walter V. Robinson -- who first reported four years ago that there was a year-long gap in Bush's record of National Guard service -- reported he had obtained two new documents that partially filled in that gap: "The personnel records. . . . <b>constitute the first evidence that Bush appeared for any duty during the first 11 months of that 12-month period. Bush is recorded as having served the minimum number of days expected of Guard members in that 12 months of service time.</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you not reading what I am typing - or is this blanket denial? The Boston Globe where the ones that initially made the claims he was absent for 12 months - now they have taken that BACK.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Still waiting Talesin. I'm not letting this on go. You made several claims in a very forceful and emotional manner - I claimed that rabbid anti-bush sentiment was propaganda, and now the facts relating to his military service have been brought to light things are getting veeeerrry quiet in the anti-Bush camp.......
So - concede that you got carried away originally with anti-bush propaganda sites, or continue the arguement. Up to you.
This really shouldn't be centred solely on Iraq, anyway. If you're going to judge Bush, do so on the basis of everything done under his administration, rather than just foreign policy.
I've never liked political smears, and let's be honest, that's exactly what this whole "deserter" business is about. Are you afraid that Bush is going to run away from the White House? Or is it that (assuming that the charge is true) you condemn him for one action he did in the past? That doesn't seem very open minded to me.
Comments
Did you just misread my post? I never once said that Bush wasn't the legal president, I simply stated that it was odd that he was the president even though more people wanted Gore. I don't know if the system is flawed or not, but when a larger portion of the nation wants a president in office yet someone else gets the job, I think the system <i>might</i> need some looking in to.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm</a>
Well according to this which was last updated in December of 2001, which for elections that had taken place more then a year ago we can assume all "final" counts have taken place, Bush wins the electoral vote. Under the final count Bush won Florida’s electoral votes, and all the others he needed to be the lawful president of the US. You can argue the facts to death because you hate the man but that does not change the fact that he DID win the election and he IS president.
If these states need so much time to get their "final" count in then perhaps they need to fix their voting systems, Bush can not be held accountable for certain states inability to hold an election. In other words take it up with them.
Saying other wise falls into the realms of conspiracy theories and are a waste of forum space.
On the other hand, however, many people have thought that the electorate system is flawed, which is a far more legit argument, but still doesn't change the fact Bush won legally.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So true. The electoral system is a relic from a time when the leaders of our government didn't trust the people to pick the "right" president. Considering that the political parties pretty much give us a choice of two candidates right now, the electoral college is pretty pointless and just makes the whole thing more confusing than it has to be.
Oh yeah, I'm backing Marine01. He's countered pretty much every argument you've thrown at him, and I still am not seeing strong arguments from the other side.
Prisoners in the US have rights as US citizens. These people are NOT US citizens, they are illegal combatants. They refuse to wear uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers of an army, and as such are unprotected by the Geneva convention statutes pertaining to the treatment of Prisoners of War - see <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
I was just trying to show that his statement was stupid when applied to both A) the situation in the American Democracy and B) the Iraq conflict. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa! don't you think that we should give the same rights to prisoners that we have in the United States? If you are trying to use the Geneva Convention as your defense then you should say that we shouldn't even be here. By attacking Iraq we totally ignored the Geneva Convention. As well as it being a couple? Try hundreds. There were THOUSANDS of pictures of INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING TORTURED. How can you say that we didn't know this was happening? There were video tapes of prisoners doing some of the nastiest and immoral things and they were to be sent to the prisoners family if he didn't continue to perform their abominations. Bush knew about what was happening months before it was released, he couldn't stop it from coming out because there was too much to cover up. In fact there was news of other countries even helping in!
Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself.
Ummm no. This is no way rivals what Hitler or Stalin have done. Wrong, yes; but not as bad as it is being made out to be.
Wait, what? What other countries? Kinda puts a dampener on the whole "Bush let it happen" if other countries' governments authorized it as well.
