Iran {retrospective on an old thread}

Sounds about right to me! Well done Johnny!

 

Aww... sheesh..

Yeah that's all true. But Goebbels and Goering didn tinvent that... Machiavelli did. And read ALL of "the Prince" before you jump on THAT!

_--BTW, was it a BAD thing when FDR used the same tactics?!!!!!


But you notice the necessary "propaganda machine" is on the anti-administration side?
- Dont give me "Rush and FoxNews"! The people vote with their dial fingers, no-one makes them watch or listen.

And that, somehow, the general public remembers how successful "measured response" is?
We already TRIED it the "other way"!!!!!!

And - for SOME STRANGE REASON the red state public doesnt trust the UN?!!! France?!!!

Wonder why! Do people like me remember Rwanda.. Somalia? The Balkans?

And did the VRWC invent the UN scandals, too?

 

madrats political statement for the day..

i kind of like condies gap (the tooth one) ... maybe need some therapy to figure it out- but i find her kinda cute.

oh- also barbara boxer is a worthless piece of sh*t... living in california have had to live with her crap for too long.

 

I am not giving Barbara Boxer a merit badge or anything, I just thought the situation yesterday was funny with her badgering Condie. I am hoping when I get home tonight I can see more of it. Boxer did have some legitimate points though. Now, whether she is a good senator or not I do not know.

 

No she didnt have ANY legitimte pointS!!!

Unless the idea is to placate the Michael Moore idiotarian segment!

What she DID was parse things down to where there was a different position at a different time... and an implication that She DISAGREED with Bush... interesting since the complaint is USUALLY that all Bush cabinet's are lapdogs.

Also interesting is Biden's point:

Wonder which trained troops figure he would use if this was the Clinton Admin in charge?

Of COURSE he is right... you DONT train elite troops in 4 months... or even a year!

But you have 130,000 who have been through basic... and maybe 90 % of those will be effective in the next year.

And they are being trained to serve Iraq. not Allawi... If it were not so, we would have seen that on 60 minutes or CNN, whetehr or not it was really true.

 

hey- no problem chicago tom... sitting here at work we have tv screens all around & the hearings are being shown, have had boxer & feinstein as california senators for way too long...
please get someone else to question condie other than boxer & loser kerry...

 

Well it just seems that this administration cannot give us an answer as to why we went to war. Was it WMD? Was it something else? I mean the Senate voted to go to war because of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Right? All I am looking for here is a yes or no.

 

Confession:

Bush, 2000, promised that his foreign policy wouldnt be "nation-building"

He is nation building... but if you LISTEN, he is saying EXACTLY what I said above. It's strategic.

9/11 changed things.

Successes, so far:

Afghanistan.. still big problems, but things will never be the same, there.

Pakistan... fish or cut bait is still an option, but I think they serve as a counter to those that say the US subverts Islamic Governments. U
nfortunately their Nuke program has already doen serious damage.

Libya: The culmination of effort started with Reagan blowing the S$$$T out of a Summer Palace.
Euro took the credit, fair dinkum - but there's no coincidences in foreign matters.

 

well- i'm probably not the best person to speak up for the bush administration due to my lack of major brain power, lack of time due being at work- lack of a lot of things- but i'll give a quick assesment...

first off- we didn't just go to war -- the original persian gulf war never ended- we ceased fire under conditions that sadam would completely comply with our requests to search iraq & tell us all we wanted to know about weapons of mass destruction- ect... for 10 years he played a cat & mouse game- letting us see here- but not there- playing games- saying he destroyed tons of chemical & biological weapon material- but offering no proof- no records that he did so....

iraq did have weapons of mass destruction- sadaam used them... he had a lot of them according to verified sources. the problem for the bush administration is it seems he got rid of them some time prior to his ouster. he did a good job of fooling not only the intelligence services of the united states-(but other countries as well) that he still had them. part of the reason the usa went to war with iraq was the belief that iraq currently had weapons of mass destruction- but even if they didn't they still had the scientists & facilities to restart production as quick as eyes turned away and bush admisistration officials believed the threat of sadaam handing over biological weapons to terrorists was a real threat.

the terrorist tie to iraq isn't rock solid- but it seems to have existed ...

hmm... work calls- gotta get back- anyways- i was pretty mixed on attacking iraq- on one hand i believe the terrorists are going to use every weapon possible to destroy america- & if they can get their hands on a nuke or other weapon they wouldn't hesitate wiping chicago/new york or la off the map- & i believed sadaam with a hatred of the usa would have possibly supplied a weapon to the terrorists..... on the other hand i figured gulf war 2 could be a big mess & was kinda hoping for something more in the way of contain & control than invade & own(til it's fix'd anyways)...

i think the terrorists are willing to wait & bide their time but their long term goal is the destruction of america society- first... then the rest of the non-muslin western world- i don't think we could just turn our backs on israel or remove troops from the oil producing nations & make them happy- they don't want western influence in their lives- they want all women wearing burka's & girls not to be playing with barbies...

i wasn't & still am not pro war in iraq- but i don't think it is blood for oil or other stupid quotes that are bandied about. hopefully things will work out sooner rather than later & the people of the region will be able to live in peace... - gotta run-

 

I still have not seen a yes or no answer. You can talk to me about Libya and Afghanistan, but I am asking about Iraq. Did the Senate vote on going to war with Iraq because of suspected WMD's?

