Is Bush's Terror War to protect America....

Status
Not open for further replies.
shield20...

You bring up something very interesting in this quote, it's something that I try to debate with most conservatives AND liberals, when I tell them partyline thinking is no good, so therefore I'm going to see how much of the quote I can answer (I've numbered them so my answers are easier to follow):

Us retards who 1) prefer strong military to weak, 2) strong intelligence to weak, 3) self-responsibility to self-entitlement, 4) strong patriotism to strong globalism, 5) decisive action instead of appeasment, 6) support for our country, our troops and our citizens instead of a coddling of the enemy, good morals, good women, fine guns, and the freedom and the life (safety) to enjoy them all - can find a few politicians who think the same way. Typically they tend to be conservatives.
Click to expand...

1) Do I want a strong military? Yes, sic vis pacem parabellum, however not giving enemy combatants due process is rather un-American after all, if we are to represent our country, it'd make sense to put those who are detained on trial instead of having them detained indefinately.

2) Strong intelligence? In our current situation yes, however at the same time shady groups like the CIA who use black sites, and secret prisons in other countries are something I don't condone as they are human rights violations, if we're supposed to be the good guy our mission is NOT to torture prisoners, but to interrogate following the Geneva Conventions and international laws.

3) By the way, please clarify self-entitlement vs. self-responsibility (I just haven't had much familiarity with those terms.) I'm assuming you're saying do the job yourself instead of having government doing everything for you? If that's the case I can argue that most Republicans are anti-gay marrige, and anti-abortion, and if I'm not mistaken anti-marijuana legalization/decriminialization, which totally kills the point in being self-responsible and keeping government out of personal life, let's not forget that a number of them are also the Bible beaters who push their religion into our government.

4) Strong patriotism vs. globalism? Wasn't it mostly the Bush bandwagon and other Republicans that wanted NAFTA, and other globalization policies for businesses? So much for domestic jobs right?

5) Decsive action vs. appeasement. I like that, however actions that are carried out wrecklessly destroy our foundation of laws, look at the Patriot Act and other such "terror" bills to keep us "safe" by spying on American citizens and then stripping them of their Bill of Rights to due process. Why was the Supreme Court sleeping? What happened to judicial review? I guess "innocent until proven guilty" is just a catchy slogan with no meaning.

6) Support for this country and its troops? Awesome, I'm all for it, after all I did want strong defense right? I am a firm believer in the Constitution. However that doesn't mean I have to support some partyline businessman/religious bigot who's only further pushing his agendas instead of the People's agenda.

So in conclusion what would that make me? To most Republicans they'd see me as a "liberal". But am I not being conservative with the points I brought up? I tend to seperate the Republicans from true conservatives, because many of the Republicans that I notice in power just aren't doing a great job in being "conservatives" and aren't exactly preserving the Constitution as they should be. Is it not conservative to try to abide by the Constitution and try to maintain neutrality through a strong military? However the Democrats are no different either, the only reason I bring up the Republicans is because the Democrats have kind of been a bit quiet, I do also know for a fact though that they are terrible because of how badly they want to violate the First and Second Amendments. So overall, the Democrats try to destroy Amendments I and II, while the Republicans try to destroy Amendments IV, VI, VIII, IX. Great job, awesome, so which party should I vote for? The lesser of two evils again? Those who infringe upon the Constitution are THE GREATEST OF EVILS. When it comes to the integrity of this country. So there you have it, and that's why I never vote for either party, they can shove it for all I care, I'd rather still vote for the guy that won't win but has awesome ideas on how to help this nation.


Epyon

P.S: Sorry for the rant, flame suit on.
 
STLRN, don't know where you get the arsenic dumping from, Kyoto Agreement has more to do with CO2 emissions, and Bush has lifted restrictions on refineries, hence Houston's skyline looking so ****ty. The only countries able to abide by it are Japan and Korea.

there's no excuse for the wanton disregard for the environment; the amount of CO2 emissions released into the air has been measured over several decades, and the trend has increased exponentially, as has the effect (Greenland's glaciers slipping into the sea much more quickly). you can be in denial all you want, still won't change the fact. again...this isn't 1986. This is a very big concern to the scientific community, and some politicians who can think beyond today.

but I can see your confusion with scientific theory; I have the same confusion with the "terrorist" theory...it seems the "red scare" theory has evolved into something more personal, something I don't buy into at all.