Prisoners in the US have rights as US citizens. These people are NOT US citizens, they are illegal combatants. They refuse to wear uniforms identifying themselves as soldiers of an army, and as such are unprotected by the Geneva convention statutes pertaining to the treatment of Prisoners of War - see <a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>
I was just trying to show that his statement was stupid when applied to both A) the situation in the American Democracy and B) the Iraq conflict. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa! don't you think that we should give the same rights to prisoners that we have in the United States? If you are trying to use the Geneva Convention as your defense then you should say that we shouldn't even be here. By attacking Iraq we totally ignored the Geneva Convention. As well as it being a couple? Try hundreds. There were THOUSANDS of pictures of INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING TORTURED. How can you say that we didn't know this was happening? There were video tapes of prisoners doing some of the nastiest and immoral things and they were to be sent to the prisoners family if he didn't continue to perform their abominations. Bush knew about what was happening months before it was released, he couldn't stop it from coming out because there was too much to cover up. In fact there was news of other countries even helping in!
Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is WAR we are at, WAR! In war, you don't go through the book and head through the formalities, the Commanders distinguish their captors through MILITARY judging and MILITARY imprisonment. The common US prison when at war and in another country is GONE.
Got anything to back that up? Got quotes and links to the relevant portions of the Geneva Convention? Which bit specifically outlaws the Americans from being there? In case you didnt realise, the Geneva Convention is just rules for warfare - not rules about when starting war is legal. I would be highly interested in hearing how the Americans ignored the Geneva Convention by starting a war in Iraq.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As well as it being a couple? Try hundreds. There were THOUSANDS of pictures of INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING TORTURED. How can you say that we didn't know this was happening? There were video tapes of prisoners doing some of the nastiest and immoral things and they were to be sent to the prisoners family if he didn't continue to perform their abominations.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong. Hundreds of photo's and tapes, only a select few soldiers repeatedly shown in the pictures. Abu Graib prison is one prison in Iraq - did you never wonder why you kept seeing Miss England and her mustached friend over and over again in those pictures if hundreds of American troops where taking part in it? The American Government did know about it. Thats why earlier this year (like in February) they investigated it. Miss England around this time warned her mother that she was going to see some nasty stuff soon.
The military then tried to keep it under wraps to avoid a massive setback to the war effort. I believe they specifically DIDNT tell Rumsfeld and Bush so that both of them could claim deniability. Was it Bush's fault that those soldiers went off, was it Rumsfeld's? No. So I suspect a case of "Do I really want to hear this soldier, wink nudge coughwillineeddeniabilitylatercough". "Uhhh, No, sir. Good day sir." It aint pretty, but thats politics.
Oh, and there was never any intention of sending those tapes to the prisoners families, that was just bs the guards thought up to further terrorise the prisoners. Despite your erroneous claims that those abused were innocent, I'll leave that little kettle of fish alone, because innocent or not they should not have been treated like that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Bush knew about what was happening months before it was released, he couldn't stop it from coming out because there was too much to cover up. In fact there was news of other countries even helping in!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What Bush knew is unprovable. I hope when you are talking about "other countries even helping in" you arent talking about Peirs Morgan and the crew from the Daily Mirror - who published fake pictures of Iraqi prisoner abuse and got pounded for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This happened because poorly trained, racist reservist American troops were given free reign over Iraqi prisoners. That does NOT go to prove the Americans aren't a civilised nation. Thats why these people are being prosecuted. If you had the slightest idea of the machinations of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein - you wouldn't be making that comparision. Hitler gased nearly 10 million Jew's, Stalin's personal frag count is so extreme no-one can really ever figure out how many he tortured and murdered. The most conservative efforts not including war dead bring his total to 20 million people. Several soldiers abusing multiple Iraqi's - 30 million murdered.
Those American jailers are small potatoes compared to Stalin and Hitler.
Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I believe a few British soldiers were also caught doing similar acts, I haven’t heard anything about any other countries though. As Marine said, I would love for you to prove that Bush knew this stuff, do you have his personal diary?
The fact that you are even trying to compare anything we have done in Iraq to Hitler and Stalin negates your entire argument, that is just completely absurd.
