From the AOL newsfeed:
(Sept. 28) - Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion.
The former soldiers, part of what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), are being recalled to fill shortages in skills needed for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of the 1,662 ready reservists ordered to report to Fort Jackson, S.C., by Sept. 22, only 1,038 had done so, the Army said Monday.
"The numbers did not look good," said Lt. Col. Burton Masters, a spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command.
As an example of the challenges they faced, Masters held up a note from one Private Avon which simply read, "I'm not stupid, I'm not expendable, and I'm not going."
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 28, 2004 03:04 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingMeanwhile, Corporal V. Restal reported for duty.
Another of the IRR's reportedly managed to get pregnant just in time to avoid the recall order. Granted, she and her husband had been trying for a while before news of the recall came out, but I suspect they redoubled their efforts once it did.
Someone's going to say it soon enough anyway, so here it is:
"Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion."
Not showing up for duty during wartime? Who do they think they are - George Bush?
For the talk radio crowd:
"As an example of the challenges they faced, Masters held up a note from one Private Avon which simply read, "I'm not stupid, I'm not expendable, and I'm not going."
Why does Private Avon hate America?
---------
On another note, how about being sent to Iraq with no weapons?
http://www.kwtx.com/news/headlines/1029996.html
Greattt, so Private Avon is leaving his responsibilities for his fellow soldiers to now handle. "Not stupid?" -debatable. Selfish? Definitely.
Certainly makes one question the repeated messages of the administration that our fighting forces are united and believe that they are there for the right reasons...... that is, if one hadn't questioned it before.
Well, let's face it, with the IRR, threats toward soldiers to reenlist or be sent to Iraq (which is where they'd end up even if they reenlisted), and more threats toward Iraq...
... yeah, Bush, the Peace President.
He has no answers, save to throw more bodies in the way.
Most people who join the military these days are there for one of two (or both) reasons:
1) Defend America
2) Get money for college
Iraq was no threat to America, they have/had no weapons that could reach us. Why should people be ripped from their families and sent to a country we have no business occupying where we've lost more soldiers "post Mission Accomplished" than during the "war" itself?
I think Private Avon not only hates America, he hates humanity as a species. Just sayin'.
Dave:
>I think Private Avon not only hates America, he hates humanity as a species. Just sayin'.
How do you get this from one very brief statement about not wanting to die in a war?
Sigh.
"Private Avon" is Kerr Avon from the British SF series Blakes 7.
Good lord, some of you really need to brush up on your l33t Anglophile skillz.
JSM
(Headin' down to Fiji with me cat...)
Bush philosophy about liberating Iraq:
"There's no one as free as a dead man."
Hey, is that window open?
I feel a draft coming on.
The draft is way too much of a political nightmare for anyone to ever re-instate.
Regardless of your reasons for joining the reserves, the obligation to serve the military in whatever capacity they command over-rides it. This is not a 'back-door draft', nor is it asking anyone to do anything beyond what they signed up for. If they didn't want to do the work, then they should not have signed on the dotted line!
Somehow, I'm getting flashbacks to, of all things, Hogan's Heroes when Klink and Co. were threatened with being sent to the (Mid-)Eastern Front.
And those people who aren't showing up as ordered deserve the prison time/dishonorable discharge/reduction in pay that they get. They knew from the moment they walked into basic what they could possibly be in for, had chances to leave then for different reasons (and I know from experience that there are a thousand and one ways to get out- that recruits talk about) and continued on with their service. They finished their normal commitment, had the option of going reserve or IRR, and choose IRR.
And, I have doubts about the type of service shown by Private Avon. Given that the shortest service a person can give is two years, and within those two years it is possible to work yourself up to Private 1st class and way more than possible in more than two years, I have to wonder exactly what kind of service she or he gave.
"Certainly makes one question the repeated messages of the administration that our fighting forces are united and believe that they are there for the right reasons...... that is, if one hadn't questioned it before."
As I understand it, there are what, 100,000 troops over in Iraq right now? To find out that 600 (if I did the math right) are not wanting to go hardly suggests the overwhelming majority of the military are not united. You have 1,000 showing up for duty. Whether you think they are stupid, fulfilling their promise, or patriotic, they showed up.
"Iraq was no threat to America, they have/had no weapons that could reach us."
Whatever your thoughts about WMD's, etc., this is a rather ignorant statement in light of September 11. You might argue that we have made Iraq more of a threat, but to say it was not a threat is not looking at reality. Or have you forgotten the fact that Saddam gladly provided a refuge for one of the planners of the first attack on the Twin Towers? Have you forgotten his attempt to take over oil fields that led to the first Gulf War?
Jim in Iowa
I can see why he's reluctant to go back, after seeing virtually his entire outfit gunned down around him, plus that friendly fire incident with Blake, his former commanding officer. I don't think Avon ever really recovered from that.
"Or have you forgotten the fact that Saddam gladly provided a refuge for one of the planners of the first attack on the Twin Towers?"
Yes you are correct. He did, so I'm guessing that ties him in with 9/11.
Well if that's ther case, how many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, or were Saudi's??
Why wasn't Saudi Arabia tied in with 9/11 as well?
"Yes you are correct. He did, so I'm guessing that ties him in with 9/11.
"Well if that's ther case, how many of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, or were Saudi's??
"Why wasn't Saudi Arabia tied in with 9/11 as well?"
It does not necessarily tie him to 9/11. It does show Saddam was a threat to America.
Saudi Arabia should have been help more accountable, but just because some hijackers were from Saudi Arabia does not mean the Saudi's agreed or supported them. That is confusing the issue. Saddam clearly welcomed, agreed with, and supported terrorism, including acts against the United States. While the Saudi's failed to crack down on the extreme elements within their borders, there is a clear difference between the two.
Jim in Iowa
Okay, some people are getting it, but others aren't, so before an actual argument gets going about this aspect of it...
The part about Avon? That was fake. That was me making an in-joke reference to the character of Avon from "Blakes 7" who made that very well-known comment. The rest of the article was true, but not that bit.
PAD
me
>>"Certainly makes one question the repeated messages of the administration that our fighting forces are united and believe that they are there for the right reasons...... that is, if one hadn't questioned it before."
Jim in Iowa:
>As I understand it, there are what, 100,000 troops over in Iraq right now? To find out that 600 (if I did the math right) are not wanting to go hardly suggests the overwhelming majority of the military are not united. You have 1,000 showing up for duty. Whether you think they are stupid, fulfilling their promise, or patriotic, they showed up.
A clarification. I never said that they were stupid, fulfilling their promise, or patriotic. I never even suggested that the majority of the military are not united. I simply pointed out the administration's repeated stance as well as the very logical questioning that comes to mind from this most recent report of 600 out of 1,300 soldiers having issues with going into this debacle. That is a statistically significant percentage that bears some consideration over the stance of the troops already engaged in this battle.