My ol' man works up at Los Alamos, has Q clearance, and served 21 years in the Navy, including duty in Bahrain (first gulf "war"); stopped short of captain, because he got sick of the twisted politics in the service. He doesn't buy into this "terrorist scare" anymore than I do, and I guarantee you, he knows more about what's really going on than you do.
 
Polymer

I am an active duty field grade officer in the Marine Corps. I have seen a lot more, and a lot more recent, on SIPR and CENTRIX than either your father or you.

I have worked at I MEF and been to Iraq multiple times at this point. I think I am in a lot better position than someone outside looking in to know what is going on the world.

Doesn't the fact that only 2 of over 100 countries abide by something tell you it is unworkable?
 
so you're on the front line, and that's all fun and good...do you travel to the pentagon to be briefed? there's always the good possibility that what you're seeing is likely staged, like reality TV.

did 100 countries join the Kyoto agreement? I didn't realize there were that many developed nations on the planet. Many of those nations are still using bicycles, and don't have heavy traffic or refineries.


the one think my pops told me, was the same thing his father (POW- u.s. army, Okinawa. 1942) told him.. if you join the military, don't be brainwashed, so you can think clearly when you get out.
 
Hmm....

I'm noticing the topic kind of shifting to enviornmental concernts. Being an avid environmentalist, I totally agree that in the long run environmental concerns are EVERYONE'S problem, however seeing as people are still too clouded by conflict with each other to really see what's happening it's no surprise that our actions will come back to bite us in the rear. However, I am also inclined to say, that Americans tend to have the mentality of "we're seperate from the rest of the world" vs. "we're part of the world so let's do our best to help those around us". Of course not everyone thinks that way, but a good portion of people I've met do, and I guess just out of correlation many of those people have never even left the country for a significant amount of time to really see the difference of other cultures.


Epyon
 
if you join the military, don't be brainwashed, so you can think clearly when you get out.
Click to expand...

Wow, I wish to GOD I could have known to tell my friends that before they shipped. Since leaving, nobody I've known that's joined (save maybe one) has seemed 'normal'. And I don't mean that 'more mature, grown up' kind of normal, I mean 'blank stare' and disregard for caring about most anything kind of normal. It's as if the people I once knew aren't there anymore.
 
State of the Union Address 2003

"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own."
Click to expand...

We know that all this intelligence was false. The yellow cake stuff was not true. Plus our folks who dealt with the technical side of rockets had already said those tubes were not for rockets. Saddam wasnt about to give Al Qaeda anything because they would have used it against him also.

Chemical and nerve agents only constituted a limited threat. Look at the Tokyo subway attacks. casualties were minimumal. We have had items with anthrax sent through the mail with minimal casualties. So the overiding reason for going to war was nuclear weapons.

So why did we go to war with Iraq? The two biggest threats for nuclear weapons are now Pakistan and Iran. If Fundmentalist muslims take over Pakistan they will have the technology at hand. In fact the folks that are responsible for that technology in Pakistan have been working with fundamentalists

The Republican Party platform of 2000 already said that Saddam would be removed. So what has happened is that a travesty has occured. The Bush administration had blinders on when it came to Iraq and Saddam Hussien. They only saw him and went looking for reasons to attack.

The results of this are that nuclear weapons will be in the hands of muslim fundamentalists. The Bush administration rolled the dice and crapped out in Iraq. Now the threat of nuclear weapons falling in the hands of muslim fundamentalists is even greater. Now all Bush can do is talk about the threat of Iran and make empty gestures.

Are we safer because we invaded Iraq?
 
"Those who infringe upon the Constitution are THE GREATEST OF EVILS. When it comes to the integrity of this country. So there you have it, and that's why I never vote for either party, they can shove it for all I care, I'd rather still vote for the guy that won't win but has awesome ideas on how to help this nation".