Seconded. Let's keep this in perspective people.
Aren't we a civilized nation? How did this ever happen? Some of this even rivals the machinations of Hitler and Stalin and all I can see is the past repeating itself.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes I believe a few British soldiers were also caught doing similar acts, I haven’t heard anything about any other countries though. As Marine said, I would love for you to prove that Bush knew this stuff, do you have his personal diary?
The fact that you are even trying to compare anything we have done in Iraq to Hitler and Stalin negates your entire argument, that is just completely absurd. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, of course it isn't the same, I was saying the torture and the methods of punishment were similar or worse than that of the Hitler and Stalin. But the funniest thing about all of this was that we shouldn't even be there. The whole reason we were there was to find WMD's which we haven't found. We could have let the UN weapon's inspectors do that! Instead we have let almost one thousand American lives perish in this war and thousands of innocent Iraqi's(and when I say Iraqi's I am including their army aswell because they had wives didn't they? You can't call someone a terrorist for defending their country). There is nothing you can say that changes the fact that we should not be there. If you truly believe in this war, then why don't you sign up and go march yourself over there and get yourself killed. Once your dead maybe you'll realize you died for no purpose.
Yes, so everyone who supports this war should go fight in it, so my grandfather should fight this war? So should my Mom fight this war? We have a highly trained professional army, every one of those soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed up. I would like you to go over to Iraq and tell those men they are fighting for no purpose, because allot of them seem to think they are fighting for something. So we didn't find WMD's, most people knew there weren’t any there to begin with. We are in Iraq now, and nothing can change that, this kind of attitude is why wars are lost. Those troops can be fighting for the betterment of the Iraqi people, extension of democracy, removal of a brutal dictator. Don't say they are fighting for nothing, because that’s not true.
Now back up a second. I was skeptical myself, but when the President of the United States said that a country has weapons of mass destruction, an advanced nuclear program, and is an imminent threat, etc. I believed him. I didn't see the evidence, but I assumed that there was plenty of top secret information that I just wasn't privy to. I was willing to accept the fact that he knew what he was talking about, and that I was out of the loop. I was lied to about a very important fact by the President of the United States (who is supposed to know these things, and be honest about them).
That is the primary reason I wouldn't even consider voting for Bush. People are dying because he lied.
So I ask you, if most people knew that there weren't any there to begin with, how can you excuse our president? He either knew less than "most people" or he blatantly lied.
Like many have said before, just because terrorists are bringing themselves down to slaugtering people and suicide bombing civilians, it doesn't mean the US should go out and carpet bomb a playground.
Now back up a second. I was skeptical myself, but when the President of the United States said that a country has weapons of mass destruction, an advanced nuclear program, and is an imminent threat, etc. I believed him. I didn't see the evidence, but I assumed that there was plenty of top secret information that I just wasn't privy to. I was willing to accept the fact that he knew what he was talking about, and that I was out of the loop. I was lied to about a very important fact by the President of the United States (who is supposed to know these things, and be honest about them).
That is the primary reason I wouldn't even consider voting for Bush. People are dying because he lied.
So I ask you, if most people knew that there weren't any there to begin with, how can you excuse our president? He either knew less than "most people" or he blatantly lied. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is it a lie if the President believed what he was saying as well?
He may have been mistaken; but lying no. Go look up the definition of lie.
That is the primary reason I wouldn't even consider voting for Bush. People are dying because he lied.
So I ask you, if most people knew that there weren't any there to begin with, how can you excuse our president? He either knew less than "most people" or he blatantly lied. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fact that the President and allies made such a big deal about the WMD's in the first place is probably the best evidence they honestly believed Saddam had them. There is no way in hell that if they were 100% sure Saddam DIDNT have them they would have used that as the trump justification in the build up for war.
The failure to find WMD's has been excruitiatingly embarrasing for the President - question his intellect though people do, he is not so stupid that he'd actually deliberately get into that position.