And how many people still won't get it even after you've posted the disclaimer? Should be fun to watch.
Thankfully, although I'm not a big enough fan of B7 to recognise dialogue straight off, Kerr Avon was the first thing to come to mind when I read that.
Thanks for the giggle, Peter.
I think that by making that comment, Private Avon hates humans, little puppies, and all things that come in paper wrappers.
And America armed and trained Bin Laden and the Taliban when they were fighting the Russians, so I guess by your logic America is the enemy too.
So what if Iraq was letting Terrorism suspects stay there? Like living in Iraq under Saddam was a picnic. Call it Exile...
Private Orac deserted as well, but his capture is expected shortly. After all, a bald dwarf shooduln't be difficult to spot.
Saddam clearly welcomed, agreed with, and supported terrorism, including acts against the United States.
And you're clearly confused if you don't think that, privately some of the Saudi royal family did the same thing.
But I suppose, 20 years from now if another Bush gets into office (god forbid), we can blow up Saudia Arabia then.
The Bush's are good at making enemies out of those who were once friends, so it's a good possibility.
From the local Crawford, Texas newspaper, W's hometown, if anyone would care to read this editorial.
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm
Oh wow. An editorial against Bush and pro Kerry. I'm stunned.
Except for this not being an actual newspaper (it appears to be on-line only), and isn't from Bush's hometown (New Haven, CT) or where he grew up (Midland and Houston, TX).
Oops. I just read the news story on Yahoo, and it does appear that the paper is an actual print paper. After going and looking at the web link, there's nothing I found to show that it's nothing more than an e-paper. No subscription info or anything.
Kinda strange to me for a paper to not hype their subscriptions, but...
Gee, Dubbya's Daddy said the Gulf war wasn't going to be another Vietnam, and we we not going to make the same mistake twice. Apparently, since he didn't get to go to 'Nam, it was easy for Dubbya to make that mistake since he was oblivious to what was going on that time anyway. And Cheney and Rumsfeld are cut from the same cloth as the warhawks that sent young men into a meatgrinder they knew they could never win.
It really pathetic that there are these simularities. Vietnam was always referenced to the american people as being a important standpoint to fight the overflow of Communism, and thats why we kept fighting. Now, replace Communism with Terrorism, and you get a peak at how the Administration is playing Iraq.
If we're not 100% behind the cause, then how can we ask our soldiers to fight for it? And furthermore, how can we hold them accountable? You can't just ask people to risk their lives for some dubious cause. It's reckless and disrespectful towards people who would, under more united and less ambiguous circumstances, gladly defend their country.
Some very random thoughts:
Folks, it's Viet Nam all over again. Canada stands to get a whole new crop of immigrants because you're gonna have conscientious objectors and the whole nine yards.
It's not, repeat NOT far-fetched to think that the draft would not reappear. If the idea can be floated on the basis of patriotism and not so much on the basis of a specific conflict....rather the all-encompassing war on terror idea.....then it will reappear, and possibly sooner than anyone thinks.
Last year when this all exploded I said that it would make 'Nam look like a kindergarten exercise, and I hate to say it but I am being proven correct with every passing day. The difference here is that we're not fighting a relatively concentrated group sharing the same political ideology with a specific goal of capturing one small piece of territory. We're fighting a religious doctrine perverted to the concepts espoused by those who incite the conflicts yet remain in the shadows. Worse, it's a perversion that will take more than one generation to erase, assuming that we can erase it at all. I estimate that the Iraq situation will not see an end for at least 25 to 35 years. Pessimistic perhaps, but more likely realistic based on daily events.
A comment on service: In Israel, everyone serves when they become of age. Everyone. The only ones exempted are some Chassidim, and even that's a subject of controversy within the country. It's not only required, it's something that most look forward to.
A comment on Afganistan: Yes, the US funded and armed the Taliban because it was for the best at that point in time. And there you have the fatal flaw. Most of the problems that we find ourselves in are the result of short-term vision and perhaps a tendency to ignore the warning signs that advise against that short term thinking. Sure, the Taliban were convenient because everyone wanted to keep the Russians in check. Everyone ignored the fact that eventually these guys would turn out the way they did and spawn the offshoots that they did. Usually such short term thinking returns to bite everyone in the ass, and once again that's what has happened in Iraq.
So to boil things down: Is this really a dubious cause? It may have been that at the start but it certainly is not that now. We're now caught up in a situation where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Probably twice-damned in the latter case, because if we pull out anytime in the forseeable future, it's likely that Iraq will really disintegrate and the problems caused by that will have world-wide effects. This is truly terrifying. But if we stay, we continue to lose lives. Day in, day out. Not to be crass, but it almost hearkens back to the days of the late sixties when we'd see guys like Huntley and Brinkley or Frank McCoy or Walter Cronkite reporting the daily body counts on the news. It's almost nostalgic in a horrific sort of way.
And yes, I'm Canadian. But I say "we" because like it or not, it's "us" against "them".
And for those of you who might want to criticize me and enquire as to my qualifications for such commentary, (as in "Where do you get off with your opinions?"), my brother-in-law served in 'Nam. My brother left home and went to the U.S. to enlist in 1961. My family literally lived American Dreams for real. So I know just a little of where I speak.
Boy, here's something eerie. I just finished reading David Hackworth's article on Page 70 of the October Playboy. It echoes everything I said above, and I had NOT read it prebious to my posting! Brrr......
you know, I have 0% agreement with the war, Bush's polices, and blah blah blah. No support there. Ever.
But what I'm saying is I don't think people should be deserting left and right. I think its as simple as you sign up, you do the time. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Nobody put a gun to your head and made you join the army.
Even if there's an argument for "But they need to pay for college!!" I still don't think needing a college education means you can just up and leave the job you signed up for.
Wow. That sounded really neo-con of me. Holy shit, next thing you know I'll start watching Fox News and Bill O'Riely.
I just heard it from Tony Blair again: Yes, we were wrong, there were no weapons of mass destruction. But it was right to go to war anyway because we got rid of Saddam.
I very much disagree with that but I think people who come with this argument are missing the point: The question is, was it right to get rid of Saddam the way it was done, mainly was it right to fight the war there the way it was done. And I think that answer is definitely no.
Now Bush is sending more and more people into this powder keg without having any idea how to fix this mess. But of course the problem is, too many mistakes were made at the beginning and now it is probably nearly impossible to fix them.
I am not surprised that also enlisted people are refusing to be sacrificed there. Yes, they entered a contract but they first of all agreed to defend the USA. This has nothing to do with it. The war against Iraq was an illegal war and I am glad that more and more people are saying, enough!