Epyon,that is an awesome statement.Thats why I too no longer follow a regular voting preference.Change is good.
 
Don't worry, any problems in foreign policy that arise will be the media's fault for not having resolve and wanting us to fail.

When I was riding in a car and started yelling that the driver was heading toward a cliff, that means I wanted him to fail also. ;)
 
good point, Epyon.

we gladly open free trade with "rogue nations" and even communist China, but close our borders over perceived threats; it's the sort of ironic twist of greed.
 
To Eghad...

Yes, we have dug ourselves into a deeper hole, but hasn't anyone noticed that after forcing Pakistan to be a reluctant ally, we're now in a strategic position to attack Iran and Pakistan from both Iraq AND Afghanistan, don't forget Israel will be more than willing to help. Okay tin-foil hat theory coming up but it as to be said, what if this is all going to plan as our government wants it? As in they want the excuse to attack Iran and Pakistan, and driving the Taliban into Pakistan was part of the equation. The officals in office further perpetuated this BS "war on terror" by not CLEARLY thinking of what our long term goal will be, or if they did their goal is conquest militarily in central Asia for the short term, in order for corporations to run them in the long term. Okay tin-foil hat rant over.

To gdm and polymer, thank you.:) :) :)


Epyon

P.S: I may come up with outrageous theories, but at least I have the willingness to question to motives of people in power and do my best to stay aware of what's happening around me, call me paranoid, but freedom always requires vigilance.
 
ceetee,

You should believe whatever you want to believe, YOUR world will be a happier place that way. But you should DO your own research as I do, find the FACTS as I do (w/o depending on the bias media), and make up your own mind - as I do.

Here is a hint - start with the Iraqi war resolution our Congress signed - it lists all the reason we went to war with Iraq, WMD being just one of them. IF you do read that - THE reasons we went to war - you will find that ALL of them were true, or if not all, then most, and at the least at that time there were very real and good reasons to believe they were ALL true. It is no more Bush's fault IF the intelligence was faulty then it was Clinton's fault (except he led the cutting/walling of our intel services) - or Sandy Berger's or Kerry's or Hillary's or Richard Clarke's etc. - who ALL thought the same things (despite what they say now for political reasons).

Now Nigerian yellowcake MAY be one example of mis-leading the public, since apparently Bush chose to believe British intelligence and the CIA over Ambassador Wilson (if he even knew HIS report existed).

But here's some more stuff..

9/11 commission:
"What's really interesting about the conversation Berger had with Clarke on pg. 128, is the fact that Berger believed there was an Iraq - al Qaeda WMD connection."

"Indeed, the Report does note on pg. 128 that both Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke--both the center of speculation as to who it may have been who refused to pass the Able Danger information on to the FBI--both once believed that Iraq and al Qaeda were working together in developing WMD and facilitating Sudanese production of chemical weapons"

re: Ambassador Wilson:
"Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions."

"The agency {CIA} pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA)."
 
Of course not

It's to keep the sheeple scared, in order to take away our rights, in order to aggrandize their (the government & politicians') power. It's all about a contrived tactic to take power from the people and put more of it into the gov'ts hands, and to get themselves and their buddies re-elected to bask and revel in that newly-aggrandized power. It gives our president, who is probably one of the top five worst of all time, something to hang his hat on so that he's not run out of town on a rail like nixon was.
 
Epyon,

Good post up above - agree with many things, obviously not all though! :). i will expand if I get the chance!
Generally though, many things the liberals want, they say they don't want the gov't to be involved in, yet they demand the gov't supply - THAT is giving the gov't more control - whether abortion funding, healthcare, free condoms, assisted housing, a better FEMA, higher taxes, better AIDS research, funded Stem Cell research, Gun control, etc. etc. 1st - the "gov't" doesn't pay for it - WE do - you and me and everyone else who pays taxes, we pay for it all...and the GOVERNMENT WILL CONTROL IT, and so CONTROL US. NOT good.