 

Maybe i ought to clear up my viewpoint:

My IMMEDIATE and VISCERAL human reaction is that we we should do exactly as you guys say. .. or what I think you're saying.

They dont like us? Screw 'em! Let them rot in their own corruption!

But I would ALSO deport each and every one of them that dont already have citizenship. Or another DAMNED GOOD reason for being here... and political persecution shouldnt count. Let 'em build their OWN refuge!

But that's just my human nature speaking... when i actually THINK about the ramifications of isolation in THIS world, i come to a different conclusion.
- - - - - -- - - - - -
I apologize for the quick draw in many of my answers... this (world) situation has been building for a long time and i sometime s forget that others havent followed it for as long and with as much interest as I have... I was lucky, as a kid in the 50's my parents had time magazine and reader's digest as well as daily papers.. even though we were far from well off.

I'm even old enough to have flown aircrew into Gitmo during the missile crisis... so that sort of sharpened me to brinkmanship.

Having a Mig off your wing and AA gunbarrels tracking your landing is sobering and puts things into perspective!

 

Short answer: YES, that was the reason the Dem's, including Kerry, did.

 

I understand that there are pro's and con's to this war in Iraq and the Middle East in general. We, the USA, are in a very difficult situation being the lone superpower in this day.

I just wish that the politicians, both democrats and republicans, would be honest with the people about what is going on there and other places. We are seemingly lied to by both parties all the time about the war and the situation over there.

We are in a catch 22 because we are damned if we and damned if we don't. We are gonna be hated no matter what we do. I would just assum not have Americans killed though.

The world is a mess and for some reason we have to be the police officers of the world as the US. The development of another superpower could really help the US, although, I do fear a rise of a new Russia as they seemingly will have something up their sleeve to be on top. Who knows. I think we are all gonna agree to disagree on this stuff.

Thanks for your comments and dialogue as it helps me get another perspective. Now, onto bigger things, the FA Cup match with Fulham!!!!

Let's go Whites!!!!!

 

To all you guys, I guess I should say that ranting on in my usual environs has sorta hardened me.. as I said above I tend to forget to put in background and subtext of the point I'm trying to make.

Fact finding requires what we USED to call "drilling down", not just reading opinion, but going to sources, and then THEIR sources. If you dont like following links, you might just accept, and then get embarrassed later.

For example, I often go to sites like littlegreenfootballs and ratherbiased but those tend to be specificated and I warn against reading the comments/responses... as most of them are truly ignorant. But that's how i usually get to dailykos... then I read their OTHER ridiculatii while I'm there.

(BTW: I knew the minute I saw the Rathergate docs that they were bogus... has nothing to do with superscripts or fonts... simply the vertical columnar alignment... typewriters use escapement.. GEARS!)

But Reason.com is a damn good libertarian type site without much linkage.. that is, it will take on any subject in which common sense has been flouted or ignored... whether on the right or left.

But for specifics, you cant beat the "in country" resources. For Iraq, that's

Iraq-the-Model which is a good jumping off point to a lot of OTHER real-world "horses mouth "type info; check out the right hand column of links... to Conservatives, bolster your argument.
To Liberals, read up and counter THAT. But you get the REAL IRAQ news if you sample them
example: Army News guy Blog: In Iraq for 365

To the libs I argue with, I always say... you want to have me debate you without condescension, then listen to Rush and learn to counter him. Of course, that doesnt work and I know why... I turned him off for over two years on the basis of ONE stupid remark, which I could counter with a seven word sentence; now I just tick those off in my head and think "That's one for Stewart Smalley".

But it's true, nonetheless.
Get past the purposeful blowhardiness (that's where the "entertainment" part is).. and you find the kernels of the political issues.

But, AGAIN, you cannot address any specific issue without thinking on "How does THIS fit into the BIGGER picture?" And that's why I tend to meander into what MY stream-of-consciousness sees as germane to the point and others say "Huh?"

An example of this is how the UN role in "Oil for Food" debacle, Iraqi Security, Liberia, and Tsunami Relief efforts tie in together. I see it, most dont.