Yes, the US funded and armed the Taliban because it was for the best at that point in time.
Excuse me? For the best of who? Do you think arming people has ever been for the best?
I'm glad to see soldiers deserting but I'd prefer it happening when they are told to kill, not when they are asked to die.
Baerbel Haddrell said: "Now Bush is sending more and more people into this powder keg without having any idea how to fix this mess. But of course the problem is, too many mistakes were made at the beginning and now it is probably nearly impossible to fix them."
Well said.
The repudlickans love to say the Democrats love to spend and throw money at a problem even when they have no idea how to fix it, yet people out there mindlessly worship GWB for doing the same thing, but substituting HUMAN LIVES for $$$...
Well I think that if the quote added at the end of the story isn't true, then the entire story is obviously fake. I think it proves that there are *no* soldiers who have misgivings about the war.
- Official Statement of the Liberator Commanders for Justice
Random soggy bloggy thoughts.
* It's been pointed out before that a draftee is just a prisoner of war on his own side.
* Like a policeman or a fireman, a soldier should be esteemed for willing to go into harm's way for a good cause. Unlike the other two, he's been foolish enough to let Congress tell him what the good cause is.
A comment on service: In Israel, everyone serves when they become of age. Everyone. The only ones exempted are some Chassidim, and even that's a subject of controversy within the country. It's not only required, it's something that most look forward to.
Just a little something to add to this -
I've chatted with a guy on a game on the internet that is from Israel, and I asked him about the mandatory service. He said he does it because he lives there, and that he's no patriot. If he didn't have to serve, he wouldn't.
The Bush Admin can say all they want that the draft isn't coming back, but I can't take for gospel (pun intended) anything that comes out of their mouths.
Diplomacy in Iran? Sure, if it's strapped to the front of a MOAB. :P
Btw, has anybody given any thought to N Korea lately?
They supposedly had that mushroom cloud over a mountain, and everybody was saying that it wasn't a nuke. Then the S Koreans said there was no explosion at all... HUH!?
The N Koreans are also claiming again that they have nukes as a "deterrent".
Personally, I think they just have nuclear penis envy toward Iran. :)
Slightly OT: But going from the way so many people here seem to be against war and that fighting back to protect yourself only makes the person you're fighting against even madder, what would be your advice to Israel? Should they just pack it up, leave and let the Palestians have the land? After all these people have pretty much said that as long as Israel exists there will be no peace.
Mitch: Beautiful!
Craig: we americans are being kept distracted from N. Korea by Iraq and the "election" (Electoral college kinda makes the will of the people pointless though).
Clark: If the Palestinians refuse to allow the Isrealis peace, the the Isrealis have no choice but to WIPE THEM OUT. The PLO are to the Isrealis what the Terrorists are to the US. It disgusts me to see GWB talk about "America will do whatever it takes to stop the terrorists" then has the balls to tell Isreal, "Oh, don't mind the suicide bombers wandering into civlian areas and blowing up your citizens, using force in return isn't the answer." Hypocrite.
Bladestar wrote:
>>>Iraq was no threat to America, they have/had no weapons that could reach us. Why should people be ripped from their families and sent to a country we have no business occupying where we've lost more soldiers "post Mission Accomplished" than during the "war" itself?
Using your rationale, i.e., "It's dangerous and not a problem of my making," a surgeon should have every right to refuse to operate on a patient with HIV. After all, one nick of an errant scapel and the surgeon very well may contract HIV as well.
By the same token, you must also think it's justified for a cop or firefighter to refuse to respond to a 911 call in East Los Angeles because they might get shot.
And, of course, using your rationale, you would not at all think badly of the Coast Guard if they refused to send out a helicopter or boat to try and rescue those aboard a sinking boat in a storm because the owner decided to ignore weather advisories and go sailing anyway.
And, as you would apparently argue, why in the world should the Air Force's "Hurricane Hunters" risk their lives flying into hurricane's to get crucial weather updates for FEMA or other emergency officials? It's not their problem.
You see, I look at things a bit differently. If I sign up to do a potentially hazardous job, I have a responsibility to do that job even when the conditions of the job put me in harms way.
Do you think a Secret Service agent who votes for one political party would shirk his/her duty if the president he/she were protecting was from a different political party?
No.
Which is why no reservist should be coddled if they are called up and fail to report. They volunteered for the job, and they have a responsibility to do that job to the best of their ability even when the going gets tough.
"Using your rationale, i.e., "It's dangerous and not a problem of my making," a surgeon should have every right to refuse to operate on a patient with HIV. After all, one nick of an errant scapel and the surgeon very well may contract HIV as well. "
That wasn't his rationale. You're missing the point.
Everyone you listed does what they do because they BELIEVE in it.
They save people from fires, operate on HIV patients, everything you listed, because they believe its the right thing to do.
Now, can you guess why these soldiers are refusing to go to Iraq?
Reservists who refuse to answer the recall should be deal with appropriately....and that means discipline...by the book.
On the other hand, their superiors had better not dismiss this. That would be stupid, and flies in the face of a few centuries of military thinking.
Unfortunately, I am not hopeful that this administration knows what it takes to command a military and deal with discipline problems.
"And you're clearly confused if you don't think that, privately some of the Saudi royal family did the same thing."
Your point is meangingless. I would not be surprised if this was true -- as individuals. I have seen no evidence that the ruling Royal Family has done so. There is no evidence that the government is actively hoping for and in any way promoting an agenda to bring down America. Why can I be so sure? Because they know that to do so would lead to problems for them and their oil supply.
The Saudi Royal Family is a huge, corrupt mess. But they have not systematically and ruthlessly slaughtered thousands of people as Saddam did. They have not invaded another country as Saddam did (twice I believe--Iran and Kuwait). My point? They are not organized against America in the way Saddam clearly was.
Which takes me back to my root problem with some (not all) who oppose Bush and the war. Unless there is an honest acknowledgment of how evil, ruthless, and cruel Saddam really was, there is no perspective as to why we have now had two wars against Iraq. There is no context to understand why Bush would take even the threat of WMD's in Iraq so seriously. This, in my opinion, is the clearest and greatest flaw of Farenheit 911. Moore has done the equivalent of doing a movie about World War II where he completely ignores Hitler's invasion of Poland and the concentration camps that killed millions. His deliberate decision to not give the full context is inexcusable and exposes his true agenda.
Honest criticism about the war is fine. Dishonest attacks that ignore the truth about Saddam only set us up to repeat the same mistakes in the future and demonstrate a bias that has nothing to do with the protection of our country.
Jim in Iowa
I have seen no evidence that the ruling Royal Family has done so. There is no evidence that the government is actively hoping for and in any way promoting an agenda to bring down America.
And there is no evidence that, as of the time we invaded Iraq, Saddam had WMD.
