[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.
none
1663eesa at goose.robinson-west.com
Tue Dec 23 12:14:49 UTC 2003
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 01:42, Chuck Mize wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 00:53, none wrote:
> > > You're right the government should get back to national defense and
> > > interstate commerce and not starting wars all over the globe.
> >
> > I don't want to see the U.N. in charge of Iraq and we didn't start
> > a new war by going into Iraq, we went in to end embargoing the Iraqi
> > people and spending a billion+ a year patrolling Iraqi airspace.
>
> So why are we still there? Why are soldiers being killed almost every
> day? Why are Iraqis on Nightline saying life is so much worse under
> American rule that they wish Saddam was back? Because we blew off the
> U.N. and went in by ourselves we are going to have to work long and hard
> to regain any goodwill with the rest of the world community. It's a
> disaster any way you look at it.
Because Nightline has a strong opinion and the power to show
anything to the public. Remember when reporters became irate
during the impeachment trials to try and influence the outcome?
I thought Bush did well during a recent television interview
considering the interviewer did nothing but attack him.
> > > > No, so long as there are people like you who will allow evil people to
> > > > do as they wish because "We don't want to hurt anyones feelings". I'd
> > > > rather do the right thing for the right reason than the wrong thing for
> > > > the sake of political correctness.
> >
> > > What about when Reagan and Bush I sold chemical and biological weapons
> > > to Saddam and funded the Taliban in Afghanistan. Were those the right
> > > things for the right reasons?
> >
> > There was a concept of deterrence during the cold war. It seems like
> > it worked, though it's as wrong to say it did as it is to take the past
> > out of context solely to attack the present administration. Iran and
> > Russia, which was the USSR, evoked greater fears then Iraq or Pakistan
> > back then. The enemy of the enemy is our friend was very important
> > during the cold war. The longer a war goes, the more blurred right and
> > wrong becomes. I am proud of our military for the speed with which it
> > has operated in Iraq to get this war over even coming from a war in
> > Afghanistan. I believe we can come away from Iraq leaving that country
> > in better shape. It disappoints me how impatient some people are with
> > our nation during a war, these short military actions we've
> > gotten used to are not wars. Terrorists hope public opinion will
> > destroy any campaign against them after just a short time. At
> > least we evidently intercepted a lot of Al Quaeda drugs which
> > should bolster public support of the fight against terrorism.
> > Hearing Al Quaeda lost $9 million is good news. This has been on
> > television news shows and in the Oregonian.
>
> You're right in that these aren't wars. War was never declared on Iraq.
> >
> > I support what our military is doing. I do worry though that we must
> > work for justice in many ways which includes forgiving the debts of
> > some poor countries to achieve peace. With Iraq having a chance to
> > be free and prosperous, it's a shame France and Germany won't forgive
> > certain debts owed to them by Iraq.
>
> Why would they forgive debts just because we want them to? Would your
> Visa company forgive your balance if your mom called them up and told
> them that you were a little tight for cash right now?
For someone who's saying look what were doing to Iraq this last
statement is hypocritical. It's not productive
while helping Iraq rebuild for it to be under a debt burden
that will defeat that. Poor countries don't need to be indebted
to rich ones, especially when it comes to good foreign relations.
The resources of the planet belong to all of the poeple no matter
where they live. Hopefully in time the distribution of resources
can be improved, poor distribution of resources is one of the
common causes of war. The concern I have specifically is the
relationship between Taiwan and China where there a high likelihood
of a rich oil field and specifically two islands of contention.
> > > I remember the Twin Towers and I am sickened that those 3,000 deaths
> > > were used as a justification to take away personal freedoms, alienate
> > > the world community and make war for no other goal than monetary profit.
> > > I am also disgusted by people like you who throw it back in the face of
> > > anybody who speaks out against those atrocities.
> >
> > > > Russia, France and Germany seemed to see the oil for food program as a
> > > > way to make large sums of money for themselves. I wonder how much the
> > > > leaders and higher ups from those countries(and the U.N. for that
> > > > matter) made off of that "humanitarian" program.
> I can't believe you would even make that argument when all of Bush and
> Cheney's cronies are getting set up to make billions in profit on the
> "rebuilding" of Iraq.
For a person who thinks everything is about money, nothing else can
be true. Don't judge a book by it's cover. Not every profit is the
fruit of a motive to profit. Graciousness Jeme, which you could try
once in a while, can be a great source of profit.
> > Consider for a moment that no proof has been presented and you are
> > speculating. Besides, fixing the oil infrastructure is the right
> > thing to do right now because of Iraq's current economy.
> > Haliburton is willing to take the risk to get that infrastructure
> > repaired. Alex is right on here. I've talked to a deck officer
> > who has served on a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Gulf that agrees
> > France and Germany were making money off of Iraq.
>
> The proof was in the text of the bill that gave Bush his $87 billion
> dollars. It lays out very neatly what the money is earmarked for and the
> lion's share is already promised to Halliburton and their subsidiaries.
> That's nice that you talked to a deck officer who served on a carrier
> but I fail to see how that lends any authority to your statement. It's
> funny that you think fixing the oil infrastructure is the right thing to
> do because of Iraq's current economy. Who do you think is responsible
> for the state of their currency? Maybe the country who invaded them and
> is now trying to force democracy on a population that doesn't want it?