<a href='http://www.declaration.net/news.asp?docID=3986&y=2004' target='_blank'>source</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Duke professor of political science Peter Feaver writes: “How could even the all-powerful neocons have manipulated the intelligence estimates of the Clinton administration, French intelligence, British intelligence, German intelligence, and all the other ‘coconspirators’ who concurred on the fundamentals of the Bush assessment?” Belief that Saddam had WMD was so universal that one blogger, Calpundit.com, launched a contest of sorts seeking the names of any serious analysts who publicly doubted the actual existence of WMD in Iraq before September of 2002, when the U.N. inspections resumed. The blogger and his readers identified two people who qualified: Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The point here is unmissable. The huge consensus about WMD in Iraq was wrong, and the arrow is pointing toward the intelligence services<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8910' target='_blank'>source</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most significantly, the President’s critics seem determined to ignore the reality that virtually everyone who had monitored Saddam Hussein’s activities since the first Persian Gulf War (notably, the United Nations, the French, German and Russian intelligence services, the U.S. Congress, most of the Democratic presidential contenders, etc.), had concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was seeking to increase their numbers and lethal capabilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much everyone thought he had them, and that included the US President. He didnt lie to anyone, he told what he thought was truth.
Now back up a second. I was skeptical myself, but when the President of the United States said that a country has weapons of mass destruction, an advanced nuclear program, and is an imminent threat, etc. I believed him. I didn't see the evidence, but I assumed that there was plenty of top secret information that I just wasn't privy to. I was willing to accept the fact that he knew what he was talking about, and that I was out of the loop. I was lied to about a very important fact by the President of the United States (who is supposed to know these things, and be honest about them).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believed him also. I'm sure most of America did.
IMO he basically gambled on the fact that Saddam had WMD to justify a war motivated by greed and various other nasty personal agenda items. Iraq was simply a target of opportunity after 9/11.
Sure the people there are better off without Saddam in the long run, but I don't think this was the best way to go about doing that. The whole Iraq thing really seems like "surgery gone awry".
People have argued here that "either way, people in Iraq would have died" in an attempt to justify civillian casualties as a result of the US invasion. I have a problem with this people, I really do.
Several reasons:
i) It "cheapens" the life of an Iraqi by saying "oh well, either way you were screwed mate. Sorry, life sucks for you". These people have <b> families and loved ones </b> for crying out loud ! I don't think many people here in the US would appreciate being bombed by some foreign power in the name of liberation. This brings me to my next point: Liberation
ii) We're supposedly over there to "liberate" people right ? So by this logic you would think that we would avoid using things like cluster bombs ? Even if tactically speaking they would spare American lives - IMO an Iraqi life takes priority over a US life in this situation. Remember, this is our idea and our responsibility. Each innocent life lost over there is on our hands.
And before anybody reading this decides to label me as 'anti-war' I would like to point out that I support the US operations in Afghanistan.
IMO he basically gambled on the fact that Saddam had WMD to justify a war motivated by greed and various other nasty personal agenda items. Iraq was simply a target of opportunity after 9/11.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He wasnt gambling. He was sure. He was wrong, but he was sure. And whats this about greed? How much personal wealth does Bush stand to gain from the invasion of Iraq?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sure the people there are better off without Saddam in the long run, but I don't think this was the best way to go about doing that. The whole Iraq thing really seems like "surgery gone awry".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, please outline to me a brilliant plan for removing Saddam that doesnt involve an invasion or start with "If we hadnt supported him to start off with...."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->People have argued here that "either way, people in Iraq would have died" in an attempt to justify civillian casualties as a result of the US invasion. I have a problem with this people, I really do.
Several reasons:
i) It "cheapens" the life of an Iraqi by saying "oh well, either way you were screwed mate. Sorry, life sucks for you". These people have <b> families and loved ones </b> for crying out loud ! I don't think many people here in the US would appreciate being bombed by some foreign power in the name of liberation. This brings me to my next point: Liberation
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It does not cheapen the life of an Iraqi. Their lives are unfortunately already cheap. Saddam started selling them off at a bullet each, and the market pretty much bottomed out at 6g of sarin gas per kurd/shi-ite resistance. There is simply no where to go once you've hit rock bottom. Being slaughtered by Saddam, being accidentally shot/exploded by Americans - either way it sucks. But at the end of the Saddam way, all you get is more slaughter. Hopefully, if the American way pans out, they get peace.