So, why did we invade Iraq again? Why is Saddam so important compared to so many other things in the world?
Your whole basis for the war in Iraq is that the ends justify the means or what?
That doens't fly in the real world.
As for the Israelis and Palestinians, it doesn't matter what we think, because Bush doesn't seem to give a rat's ass whether there is peace or they manage to blow each other off the face of the planet.
Craig: And there is no evidence that, as of the time we invaded Iraq, Saddam had WMD.
Already answered by Jim: Unless there is an honest acknowledgment of how evil, ruthless, and cruel Saddam really was, there is no perspective as to why we have now had two wars against Iraq. There is no context to understand why Bush would take even the threat of WMD's in Iraq so seriously. This, in my opinion, is the clearest and greatest flaw of Farenheit 911. Moore has done the equivalent of doing a movie about World War II where he completely ignores Hitler's invasion of Poland and the concentration camps that killed millions. His deliberate decision to not give the full context is inexcusable and exposes his true agenda.
Reading comprehension is such a lost art!
Jamie wrote:
"That wasn't his rationale. You're missing the point. Everyone you listed does what they do because they BELIEVE in it. They save people from fires, operate on HIV patients, everything you listed, because they believe its the right thing to do. Now, can you guess why these soldiers are refusing to go to Iraq?"
Actually, Jamie, you're the one missing the point. I spent 20 years in the military and did my job to the best of my ability supporting a number of operations I thought were questionable, or even stupid.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Military people are supposed to be apolitical when it comes to doing their jobs. If the Commander in Chief orders the military into action, it goes into action. The last thing any democracy wants to do is politicize the military -- that's how coup d' etats happen.
People in the professions I listed, and people doing hundreds of other similarly hazardous jobs, could rationalize away their responsibilities for any number of reasons, just like "Private Avon."
Not everyone is in a hazardous profession because “they BELIEVE in it.” People get into these professions for a variety of reasons – just as people join the military for different reasons. Some have altruistic reasons; some have financial reasons; some get into a field for extra educational benefits; some switch into these careers to get out of a rut; some are looking for excitement; etc.
You apparently believe we are arguing apples and oranges. We aren’t.
Reading comprehension is such a lost art!
Then perhaps you should brush up on your skills a bit, because Bush fought this war on the basis that Saddam had WMD and was an immediate threat to use them.
Neither was true, but everybody is apparently too stupid to notice.
Wrong Mehares,
Those are those people's jobs. Worldwide Police is NOT Amerika's job.
And I find myself agreeing with Craig again, 'tis strange days we live in...
R.Maheras:
A pox on you for making me agree with Bladestar:
And, of course, using your rationale, you would not at all think badly of the Coast Guard if they refused to send out a helicopter or boat to try and rescue those aboard a sinking boat in a storm because the owner decided to ignore weather advisories and go sailing anyway.
So you're saying that the Coast Guard issues a warning for ships to come in, and the warning is ignored. The ship is in danger of sinking. The Coast Guard should go out regardless of the risk to the Coast Guard ship to rescue them? Or that a police officer should attempt to drive in driving rain and 155 mile per hour winds, to try and rescue people who ignored a warning to evacuate.
Having a risky job is one thing, but when death is a sure thing, the risk is simply overwhelming. If people ignore a warning, it's okay to risk their own lives. They shouldn't be allowed to force others to risk theirs.
Bladestar wrote:
"Wrong Mehares, Those are those people's jobs. Worldwide Police is NOT Amerika's job. And I find myself agreeing with Craig again, 'tis strange days we live in..."
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the Constitution. Such decisions are made by civilian leadership, not unilaterally by people in the military (that includes privates or generals). Civilian leadership decides what the U.S. military's mission is and where it goes. If you want to give such decision-making authority to the military, I suppose you can always lobby your congressmen for a Constitutional amendment. Personally, however, I like things just the way they are.
A pox on you for making me agree with Bladestar:
It happens to the best of us. :)
On a lesser scale here in Michigan Clark, there are similar examples every spring.
The state warns these moron fisherman that the ice on the lakes is not safe to go out on and fish, but these f'ing morons go out anyway and then waste the taxpayers money and rescuers lives trying to pull them off the ice/out of the water they got themselves stuck in. They ought be handed a bill everytime that happens.
"Then perhaps you should brush up on your skills a bit, because Bush fought this war on the basis that Saddam had WMD and was an immediate threat to use them.
"Neither was true, but everybody is apparently too stupid to notice."
Let's go back and check the record.
Bush never said Saddam was an "immediate" or "imminent" threat, he said he was a real and mounting threat. The difference is small but real. Go find me one quote of Bush or Cheney or Powell where they say differently.
By the way, John Edwards said in 2003 that Iraq was an imminent threat. So whatever else you might believe about Bush, Edwards, who had access to much of the intelligence Bush was seeing, believed Iraq was an imminet threat and a real danger to us.
Regarding WMD's, I have posted this multiple times now. Intelligence agencies around the world believed Saddam had WMD's. There are a few options. Everyone might have been wrong. Or there may have been WMD's, but Saddam got them out of the country before the war began (and there is some hard evidence in sattelite pictures that suggest this could be true). Either way, NO ONE has been able to demonstrate Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
But, for the moment, let's say Saddam no longer had WMD's. What have we found since we invaded? We have found clear evidence that he had all of the components in place to begin production of WMD's in a very short amount of time. Go read the FULL reports by David Kay and his replacement (when that one becomes available).
The record is very clear for anyone who wants to see it. Saddam was one of the most brutal dictators in the last 50 years. He repeatedly attacked others. He used WMD's to wipe out an ethnic group in his country. He was actively pursuing WMD's (whether he still had some or not). He welcomed and gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked America. He was behind an attempt to assasinate a former US president.
Bush did not lie or mislead us about Saddam Hussein. He may (perhaps) have had incorrect info on stockpiles of WMD's, but everything else has been shown to be true.
As I have said before, it is healthy for us to debate whether going to war with Iraq was the best option. (I think it was.) But such a debate is only healthy when there is a willingness to look at the facts.
Here are some stories that give the evidence I am talking about:
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670120
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38581
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/World/Mass-Graves.Testify.To.Saddams.Evil-621193.shtml
Any questions?
Jim in Iowa
Considering there seems to be no plan for how to handle postwar Iraq other than using US soldiers as cannon fodder to "keep the terrorists from attacking on US soil" ( which is a load of bullsh*t), I can't really muster any venom towards a guy who doesn't want to go back.
As for the draft, while a conventional draft may not be in the offing, a "Special Skills Draft is already in the early stages of development:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/13/MNG905K1BC1.DTL
All of us computer geeks better start making plans to hightail it to Canada.