It's taken me all this time to figger out what Dubya is driving toward... and I was conservative to start with. Cant blame one with a neutral or Lib bent for oversimplifying the guy..

{Note that the opposition tone has gradually switched from "Dubya the idiot" to "Dubya the evil demonic genius"!}

Cheers;
COYW!

 

What would that be? Could you please tell us in one concise and coherent paragraph?

 

Point taken! Dont think my choice of 'net name is a coincidence, do ya?

I AM, after all, self-aware!

I've been trying to figure out how to distill the inaugural address.

He will work to make possible more Polands, Czechoslakias Ukraines.. and encourage what is happening in the public streets and cafe's in Iran.

This neither stipulates or denies the use of military intervention.
example:
Since Reagan dropped a couple messages on his summer palace,
Libya's Gaddafi has ten, maybe a hundred, times the credibility of Saddam... as recent events - meaning over the last decade- have shown.

In light of the inaugural address, I hope Condi has people in Libya talking to ol' Moammar... we could see some interesting developments there.
It's in US interests that he stays in overall power... and he could do some reforms that would shake up the rest of the region, and still maintain it.

 

This thread is funny, it started off with i think Tom's concern's about Iran, has gone on from there to whether or not we should have gone into iraq with pettyfog's occasional diatribe against the UN and others

The reason that we went into Iraq is that this administration believed that they presented a danger to the United States, namely by posessing WMDs.

Did he have them in the past, yes, he used them against the Kurds numerous times. did he have them when we invaded? who knows, we haven't found any WMDs or even any smoking guns but that is still irrelevant.

lets say that Saddam had WMDs, would he use them against American forces? Or would he trade them to terrorists? My opinion is that he wouldn't. Sure he hates the united states, but he also is a power whore who loves his gold, palaces etc. He's no idiot, he realizes that if he carried out an attack on us or our allies it would be the end of him. You would think that as he was going down last year, that if he did have any weapons he would probably have used them as a last resort, but he didn't. According to the CIA there was little or no link between al-qaeda and his government.

The reason we went into a "dangerous regime" here as opposed to other places, such as sudan, somalia, libya, indonesia, pakistan etc. is the resources (oil) that are in Iraq. This is also why we tend to not get involved in places such as Rwandan genocide, there is nothing of value for us there and wasn't worth the risk to our troops (somalia).

The reason for the war in Iraq is economic, not strategic...if we were truly worried about osama, then we'd have finished the job in afghanistan

 

In other words, It's all about the oil.... but that doesnt really hold water, unless you're figgering out why France and Russia wouldnt support us in the Security Council.

The cheap and easy route would be simply to tell Saddam that we would blow the sh%t out of all his new palaces if he tried anything stupid like Quwait, again... then lift the sanctions, buy his oil, and sell him oilfield tools and services.

Nice job using Rwanda and Somalia... those are reasons FOR what we did in Iraq, not precedent showing lack of interest.

I'm a cynic... you are a hopeless cynic!

- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- - - -
Here's some other things for you to chew on.

During the first Gulf War there were widespread authoritative news articles telling about Saddam's deep bunkers, which were built to withstand a direct nuke assault. We were told by a german engineer that there was at LEAST one of them and probably three. We still havent found those bunkers.
. . .
During the first days of the war, US troops found about 10,000 new chemical suits in abandoned iraqi Republican Guard sites.

Later questioning revealed that each unit commander which had those suits was told that the adjacent unit had the weapons and would use them for last ditch defense.

The Problem with WMD's is that a military unit which has them COULD use them against their commander in chief.

Saddam was well documented to not trust ANYONE that he didnt have in his gunsights.

Gee, I hope I dont have to "connect the dots"!!!!

- - - --

Now let's address my "diatribe" against the UN.

Especially since YOU mention Rwanda and imply that the US didnt do anything about it "because there wasnt any OIL to protect ".

What, then, was the UN's excuse? Dont TELL me they reacted as best they could... read the recent UN idiot criticism about the US / Aus / Japan rapid reaction force!
If the US had done the same in Rwanda, what would the UN response have been... yep, exactly the same, because each and every time, we show them up!
We have boots on the ground and C-130's full of supplies while THEY are organizing "Assessment teams"

 

Now, see ..I end up BLOVIATING AGAIN!

But tell me what else I can do against parroting of Libspeak throwaway charges?!!!

 

Kofi Anan has said that Rwanda was the biggest mistake he made in his first term as secretary.

the UN as a fighting force is pretty weak partially because the system was set up to prevent a "world army"...and partially becuase the system has become corrupt.

On the other hand, the UN has very effective programs dealing with health, AIDS, relief work and a variety of other programs that are somewhat effective.

by the way, if you're not for the war in iraq, that doesnt' necessarily mean that you're a liberal...as is the case with myself