To other points in the thread...We - as in 'we, the people' are basically getting royally screwed - by just about all our leaders. There is such a constant stream of BS being put out simply FOR POLITICAL/POWER GAIN reasons, or to protect one's legacy - that it is getting impossible to know what/who to believe anymore. What a shame. :(
 
The first and third time I went there I was on the proverbial front lines. The second I was on the staff doing operational plans, meaning I had access and a need to know for the intel.

It's ironic you talk of brainwashing, as spew the party line of the watermelon environmental wackos. News flash for you 141 nations signed the protocol, if by your logic only 2 have been in compliance than I would call that a failure.
 
shield20...

To other points in the thread...We - as in 'we, the people' are basically getting royally screwed - by just about all our leaders. There is such a constant stream of BS being put out simply FOR POLITICAL/POWER GAIN reasons, or to protect one's legacy - that it is getting impossible to know what/who to believe anymore. What a shame.
Click to expand...

Very scary indeed, not to assume anything, but might I guess you're a conservative in the Republican party? I do agree that left wingers who want "government to take care of them" need a reality check. I will say I agree with stem cell research, and I am a firm believer in cleaning up the environment because it really is the only planet we have and that those who just feel like they can wontonly destroy it are just making things worse for future generations, however I don't expect my government to give me free condoms, gun control BS, and censored speech etc. I'm more inclined to say though that as for healthcare, since I'm a med student currently taking a class in mangaing America's healthcare system, I'd have to say other countries have a better system in keeping costs down and still having a healthy population, but there's just a multitude of factors in today's healthcare system in America. I am a firm believer of keeping government out of my personal life, what business is it of theirs what I do as long as I am not harming anyone or breaking laws and committing serious crimes?


Epyon
 
but hasn't anyone noticed that after forcing Pakistan to be a reluctant ally, we're now in a strategic position to attack Iran and Pakistan from both Iraq AND Afghanistan
Click to expand...

How is this a good thing?
 
shield20...

I suggest you follow your own advice, and do some research. That document you tout so highly? The "Iraqi war resolution our Congress signed"? It did NOT authorize our President to attack Iraq because of WMDs, or to free impoverished Iraqis. It was very strictly limited in scope, and it's language is clear. It authorized the President to:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Click to expand...

Of course, first he was supposed to:

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Click to expand...

And, then, he was also supposed to:

prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

Here is the actual Resolution, ver batim.

It's painfully clear to any that care that the "intel" that the administration used to justify our attack was cooked. Only those reports that fed the war effort were shown. Any contrary reports were buried.

I agree with your opinion that the politicos care only to stay in power, and that "we the people" ARE getting screwed. I can't understand, though, why you keep defending them.
 
There are the 20 or so "whereas"s. Now I am no diplomat, but I think these "whereas"s are clearly stated to be the REASONS "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" since they come right after that part, as in

"JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response..."


So you don't think this part...

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "

meant a war? What was "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" - a request for a date?

Section 2 you quoted SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT in his continuing efforts to meet the 2 points you picked out, it also encouraged him. As in "The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to...


You do have me though IF he did not report within 48 hours, but I think this covered it...

Wednesday, March 19, 2003
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a letter to Congress, President Bush on Wednesday offered the administration's formal justification for war with Iraq, declaring that diplomacy had failed to resolve the crisis and tying military action to the battle against terrorism.

The letter, to the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore, comes on the same day that a U.S.-imposed deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq expires at 8 p.m. ET. If Saddam does not leave, Bush has vowed to invade Iraq at a time of the United States' choosing.

...

In the letter, Bush said that further diplomatic efforts would not "adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Bush sent the letter as part of one of the conditions set forth by a resolution passed by Congress in October when it authorized the use of force, if necessary, against Iraq. "


It IS painfully clear that people will be very selective in trying to find things that support the things they want supported, and ignore facts that don't. But what I see is that the intelligence supports ALL the reasons - and were fairly consistently backed over and over again - usually from various sources - which is obviously NOT the same as being cooked.



EDIT: and just so you know - like in those posts above, these quotes also are not my own invention either. Though "shield20" is a much better clandestine name then say "deepthroat", all the quotes in posts are from sources on the web, and are not mine, though the conclusions I draw are.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top