kelpdiver 2 #126 October 11, 2006 Quote As I have heard enough bullshit tales about how bad things were in Iraq before we come in bombing. Iraq posed no threat to us or her neighbors. Iraq had no WMD. Iraq had running water and electricity. Since you refuse to elaborate, I have to assume it's because you realize that facts do not support your assertions. If I'm wrong, and you do have supporting facts please feel free to bring them forward for those of us who have maintained enough awareness to realize that the Bush administration has yet to offer up such evidence. Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds. No threat to the neighbors? Stop the bs. Would you want to live next to a trice convicted murderer? Germany was perfectly safe in the 20s. In the 30s it disregarded the terms of the 1918 Amistice. Then once rebuild, it renewed its war efforts. The UN proved to have a conflict of interest of its own in the Iraqi process. Iraq didn't even wait that long to blow off its surrender terms and if allowed to sell oil freely, would quickly have rearmed itself. With the same leader, there's no reason to presume it would behave any better this time around. And let's not forget the cash payments being made to families of suicide bombers in Israel. So let's stop with the fantasy that SH's Iraq was some peaceful nation, and not one totally at odds with US interests. One that Clinton bombed on a few occasions. And as I've said in the past, this isn't about fairness. It's about the little weiner dog nipping on the leg of a 150lb Rottweiller. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #127 October 11, 2006 >It's about the little weiner dog nipping on the leg of a 150lb Rottweiller. I have this fantasy that the US should have a smarter foreign policy than most rottweilers. But that's just me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #128 October 11, 2006 Quote Yes, that is exactly so. The Democratic leadership was just as interested in slapping down Hussein, but now that it's 4 years later and there's political capital to be earned, can pretend otherwise. Until Dean shook up the party in the primaries, they were in perfect step with the overlords in the WH. Everyone wanted him out of there. There's no argument on that. But the military leadership knew, as did the Clinton administration, as did Bush the elder, that it has to be done right or we're screwed. Bush came in, installed his civilian military leadership, ignored the advice of the regular military leadership and the plans that they had been working on for 10 years, ignored his secretary of state, ignored the wishes of the world community and ignored the wishes of Iraq's neighbors (except Israel of course) and barged in. Now we have what we thought were going to have if we did what we ended up doing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #129 October 11, 2006 Quote>It's about the little weiner dog nipping on the leg of a 150lb Rottweiller. I have this fantasy that the US should have a smarter foreign policy than most rottweilers. But that's just me. You must be living in a parallel universe.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #130 October 11, 2006 Quote>It's about the little weiner dog nipping on the leg of a 150lb Rottweiller. I have this fantasy that the US should have a smarter foreign policy than most rottweilers. But that's just me. Hey, my Rottie hasn't made half the bad decisions that this administration has. That's why I trust him more (see attached). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,584 #131 October 11, 2006 QuoteGermany was perfectly safe in the 20s. In the 30s it disregarded the terms of the 1918 Amistice. Then once rebuild, it renewed its war efforts.The restrictions imposed on Germany were ruinous, and contributed significantly to Hitler's ability to rouse the rabble. Maybe that's not a bad parallel at all. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #132 October 11, 2006 Quote>It's about the little weiner dog nipping on the leg of a 150lb Rottweiller. I have this fantasy that the US should have a smarter foreign policy than most rottweilers. But that's just me. well, the rottie wouldn't worry about putting the remains of the little dog back together. Once it decided to attack, it would be total. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #133 October 11, 2006 >well, the rottie wouldn't worry about putting the remains of the little dog back together. Don't know if you've noticed, but we're not doing too good in that arena either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #134 October 11, 2006 QuoteQuote As I have heard enough bullshit tales about how bad things were in Iraq before we come in bombing. Iraq posed no threat to us or her neighbors. Iraq had no WMD. Iraq had running water and electricity. Since you refuse to elaborate, I have to assume it's because you realize that facts do not support your assertions. If I'm wrong, and you do have supporting facts please feel free to bring them forward for those of us who have maintained enough awareness to realize that the Bush administration has yet to offer up such evidence. Iran, Kuwait, the Kurds. No threat to the neighbors? Stop the bs. Would you want to live next to a trice convicted murderer? Germany was perfectly safe in the 20s. In the 30s it disregarded the terms of the 1918 Amistice. Then once rebuild, it renewed its war efforts. The UN proved to have a conflict of interest of its own in the Iraqi process. Iraq