Do you know Iraqis don't want democracy, have you been on the streets
of Iraq asking? Didn't Saddham rob the central bank? If the U.S. is
in control of the value of currency around the world why is it that
the U.S. dollar sometimes dips below other currencies in value? Or
is the Japenese Yen never stronger than the dollar?
> > As far as the erosion of personal liberties argument, a little hardship
> > in time of war is to be expected. An attitude that their can be war
> > as long as it doesn't affect me when American soldiers will give their
> > lives for this country is just plain wrong. This president is facing
> > multiple difficult problems at once and acting as a leader, respect
> > that. We need to be with the troops at least in spirit. It's too
> > early for the level of talk about personal liberties being lost that
> > is going around, the president has talked about having powers he
> > hasn't used and likely won't.
> A little hardship? Law enforcement can now label you an "enemy
> combatant" and hold you as long as they want without allowing you to
> have a lawyer, a trial or any of the other rights guaranteed by the
> Constitution. The FBI can now tap your phone line for 72 hours without a
> warrant or approval from any court. Police can now search your home
> without notifying you. George Bush is not acting as a leader, he's
> acting as a fear-mongerer trying to scare the country into letting him
> and his right-wing cronies pass any laws they want while using the 3,000
> deaths from 9/11 as justification.
Nice try. That the rights of the Constitution are guranteed is a
belief based on what? You've bought what the media is saying, a
media incapable of looking at sacrifice as anything but a loss of
rights and personal pleasures. That there is a law your phone
can't be tapped, this doesn't mean somebody won't tap it. Courts
can't make Al-Quaeda stop hating the U.S. or any other nation for
that matter. Fear of the government, where is it coming from Jeme?
Why are you so afraid someone may be listening to your conversation?
Congress has pulled back some from the patriot act, hasn't it?
You're so worried about this act, what about the taping of a
confidential confession involving a Catholic priest that happened
in this state? The latter has me far more worried than this
patriot act. Congress and the President can write law, but
these bodies cannot interpret it, only the court can do that.
The purpose for the enemy combatant clause is to keep certain
trials out of the press because of the affect that can have
on critical, legitimate, intelligence gathering and other
ongoing operations. If you catch a terrorist, you don't
necessarily want to let the organization he is a part of
become aware they have been thwarted. It's not always good
for the world to know exactly what you know either, even
allies.
.
> > > > Uh, no. Most of the destruction in Iraq is because Saddam refused to
> > > > follow the mandates set forth by the U.N.
> >
> > > Oh really? Just because the weapons inspectors couldn't find any
> > > imaginary weapons of mass destruction?
> >
> > Saddham tried to buy missiles from North Korea. Unfortunately for him,
> > it looks like the North Koreans took the money and broke the contract.
> > His army was armed well enough with RPG's, etc., to cause far more harm
> > to coalition troops. How fortunate most Iraqi troops simply
> > surrendered. Maybe we stopped Saddham early. It's easier to fight
> > a man before he acquires weapons of mass destruction than is to
> > wait till such weapons are visible, then attack. It's safe to say he
> > would have had terrible weapons eventually and use them against Iran,
> > Israel, or even our troops. I'm not so sure Saddham wouldn't attack an
> > Arab country if he could get the chance. He did attack Iran and the
> > Kurds. There is some misconception that Saddham is guilty before
> > committing a crime. It's hard to believe with his psychological profile
> > added to the fact that he has already committed atrocities that he
> > won't, if he gets free, commit more atrocities.
>
> The problem is that Bush told the American people that Hussein *already*
> had weapons of mass destruction. The bottom line is that Saddam Hussein
> was not a threat to the United States and this "war" is nothing but a
> get-rich-quick scheme for the friends of the Bush family.
Would you rather the U.S. wait until a dictator/despot clearly has
such weapons to take military action? If someone is going that route,
it costs fewer troops and civilians to catch them sooner than later.
The cost of the war verses the benefits is what concerned the pope.
Despite the liberal Catholic Sentinel's view the pope did not
condemn war in Iraq. Looking at having to continue sanctions
had we not gone in in Iraq, the cost so far doesn't look so
bad. The pope commented that Saddham is a despot.
If you want to talk about broken judicial systems, how in Oregon did we
allow the archdiocese of Portland to be put through 90 settlements in
the sex abuse scandal with potentially 40 more to go? A good number of
these cases are frivolous. Many of the alleged crimes are over 30 years
old. The archbishop wants to minister to souls, instead he is
distracted from that by these endless lawsuits over things that
have allegedly occured before his watch.
> I bet you did a little happy dance when Clinton was impeached for lying
> to the American public. Let me ask you something--how many people died
> as a result of Clinton's lie? How many thousands more will die and how
> many more personal freedoms taken away before Bush is stopped?
How is Lewinsky who says Clinton truly loved her? Is what
he did to her nothing? How many children died while Clinton
chose not to invade Iraq and sanctions continued? Unlike
undisciplined reporters who tried to exhonerate Clinton
and scream profanities, I didn't dance. Are O.J., Kobe
Bryant, and Clinton in a special club together for
celebrities and political figures who can sexually
abuse women without tarnishing their image? It's high
time that club got broken up.
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list