Monse started a post a while back about "Would you like to be invaded" and asked people that if their country was under a bloody dictator - would they like the US to come and save them? I dont think a single person said no - and half way through monse was prompted to say this:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Has this topic died the death of 'I cannot tell the truth because it would contradict my liberalism' which seems to send so many able postings to an early grave? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It kinda perked up a little, but with no one actually able to stand up and say "Hell no I wouldnt want the Americans to save me", it died out pretty quickly after that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ii) We're supposedly over there to "liberate" people right ? So by this logic you would think that we would avoid using things like cluster bombs ? Even if tactically speaking they would spare American lives - IMO an Iraqi life takes priority over a US life in this situation. Remember, this is our idea and our responsibility. Each innocent life lost over there is on our hands.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, limiting the American death toll takes precendence. Democracies no longer have the stomach for sacrafice, especially not with the media hyping "argh american's dying all over the place its a quagmire its vietnam all over again we're screwed omg we're screwed we're evil" etc etc. American casualties must be minimised to keep public support for the war. Each innocent life lost over their is on our hands. I say the same for each innocent life lost over his 30 year bloody reign. I say the same for the million innocent lives lost in Rwanda while the West stood by and let genocide take place.
Anything worth doing takes sacrifice. The Iraqi's are sacrificing, the Americans are sacrificing - if we hold the course here, they will reap the benefits like no other Middle Eastern nation save Israel can imagine.
To oppose or condemn this war based around supposed care for Iraqi innocents is hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt.
For direct evidence of Donald Rumsfeld blatantly lying on camera for the president, watch this video.
<a href='http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/' target='_blank'>http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/</a>
The fact that they <b>believed</b> it-- if that is true-- doesn't mean that they're any less incompetent.
To paraphrase David Cross, <b>can we please stop treating these people like they came in third place in the Special Olympics?</b> Please forgive me if I don't want to give George W. Bush a cookie and a pat on the back because he 'tried his hardest'.
Given some of the the dubious sources where we received much of our intelligence (*cough* Chalabi *cough* Niger Report *cough* Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans *cough*) which led to these rock solid convictions, if they weren't lying, then they were duped. In my opinion, one is only marginally worse than the other.
Take that with the fact that Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the war-- appearing before Congress a few weeks ago-- was mistaken about the number of troops killed in Iraq by <b>200</b> (a roughly 30% slip), and that shows me an incredibly offensive, callous level of negligence by a high ranking administration offical who doesn't seem to <i>care or be paying attention</i> to the results of his screw-up.
I'm sorry, but even if everyone involved in the planning of this war was being entirely honest (and I <b>do</b> believe Bush believed what he said-- my doubts are entirely with the influential Perle, Wolfowitz, Chalabi, and Feith) then they're not exactly the most competent bunch I've ever seen.
Were they lying, incompetent, or wearing ideological blinders? I don't know, and I don't care at this point, because it's besides the point.
This war would pay for itself through Oil. This war would only need 130,000 troops. There were stockpiles of WMDs and an active nuclear program. We would be greeted as liberators. Mission accomplished!
If not lies, these are gross simplifications and miscalculations. In the real world, most people who screw up this royally don't get the benefit of the doubt, they get <b>fired</b>.
At the end of the day, they'd still get my vote. Not because I'm 100% sure they'd be 100% correct on everything, but because I believe despite all their mistakes, they made the right decision.
Now where do you have <i>that</i> from?
Absolutely nobody on this planet save a few Americans believed any word of what the US administration said about WMDS <i>before</i> the war. And now, nearly 2 years after the propaganda boom, it becomes obvious even in the USA that the whole policy was based on lies or misconceptions or whatever you may call it. How come you say that it wasn't apparent back then? Because CNN or any other US media didn't report it in a critical way?