didn't even wait that long to blow off its surrender terms and if allowed to sell oil freely, would quickly have rearmed itself. With the same leader, there's no reason to presume it would behave any better this time around. And let's not forget the cash payments being made to families of suicide bombers in Israel. So let's stop with the fantasy that SH's Iraq was some peaceful nation, and not one totally at odds with US interests. One that Clinton bombed on a few occasions. And as I've said in the past, this isn't about fairness. It's about the little weiner dog nipping on the leg of a 150lb Rottweiller. Iran, Kuwait and Kurds? That's your evidence? That's not evidence. That's not even rhetoric. Did you miss this: QuoteWe will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue. --Colin Powell, feb 24, 2001 That was the kind of stuff Powell was saying before his boss at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave had him lie to the UN.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #135 October 11, 2006 what does a conversation with an unspecified FM in 2001 say? Sanctions were working, but those weren't going to be in place forever. Nevermind the cheating that was already going on. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #136 October 11, 2006 Quote>well, the rottie wouldn't worry about putting the remains of the little dog back together. Don't know if you've noticed, but we're not doing too good in that arena either. But the attempt is being made, which you approve of. I'd have left over 2 years ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #137 October 11, 2006 QuoteIran, Kuwait, the Kurds. Damn! Glad I wasn't taking a drink of coffee when I saw that!!!! I'd be wiping up the mess. Let's see, now. The Iran/Iraq war was supported by the U.S., I spent several months in the Gulf back in the 80's while our ships aircraft flew night ops. They never told us what was going on but, one need not be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Plenty of documents state that the U.S. supplied info in regards to Iranian troop movements to the Iraqis. Also, the U.S. supplied the know how for Iraq to build its weapons program!! Kuwait - Bush 1 pretty much gave him the go ahead, stating that the U.S. would not intervene in Arab affairs!!!! He lied. The son is much like the father. Kurds - The U.S. turned a blind eye to that one and only use it now as a soapbox platform."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #138 October 11, 2006 >Kuwait - Bush 1 pretty much gave him the go ahead . . . Well, Glaspie gave him the go-ahead. Everyone agrees that that was a) a pretty dumb move and b) not what Bush 1 intended her to tell him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #139 October 12, 2006 Quote>Kuwait - Bush 1 pretty much gave him the go ahead . . . Well, Glaspie gave him the go-ahead. Everyone agrees that that was a) a pretty dumb move and b) not what Bush 1 intended her to tell him. Wasn't this a directive give from Baker? And, also, was not Iraq, more or less, justified in crossing into Kuwait given that Kuwait allied with Iraq to garner protection from Iran. Kuwait in turn stabbed Iraq in the back by not relieving a more than 14 billion dollar debt and then bagan slant drilling into Iraq oil reserves while at the same time increasing production and lowering price, all the while Kuwait was also building millitary outpost on Iraqi land. Kuwait was once a part of Iraq seperated via imperialism. Kuwait was waging an economic war in hope of putting Iraq further in debt. Iraq was having enough trouble exporting its oil as its ports were all but destroyed during the Iraq/Iran war. Saddam needed Kuwaits ports. He believed that he had the U.S. support by assertions from Glaspie, Baker and Dole. He believed, from a statement from Dole, that Bush would veto any sanction levied against Iraq. Bush desicion to go to war against Iraq afterwards had more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia than it did with protecting Kuwait. Had he prevailed in Kuwait, he most defintely would had gone full bore into Saudi Arabia and that was something that the U.S. would not allow therefore stopping him at Kuwait was a must. To Bush 1 's credit, he had the good sense to stop where he did and to contian Saddam instead of pushing in."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #140 October 12, 2006 Quotewhat does a conversation with an unspecified FM in 2001 say? Sanctions were working, but those weren't going to be in place forever. Nevermind the cheating that was already going on. The (then) Secretary of State speaking on the record says a lot. Do you really believe Colin Powell would have gone around lying to diplomats a month into W's administration? If that's what our best intelligence said at that point, and that's what turned out to be true, then I have to question the methodology of the contradictory intelligence that became available within the next two years proclaiming Iraq's ability to launch WMD with 45 minutes notice. This administration's rhetoric justifying the war in Iraq reminds me of the tobacco industry's rhetoric justifying their product. Neither one is an outright lie, but neither one is truthful, either.