Either way, NO ONE has been able to demonstrate Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
Ahh, guilty until proven innocent.
Let's forget about the fact that there are other threats, including one that *gaps* actually attacked us - Al Qaeda and bin Laden.
A threat we are still not taking seriously, apparently.
But then, either way, no one has been able to demonstrate that Bush isn't a complete and utter idiot.
He used WMD's to wipe out an ethnic group in his country.
Amazing how little the Republicans cared about this when Saddam was actually doing it. When Saddam used WMD's to attack the Kurds, what Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do? Sell him more weapons.
Den W. wrote:
"Amazing how little the Republicans cared about this when Saddam was actually doing it. When Saddam used WMD's to attack the Kurds, what Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do? Sell him more weapons."
What's amazing is how you single out the United States, when the countries that provided the majority of weapons and WMD technology to the Iraqis during the 1980s reads like a Who's Who of the United Nations: France, China, Germany, The Soviet Union, Brazil, Chile, Austria, South Africa -- just to name a few. If you do some digging, you'll find out we were a minor player, at best. That we were a player at all is, of course, shameful in retrospect -- but at the time, who knew Saddam was going to going to grow into such a brutal "lesser of two evils"?
Amazing how little the Republicans cared about this when Saddam was actually doing it. When Saddam used WMD's to attack the Kurds, what Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld do? Sell him more weapons.
So they "flip-flopped"? But the way I hear it from you Democrats, that's a sign of learning from your mistakes.
"Ahh, guilty until proven innocent."
It is statements like this that amaze me. Saddam actually used WMD's. There is an enormous amount of evidence he had WMD programs. There were multiple UN resolutions where a number of countries stated their belief that Saddam either had or was developing WMD's.
I would think it is obvious, but let me give a simple analogy. Imagine there is a man named "Sam." Sam has used a gun to rob two individuals, and kill 20 others. You are a cop and you try to chase him down. You finally catch up to him. You tell Sam to throw down his gun. He refuses to do so. He refuses to tell you that he threw down the gun somewhere so that you can verify he does not have a gun. What would you do?
If you had any intelligence, you would treat Sam like he still had a gun.
The point is simply this: Saddam had and used WMDs. A large number of people beyond America's influence and control agreed.
So yes, I will assume he is guilty until proven otherwise. Why? Because he was proven to be guilty in the past. It is as simple as that.
Jim in Iowa
It is statements like this that amaze me.
It's ignorance on the part of Republicans that amazes me.
Of course, it's convenient for you to ignore comments about bin Laden, because, just like Bush, he apparently isn't that important to you.
And how long do you actually think diplomacy will last with Iran? About as long as it did with Bush & Iraq? Shorter? Just long enough to formulate another half-ass plan that will create yet another quagmire?
Saddam was contained. That's all there was to it. But that wasn't good enough for Bush. Make any ol' excuse to make sure he gets his god-awful revenge in the name of the "war on terror".
It's smegging sick.
So, you think you know?
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_9_29_04.html
Jim in Iowa:
You left a part out of your scenario - When you finally catch up to Sam he is in the process of being patted down by a couple of other officers, who can't find the gun you said Sam had on him, yet you decide to shoot Sam anyway.
The fact of the matter is that Saddam was contained and even if he were trying to reconstitute his weapons programs the inspections would have found him out if they were given a chance. We didn't have to start a war because there were other less extreme options.
"I, [name here], do solemnly swear ... to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me..."
The order to report, per the terms of IRR, and to deploy to Iraq, while possibly (probably, IMHO) stupid, is not unlawful. Reporting as ordered does not threaten the United States, nor its Constitution. And military decisions on our part (unusually enough) are made ony by civilians. The General Staff, in any conflict, is limited to determining the best way to accomplish the goals set by the civilian leaership, and is not permitted to choose the goals itself - and, I think, for good reason.
The young men who have refused to report, while they may be morally correct, are legally (to use the technical term) in deep doodoo.
"Of course, it's convenient for you to ignore comments about bin Laden, because, just like Bush, he apparently isn't that important to you."
I have not forgotten Bin Laden. Nor has Bush. I am sure history will show we missed some chances to capture him early on in Afganistan (sp?). That is true in any war. Once he did escape, short of invading Pakistan, sending more troops would not make a difference.
I believe Iraq was a real threat to us. You disagree. Fine. Taking action against an additional threat does not mean we have given up on the first. Keep in mind, too, that by its very nature, a search for Bin Laden will by its very nature be somewhat quiet. Otherwise we would be giving too much away. A lack of information does not necessarily show incompetence or a lack of effort. It just means we have not yet found him.
Jim in Iowa
"You left a part out of your scenario - When you finally catch up to Sam he is in the process of being patted down by a couple of other officers, who can't find the gun you said Sam had on him, yet you decide to shoot Sam anyway."
Obviously the analogy breaks down at this point. It is easy to pat down a person's body. It is harder to search his mansion. Especially when you are limited to which rooms you can search them and when you can search them. You also leave out the fact that while we did not find a stockpile of WMD's (a gun in the analogy), we did find him in material breach of the UN resolutions (perhaps like finding him with a knife and brass knuckles?). The officers, in real life, did not find what happened to the gun and could not be certain he actually did not have a gun. So my original point still stands.
Finally, I would suggest that while we did "shoot" Sam, we did not shoot to kill, but to simply wound.
"The fact of the matter is that Saddam was contained and even if he were trying to reconstitute his weapons programs the inspections would have found him out if they were given a chance. We didn't have to start a war because there were other less extreme options."
Again a crucial point is ignored. We tried to do inspections for years. Saddam repeatedly hindered these inspections. It is a gross mischaracterization to portray us as the reason inspections were not given a chance.
The fact that we did find him reconstituting WMDs in spite of inspections proves your point wrong.
What other "less extreme" options were left? Inspections did not work. While Saddam was contained for the moment, there were so many under the table deals going on that Saddam was making gains during this time. And as 911 showed, it did not take a manufactured WMD to cause mass destruction. There is no question that Saddam supported and aided terrorism. I don't think we were left with much choice with the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese (to name a few) helping Saddam. (Funny how they are also the main ones who opposed us going to war in the first place.)
Jim in Iowa
/i
Yes, the US funded and armed the Taliban because it was for the best at that point in time.
Excuse me? For the best of who? Do you think arming people has ever been for the best?
I'm glad to see soldiers deserting but I'd prefer it happening when they are told to kill, not when they are asked to die.
emd /i
I stated it was the best at that point in time but failed to note that it was in the minds of those who did the implementation. Anything to stop the scourge of international COMMUNISM (Monty Python intonation intentional).
I don't agree with soldiers deserting at all. If there's ever a war that gets over to this side of the pond you're gonna want every soldier you can get protecting you and conversely engaging the enemy on their own turf too.