Humiliation < Special Shower Time
I repeat, let's keep this in perspective people.
Now where do you have <i>that</i> from?
Absolutely nobody on this planet save a few Americans believed any word of what the US administration said about WMDS <i>before</i> the war. And now, nearly 2 years after the propaganda boom, it becomes obvious even in the USA that the whole policy was based on lies or misconceptions or whatever you may call it. How come you say that it wasn't apparent back then? Because CNN or any other US media didn't report it in a critical way? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lets not rewrite history here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Duke professor of political science Peter Feaver writes: “How could even the all-powerful neocons have manipulated the intelligence estimates of the Clinton administration, French intelligence, British intelligence, German intelligence, and all the other ‘coconspirators’ who concurred on the fundamentals of the Bush assessment?” Belief that Saddam had WMD was so universal that one blogger, Calpundit.com, launched a contest of sorts seeking the names of any serious analysts who publicly doubted the actual existence of WMD in Iraq before September of 2002, when the U.N. inspections resumed. The blogger and his readers identified two people who qualified: Russian President Vladimir Putin and former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The point here is unmissable. The huge consensus about WMD in Iraq was wrong, and the arrow is pointing toward the intelligence services<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.declaration.net/news.asp?docID=3986&y=2004' target='_blank'>source</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Most significantly, the President’s critics seem determined to ignore the reality that virtually everyone who had monitored Saddam Hussein’s activities since the first Persian Gulf War (notably, the United Nations, the French, German and Russian intelligence services, the U.S. Congress, most of the Democratic presidential contenders, etc.), had concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was seeking to increase their numbers and lethal capabilities.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8910' target='_blank'>source</a>
He wasnt gambling. He was sure. He was wrong, but he was sure. And whats this about greed? How much personal wealth does Bush stand to gain from the invasion of Iraq?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not so much wealth directly going to Bush but to his various business associates ( I'm sure they'll help fund his election run though). I'd say Bush is more interested in fame i.e. being known as the president that "liberated" Iraq. Money and glory... nothing new here in the history of our troubled planet.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Okay, please outline to me a brilliant plan for removing Saddam that doesnt involve an invasion or start with "If we hadnt supported him to start off with...."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, quite frankly I'm really not the best person to answer this. I don't have access to a special panel of advisors and my pay cheque is not exactly presidential. However, how about back-channel negotiations ? Seems like not all options were exhausted there. Invading is really a drastic option. Here's some food for thought
<a href='http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/iraq-n07.shtml' target='_blank'>food</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It does not cheapen the life of an Iraqi. Their lives are unfortunately already cheap.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. When you make a statement that essentially boils down to "civillian deaths are justified because Saddam would have killed them anyway" you are essentially saying this:
As long as Iraqi deaths caused by US forces are less than or equal to Saddam's death quota we're doing "ok". So essentially following this logic to its natural conclusion you are assigning the qualifier "ok" to 1000 deaths, 10 000 deaths, 100 000 deaths and so on. It seems devaluing to equate 1000 deaths with 10 000, does it not ?
Short version: It devalues life to think in terms of "acceptable losses".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It kinda perked up a little, but with no one actually able to stand up and say "Hell no I wouldnt want the Americans to save me", it died out pretty quickly after that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sounds interesting. Did anyone actually discuss the specifics though, about how exactly this invasion would take place ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Anything worth doing takes sacrifice. The Iraqi's are sacrificing, the Americans are sacrificing - if we hold the course here, they will reap the benefits like no other Middle Eastern nation save Israel can imagine.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hope this turns out to be so.
Thats a definate possibility. He might also have some moral convictions to go along side with that, but the potential for fame and glory certainly cant be far from his mind. Still - people doing the right thing for the wrong reasons are fine by me <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, quite frankly I'm really not the best person to answer this. I don't have access to a special panel of advisors and my pay cheque is not exactly presidential. However, how about back-channel negotiations ? Seems like not all options were exhausted there. Invading is really a drastic option. Here's some food for thought
<a href='http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/iraq-n07.shtml' target='_blank'>food</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a bit of a rhetorical question yeah. The point is that several times the Iraqi's had risen up against Saddam, even after his army was decimated, and and still managed to put them down. He wasnt bothered by international sanctions - the only thing that he really feared was full scale American invasion.