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #141 October 12, 2006 Impeachment is a politically motivated act. On paper it exists for getting rid of bad officials (not just Presidents, a number of Federal judges have been impeached and removed). But it comes down to having a Congress that has the political will to go over the heads of the people and the Electoral College and remove a duly elected President, if they think they can get away with it. Only two Presidents have ever been impeached - Nixon was NOT impeached, he resigned his office when it was clear he would be impeached. Andrew Johnson was impeached because Congress didn't like his conciliatory Reconstruction policies in the south after the Civil War and because he fired his Sec'y of War Edwin Stanton (a major asshole). Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about blowjobs. In both cases, a Republican Congress impeached a Democrat President. Both Presidents stood trial by the Senate and both were acquitted. In Nixon's case, a Democratic Congress would have done the impeaching and conducted the Senate trial. The point being that no President has ever been impeached by his own party when it controls the Congress. A Republican Congress is simply not going to impeach Bush. Forget the moral or legal arguments, it simply ain't gonna happen. And as much as I despise Bush, I'd just as soon not see him impeached, unless he really really fucks up and does something totally heinous, like cancel the 2008 elections or declare martial law or something like that (not ruling it out either...). But seriously, both times impeachment proceedings have been brought against a President, they have been clearly cynical and abusive manipulations of the process. I think it's brought impeachment into disrepute as a ploy to undermine the will of the electorate, rather than the safety valve it was intended to be. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #142 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuote>Kuwait - Bush 1 pretty much gave him the go ahead . . . Well, Glaspie gave him the go-ahead. Everyone agrees that that was a) a pretty dumb move and b) not what Bush 1 intended her to tell him. Wasn't this a directive give from Baker? And, also, was not Iraq, more or less, justified in crossing into Kuwait given that Kuwait allied with Iraq to garner protection from Iran. Kuwait in turn stabbed Iraq in the back by not relieving a more than 14 billion dollar debt and then bagan slant drilling into Iraq oil reserves while at the same time increasing production and lowering price, all the while Kuwait was also building millitary outpost on Iraqi land. Kuwait was once a part of Iraq seperated via imperialism. Kuwait was waging an economic war in hope of putting Iraq further in debt. Iraq was having enough trouble exporting its oil as its ports were all but destroyed during the Iraq/Iran war. Saddam needed Kuwaits ports. He believed that he had the U.S. support by assertions from Glaspie, Baker and Dole. He believed, from a statement from Dole, that Bush would veto any sanction levied against Iraq. Bush desicion to go to war against Iraq afterwards had more to do with protecting Saudi Arabia than it did with protecting Kuwait. Had he prevailed in Kuwait, he most defintely would had gone full bore into Saudi Arabia and that was something that the U.S. would not allow therefore stopping him at Kuwait was a must. To Bush 1 's credit, he had the good sense to stop where he did and to contian Saddam instead of pushing in. Recall that one of Bush II's first acts in office was an executive order to deny access to Reagan's and Bush I's records, contrary to enacted law. It may be a long time before we find out what actually happened.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #143 October 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteIran, Kuwait, the Kurds. Damn! Glad I wasn't taking a drink of coffee when I saw that!!!! I'd be wiping up the mess. Let's see, now. The Iran/Iraq war was supported by the U.S., I spent several months in the Gulf back in the 80's while our ships aircraft flew night ops. They never told us what was going on but, one need not be a rocket scientist to figure it out. Plenty of documents state that the U.S. supplied info in regards to Iranian troop movements to the Iraqis. Also, the U.S. supplied the know how for Iraq to build its weapons program!! Kuwait - Bush 1 pretty much gave him the go ahead, stating that the U.S. would not intervene in Arab affairs!!!! He lied. The son is much like the father. Kurds - The U.S. turned a blind eye to that one and only use it now as a soapbox platform. The question was is Iraq safe to its neighbors, rather than the other question of was Iraq acting in our (US) interests. Clearly the former answer is false, and the second appears so given we immediate sent forces to protect Saudi Arabia and then to retake Kuwait. But we're drifted back into the question of right and wrong, which is totally besides the point on the matter of impeaching a president for policies you don't agree with. BTW, I agree that the US was happy to see the Iran-Iraq war - it depresses oil prices nicely after the shock of the 70s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #144 October 13, 2006 Quote Recall that one of Bush II's first acts in office was an executive order to deny access to Reagan's and Bush I's records, contrary to enacted law. It may be a long time before we find out what actually happened. Yup... and Bergler destroyed a lot of Bubba's... so we'll NEVER find out what happened there...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #145 October 13, 2006 He's not impeached He's just impaired When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