So...how do italics work anyway?
On another thread somone suggested: http://webmonkey.wired.com/webmonkey/reference/html_cheatsheet/
Helped me greatly!
"I don't agree with soldiers deserting at all. "
Well, I don't agree with solidiers at all.
Somebody said something about Israel. I'm against terrorism. But don't believe they are the good guys. They invaded Palestina in 1967 in an ILLEGAL war. UN has said so many times and USA used his veto. Would you like somebody invading your house? Anyway, America freed Kuwait in the 90's when invaded by Irak, why not freed Palestina?
Now we get to the nitty gritty. When the State Of Israel was created in 1948, it's neighbors immediately undertook the effort to obliterate it. They lost. They tried again in 1956. They lost. They tried again in 1967, and this time not only did they lose, but the Israelis finally got pissed off enough to really go at it and take over some extra territory. 1973 was no different.
For you see, the objective of the Arafat-sanctioned factions in the Middle East is not necessarily to obtain a homeland for the Palestinians. No, because this could have easily been obtained from Arab countries bordering Israel. The objective is to obliterate Israel. The secondary object is to obliterate as many Jews as possible in the process of achieving the first objective.
Everything else in the Middle East has followed from this more than 100-year conflict. To get more facts, please obtain the book
MYTHS AND FACTS, A Guide To The Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Mitchell G. Bard. It is available in print from the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, 2810 Blaine Drive, Chevy Chase, MD, 20815, or you can see the web site at http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org
Once you read this book which is incredible in its scope and the depth of the research and references used, you might understand more about what the truth is.
"Slightly OT: But going from the way so many people here seem to be against war and that fighting back to protect yourself only makes the person you're fighting against even madder, what would be your advice to Israel? Should they just pack it up, leave and let the Palestians have the land? After all these people have pretty much said that as long as Israel exists there will be no peace."
I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say it: That's a staggeringly stupid question. Seriously. It's a monumental attempt to draw a linkage that's so misplaced, so unworkable, so utterly preposterous, that I can readily believe you would support Bush's doctrine of preemptive attacks because it makes about as much sense. I mean, it's not only off topic, it's off the planet.
Bush, armed with cherry-picked information that was staggeringly wrong, invaded against a people who had not attacked this country, against the advice of most of the rest of the world. The Israelis, a country that is recognized by the rest of the world, is attempting to defend itself from a group of people who are effectively cast-offs from other countries, have actually (through their representatives) refused the creation of their own country, and spent three generations trying to kill all the Israelis to take back land that absolutely no one wanted until the Israelis suddenly started growing oranges on it.
A usual logic train says, "If A, then B." You've created a logic train that says, "If A, then gym socks."
PAD
"Either way, NO ONE has been able to demonstrate Saddam did NOT have WMD's.
Ahh, guilty until proven innocent."
Worse: It appears that George W. Bush's supporters are so desperate to believe Bush has a plan, they're unaware it's Plan 9 from Outer Space. It's like Criswell is overseeing the WMD intelligence: "You say prove that it happened? We say...prove that it didn't!"
PAD
I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say it: That's a staggeringly stupid question. Seriously. It's a monumental attempt to draw a linkage that's so misplaced, so unworkable, so utterly preposterous, that I can readily believe you would support Bush's doctrine of preemptive attacks because it makes about as much sense. I mean, it's not only off topic, it's off the planet.
All right, PAD, you win. It's rather obvious that I just rub you the wrong way. Since you can't just ask me to stop posting here without violating your free speech doctrine, I'll go quietly. Likewise, I hope you'll understand then if I no longer honor my promise to buy Fallen Angel and give it a fair reading until Issue #20. And don't worry. No one you work for will ever get a letter from me asking them to fire you.
"All right, PAD, you win. It's rather obvious that I just rub you the wrong way. Since you can't just ask me to stop posting here without violating your free speech doctrine, I'll go quietly."
Whether you stay or go is entirely up to you, but it has nothing to do with rubbing me any which way. You simply put forward an association I considered to be preposterous (based upon what I perceive as a deliberate misreading of people's viewpoints vis a vis Iraq) in order to imply that anyone who is against Operation Re-Elect Bush would also have to be against Israeli defense against Palestinian terrorists. No one that I know of, including me, has said anything to the effect of, "But going from the way so many people here seem to be against war and that fighting back to protect yourself only makes the person you're fighting against even madder" with the implication that, therefore, if you're ever attacked, you should just roll over. It's the old liberal=cowardice saw that conservatives routinely trot out, and it's tiresome, and it's insulting.
The point that most anti-Iraq war advocates have been making is that we are NOT fighting back to protect ourselves, but instead merely trying to survive in a situation that we ran into with no clue what we were getting into and no clue how to get out of it. That America was not under any direct threat and that we thrust ourselves into a war under pretext manufactured by a handful of neo-Cons and a willing president who would do absolutely anything to avoid being a one-term POTUS like this dad. There is just absolutely no way that squares with comparison to Israel's sixty-year long battle to avoid extinction at the hands of enemies who have wanted to annihilate them from day one. None.
Now if you want to use my saying that as an excuse to slink away into the night and moan that you were ill-used, go right ahead. After all, your interpretation of what I mean is, as always, far more important than what I actually say. But that's your decision to make.
PAD
Don't go Clarkles, you're too entertaining. And if you leave, the evil "unnamed" may return to take your place :)
I'm still wondering how this argument about Saddam having WMD can possibly hold water.
Giving it some thought, one piece of BS that's been thrown about is that Saddam sent the WMD to Syria.
Now, we know Saddam tried this before - he sent his jets to Iran. Guess who didn't get his jets back.
So why would he possibly send his WMD to Syria? And if he did, why aren't we on a preemptive ass-kicking of Syria? I mean hey, that kind of stupidity worked with Iraq, right?
Bush wants to use that stupidity with anybody else he wants.
I guess the WMD aren't that important after all.
So they "flip-flopped"? But the way I hear it from you Democrats, that's a sign of learning from your mistakes.
Since this was directly in response to my comment, I'll just say for the record: I'm a registered independent, not a democrat and couldn't care less what democrats call it. Second, if ignoring attempted genocide and pretending to care about it is just "flip-flop" in your mind, what do you consider to be rank hypocrisy.
Just please, spare the tremendous outpouring of love for the Kurds on behalf of your party. We ignored attempted genocide against them in the 80s and left them to twist in the wind in the 90s after encouraging them rebel against Saddam.
Suddenly, when the complete of absense of proof that Saddam had WMDs in 2003 became apparent, suddenly the mantra from the GOP became, "Hey, remember how he had them 20 years ago?"