I read your article. It was very hard to keep a huge grin off my face when I realised it was from the World Socialist Website. Still, I dont think that it was telling out and out lies. I wouldnt be surprised if the Iraqi's had made a last ditch effort in the final day before the war began. Judging by the things the Iraqi's were offering (a few Iraqi intel officers, not Saddam himself and definately not diplomats) I wouldnt have taken them seriously either. Allow American troops into Iraq? Hold free elections? That sounds like desperate last ditch stalling efforts rather than a serious bid for peace. However - it is something to think about as you said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree. When you make a statement that essentially boils down to "civillian deaths are justified because Saddam would have killed them anyway" you are essentially saying this:
As long as Iraqi deaths caused by US forces are less than or equal to Saddam's death quota we're doing "ok". So essentially following this logic to its natural conclusion you are assigning the qualifier "ok" to 1000 deaths, 10 000 deaths, 100 000 deaths and so on. It seems devaluing to equate 1000 deaths with 10 000, does it not ?
Short version: It devalues life to think in terms of "acceptable losses".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I certainly hope the military commanders dont see it quite the way you are putting it. I would hope that civilian casualty minimisation only plays second fiddle to american troop safety, not "Sir, this will kill 100 Iraqi's, but hey we're doing better than Saddam - give the order to fire?"
It might devalue life, but its the only way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It kinda perked up a little, but with no one actually able to stand up and say "Hell no I wouldnt want the Americans to save me", it died out pretty quickly after that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=62307&hl=invaded' target='_blank'>Would you like to be invaded?</a>
Thats the thread, tell me what you think.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hope this turns out to be so.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to say everyone is hoping so, but I dont think that hope is universal <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
He did not live up to the NG standards, as he missed a scheduled physical and refused to take the previous one. He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some things you are saying there serve to give me the impression you aint reading my posts :/. He failed to arrive for a physical test, and for that he was grounded. Notice they GROUNDED HIM, not hauled before a military tribunal - that doesnt constitute desertion. He forefilled the requirements of active training, as clearly evidenced by my quotes in the earlier post. He recieved 9 points for active training, and 31 points for inactive training.
There are two sourced quotes below in my post disputing your claim they saw nothing of him for twelve months. These quotes are based around material released in 2004. You simply cant claim he didnt live up to NG standards when he fullfilled the minimum requirements of a Guardsman - when he got the required 50 points. He may have been grounded for failing a physical by non attendance - but he passed overall requirements.
To requote me and then you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On February 10 Boston Globe reporter Walter V. Robinson -- who first reported four years ago that there was a year-long gap in Bush's record of National Guard service -- reported he had obtained two new documents that partially filled in that gap: "The personnel records. . . . <b>constitute the first evidence that Bush appeared for any duty during the first 11 months of that 12-month period. Bush is recorded as having served the minimum number of days expected of Guard members in that 12 months of service time.</b>"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He was not present or accounted for, for over 11 months.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you not reading what I am typing - or is this blanket denial? The Boston Globe where the ones that initially made the claims he was absent for 12 months - now they have taken that BACK.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Still waiting Talesin. I'm not letting this on go. You made several claims in a very forceful and emotional manner - I claimed that rabbid anti-bush sentiment was propaganda, and now the facts relating to his military service have been brought to light things are getting veeeerrry quiet in the anti-Bush camp.......
So - concede that you got carried away originally with anti-bush propaganda sites, or continue the arguement. Up to you.
I've never liked political smears, and let's be honest, that's exactly what this whole "deserter" business is about. Are you afraid that Bush is going to run away from the White House? Or is it that (assuming that the charge is true) you condemn him for one action he did in the past? That doesn't seem very open minded to me.