What's amazing is how you single out the United States, when the countries that provided the majority of weapons and WMD technology to the Iraqis during the 1980s reads like a Who's Who of the United Nations: France, China, Germany, The Soviet Union, Brazil, Chile, Austria, South Africa -- just to name a few.
No, what's amazing is how you take one comment and try to make it sound like I condone the actions of all the other countries.
Let me try make this simple for you to understand:
1) US selling weapons to brutal dictators = bad.
2) Other countries selling weapons to brutal dictators = bad.
3) Republicans selling Saddam the weapons he used against the Kurds, then citing the usage of those weapons 20 year after the fact as justification for the Iraqi war = hypocrisy.
4) The fact that he also bought weapons from other countries = Bad, but not an excuse for the GOP to do the same.
Jim posts -
"http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html"
Try posting links to real news sources, not web sites that have links to the Drudge Report on the front page.
Its no wonder you think the way you do.
Try reading or listening to the BBC, NBC, CNN and other non partisan news agencies that will actually tell you both sides instead of just one.
Den W. wrote:
"1) US selling weapons to brutal dictators = bad.
2) Other countries selling weapons to brutal dictators = bad.
3) Republicans selling Saddam the weapons he used against the Kurds, then citing the usage of those weapons 20 year after the fact as justification for the Iraqi war = hypocrisy.
4) The fact that he also bought weapons from other countries = Bad, but not an excuse for the GOP to do the same."
As I alluded to in my post, we agree on points 1 and 2. However, by singling out the GOP in your crititicism, you inferred that it was primarily the U.S. that sold weapons to Saddam in the 1980s -- hence my clarification. In reality, the U.S. was a minor player in Saddam's conventional weapons buildup compared to our "peace-loving" U.N. partners. And as far as your WMD charges against the GOP go, give some specifics. As I recall, the U.S. also had little to do with those programs. Again, wasn't it primarily the "peace-loving" Europeans who gave Saddam the bulk of his deadly WMD arsenal?
Such hypocrisy is why the U.S. should take criticism from abroad with a grain of salt. Many of our staunchest critic overseas are supremely guilty of the old adage, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Personally, I think both the GOP and the Democrats have plenty of policies in the past that they should be ashamed of, and as an independent voter, I take exception to anyone who tries and label one party as inherently more righteous or compassionate than the other.
So why would he possibly send his WMD to Syria? And if he did, why aren't we on a preemptive ass-kicking of Syria?
Have a look at this:
Officials warned that unless Syria changes its policy within the next few weeks, the administration would consider economic and military measures against Damascus that would intensify in 2005. They said the Defense Department has drafted a range of military options meant to put Damascus on the defensive and encourage insurrection within Syria.
and this Newsweek Report.
It's quite possible the Syrian Baathists are next.
"...BBC, NBC, CNN and other non partisan news agencies..."
LOL
Well, that same lol would apply equally to Fox News.
However, by singling out the GOP in your crititicism, you inferred that it was primarily the U.S. that sold weapons to Saddam in the 1980s -- hence my clarification.
It was Reagan who supported Saddam against Iran, yes?
It was also some of these same European countries who didn't see Iraq as enough of a threat to justify invading them, either.
Well, that same lol would apply equally to Fox News.
Uh, that is sort of my point. Fox News is so eagerly pointed at as being biasd, but the same people who are doing the pointing turn around and watch CBS, BBC, CNN, etc.
Uh, that is sort of my point. Fox News is so eagerly pointed at as being biasd, but the same people who are doing the pointing turn around and watch CBS, BBC, CNN, etc.
Well, you know, I'm not convinced that any of the media outlets are any more biased than the others.
Save for Fox (conservative) and probably CBS and the NYT (liberal).
People just want to bitch and moan about a liberal media because they talk about Bush alot. Well, he's president, and this "liberal" media sure as hell wasn't soft on Clinton.
I don't know about you, but I only watch biased news... it's called the Daily Show... and at least it's entertaining.
Travis
"but the same people who are doing the pointing turn around and watch CBS, BBC, CNN"
Are you actually trying to infer that the BBC and CNN which have a long history of being unbiased and trust-worthy news agencies are somehow in the same league as FOX and other known to be mouthpieces for the Right?
Why don't you just say "I only believe spin doctors!" or "Any news that doesn't agree with my political beliefs must be biased."
Hey, continue to get your news from Fox, the Drudge Report, and Rush. Just don't be surprised when people laugh at you or look at you funny for the uninformed things you say.
Did you know 70% of Fox's viewers believe that WMD were found in Iraq?
I mean, How stupid can you get?
As I alluded to in my post, we agree on points 1 and 2. However, by singling out the GOP in your crititicism, you inferred that it was primarily the U.S. that sold weapons to Saddam in the 1980s -- hence my clarification.
Well let me check who was running the executive branch of the US government in the 80s. . .
. . . Yep, it was the GOP.
And as far as your WMD charges against the GOP go, give some specifics. As I recall, the U.S. also had little to do with those programs. Again, wasn't it primarily the "peace-loving" Europeans who gave Saddam the bulk of his deadly WMD arsenal?
If by "bit player", you mean sending (then secretary of defense) Dick Cheney over to sell Saddam nerve gas and pose for smiling pictures with him, then yes.
Personally, I think both the GOP and the Democrats have plenty of policies in the past that they should be ashamed of,
Agreed.
and as an independent voter, I take exception to anyone who tries and label one party as inherently more righteous or compassionate than the other.
I am also an independent. I cited the GOP only because they were the party in charge of the executive branch in the 80s when Saddam was our best buddy in all of the middle east and are the ones who today constantly cite his actions in the 80s (actions which Dick, Rummy, et. al. tacitly condoned at the time) as justification for the current Iraqi war. It was never my intent to imply that the Democrats are more "righteous or compassionate." Had they been doing the same things, I would be condemning them as well.
Den W. wrote:
"If by "bit player", you mean sending (then secretary of defense) Dick Cheney over to sell Saddam nerve gas and pose for smiling pictures with him, then yes."
You're either misinformed or not playing fair by accusing Cheney.
Here are the real Iraqi WMD culprits, according to an early 2003 article by Kenneth Timmerman in Insight: "In all, the Iraqis named 14 German, three Dutch, three Swiss and two French companies as their top CW (chemical weapon) suppliers, although dozens more played supporting roles. According to U.N. databases Insight was able to access, since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq, with more than 272 different license applications worth billions of dollars. The United States put 93 of those contracts, worth $217 million, on hold. Among them was the sale as "medical equipment" of a series of lithotripsy machines for treating kidney stones without surgery manufactured by the company Karl Storz Endoscopie France SA. Perfectly normal? Think again. The lithotripter employs a high-speed krytron switch similar to those used to trigger nuclear warheads. Along with the six medical machines, Iraq sought 120 spare krytrons, the U.N. Website reveals. After France, countries with the most applications were Jordan (184), Russia (154), the United Arab Emirates (112), Italy (97) and China (66). While German companies had made only 36 applications, the dollar value was believed to be in the billions, just behind France."
And if you notice, Cheney is not even mentioned, and the U.S. actually LOST hundreds of millions of dollars by refusing to sell materiels to Iraq that were suspect.
"Hey, continue to get your news from Fox, the Drudge Report, and Rush."
Well, I don't know about Mexican Pres. Vincente Fox or some report on drudgery, but I agree with a lot of the commentary from Rush. "Beneath, Between, & Behind", for instance, is even more trenchant than when they first released it, almost 30 years ago...
Oh, you meant Limbaugh! My bad!
"Beneath the noble bird,
Between the proudest words,
Behind the beauty, cracks appear
Once, with heads held high,
They sang out to the sky -
Why do their shadows bow in fear?"
According to U.N. databases Insight was able to access, since 1998 French companies lead the pack in applying for U.N. licenses to sell potential weapons material to Iraq, with more than 272 different license...
Weren't we talking about the 80's?
Are you actually trying to infer that the BBC and CNN which have a long history of being unbiased and trust-worthy news agencies are somehow in the same league as FOX and other known to be mouthpieces for the Right?
The BBC unbiased? I guess you missed the Hutton inquiry where several directors were forced to resign over the coverage of the Iraq war. Their coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very pro-Palestinian.
Every news organization has bias - that of ratings. Rathergate at CBS, Tailwind at CNN, the gavel-to-gavel of OJ and the obsession with Monica Lewinsky all boil down to ratings. I watch primarily Fox and MSNBC and I find them both biased. As far as straight news goes, Fox does better, IMO (I'm not talking about the talking head shows). MSNBC is more about fluff pieces than straight news. The one thing I can't stand to watch on Fox under almost all circumstances in Hannity/Colmes. Hannity spends more time interrupting than questioning and I find him annoying. Tim Russert is the best interviewer in town - I wish he did more than Meet the Press.
Tim Russert is the best interviewer in town - I wish he did more than Meet the Press.
He has a show on CNBC called, interestingly enough, Tim Russert.
You're either misinformed or not playing fair by accusing Cheney.
No, citing events of 1998 to refute something that happened in the 80s shows how misinformed you are.
Now, how about we look at the information from the time in question instead?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp_x.htm
But you'll probably dismiss these since they're not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
(He has no answers, save to throw more bodies in the way.)
He's pres Zap Brannigan. We will throw wave after wave of our own men at the terrorists until they run out of bullits and bombs. Then they will have to give up!
>I think Private Avon not only hates America, he hates humanity as a species. Just sayin'.
I want to say i love america, but having worked wal-mart customer service 1-800# I do find myself hating humanity.
Not the people on here, just everybody else.
I blame retail! ;)
"There will be no peace as long as Kirk lives!"
-Klingon Ambassador to George W at a recent mid east peace talk
"I'm not stupid, I'm not expendable, and I'm not going."
I'm going to make a button that says that. Everyone needs a button that says that.
What the daily show isn't biased, they ridicule everyone equally!
He's pres Zap Brannigan.
Yeah, but Zap has charisma.
He's (obviously) the Troy McClure of the future, and knows how to blow things up and get away with it.
Bush tries, but everybody notices. :)
Are you actually trying to infer that the BBC and CNN which have a long history of being unbiased and trust-worthy news agencies are somehow in the same league as FOX
Yes.
Hi people, I'm going off on some tangents here, so anyway, regarding the venerable PADs comment about Isreal and its sixty year struggle, I know that a point was being illustrated but it came across as a bit one-sided, to the detriment of the Palestinians, whom have had atrocities visited upon them, as well as being the manufacturers of such atrocities.
The whole Isreal affair has been vaguely wrought, as have much of the affairs of the whole region, in no small part due to centuries of meddlings from the likes of Europe, and more recently America.
Even further from the point, though I currently dwell in far flung Oceania, or more precisely, Australia (Where, by the by, I am no great fan of Bush's lap-dog, the accountant sans charisma, John Howard, who has just been re-elected, boo-hiss:)), I have lived at various points in Eire and the UK, and have a mixture of English and Irish and Catholic and Protestent in my family.
The UKs history with Northern Ireland, not good, also another seemingly everlasting mess an ex-power-that-be has burdened countless of civilians, let alone themselves, with.
I'm not intelligent enough to provide a solution to that one, especially as the whole scene is so linked with the criminal underworld.
Controversial point 1: Umpteenth generation American-Oirish of sometimes discernible wealth and position who donate money to organisations, that at the end of the day, goes towards Irish people killing Irish people, as opposed to relising any romantic notions and justified passions of their forefathers...it is not a great thing.
I was in Dublin about five years ago, after spending some months working in beautiful Co. Kerry (Go there, I was around abouts the Ring of Kerry, Dingle Bay area, near a home of Daniel O'Connell, the liberator, it's dead nice! Not to be confused of anywhere that Daniel O'Donnell may live, who is a fluffy jumpered, elevator-musak singing icon of grannies all over the place, he is a weapon of mass coma-induction, which isn't very clever, but hey!), and it had changed a great deal for the better in regards to the standard of living and oppurtunities, but was, it seemed a less warm and a more cynical place, and I was having a quiet afternoon drink in a bar when this ten-gallon hatted American tourist came in and was loudly proclaiming his "oirishness" for all to hear, he bought a drink, regalled the bar-staff with stories of his ancestry and tipped kindly and left with a smile on his face, and one of the bar-staff turned to an obvious regular and called the fella a,"plastic paddy", a term I only learnt on that stay, and heard more than once, usually in reference to Americans, and usually refering to the kind who try and be more Irish than the Irish, whilst having the virtue of multiple credit cards with all that that entails!
I thought that was a bit harsh really, but is there a point to what I'm saying, well I am being convoluted, simplistic and vague all at the same time, but at this point lets assume (for the sake of my own head) that constructive help, a true understanding of the locale AS IT IS HERE AND NOW, and its people, all its people, is a lot more repected deep down than lots of flash and thunder, though by no means is this this an anti-America rant, like all countries previously meantioned, all have their good and bad points and America has a lot more exposed to scrutiny being as it is, at the minute, "the power that be".
Controversial point to: Sorry guys, as a kid Blakes 7 always disappointed me, though the finally is something that I still remember, so it had some impact, anyone recall Space 1999, I swear there is a song by the band muse that reminds me of the opening credits every time I hear it, its called New Born and is on their Origin of Symmetry album, I love it, if they ever do a Space 1999 film, which I very much doubt, that would be the perfect opening score!!
Blah, blah, blah....