| Author |
Message |
ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 01, 2003 - 2:19 am: | |
well amir, i guess we will just have to disagree. i have seen and spoken to enough of the places and people to make my own judgement, independent of the media. and what i have seen does not jive with what i hear on cnn.
i maintain that the situation is not nearly as dire as you describe, but i guess history will be the only thing that will convince you. |
Amir (Amir)
Junior Member
Username: Amir
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 11:14 am: | |
Ross,
my yardstick is based on American lives, American security, and the perception of America by the world, as well as the American economy's growth prospects.
American lives: increasing, pointless, avoidable toll.
American security: not better but worse, and no, the fact that we have not had another Sept. 11 is not proof that it's better.
Perception of America by the world: open your eyes.
American economic prospects: debatable, but it's widely accepted that they weren't helped by Bush's tax cuts for his rich friends.
Maybe the dissenters in Iraq have a voice now, although last I heard they were being rounded up by the American military. Your personal experience of speaking to a few really has no relevance. Do you speak Arabic or were they English-speaking educated elite? How representative were they of ordinary Iraqis?
Don't care if it's Dubya or any other idiot who, through faulty logic, leads us down the garden path. So no, it's not about hating Bush. It's about hating foolish idiots.
|
ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 1351
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 10:49 am: | |
amir, since i didn't want to bother typing the whole thing again, here is a repeat of my response to you from another thread where you made the same statement:
amir, all i can say is that i have spoken with iraqis since the end of hostilities. they do have some issues (some very legitimate) with the usa's handling of things in the war and thereafter. but on balance they are are overjoyed that we took saddam out and are very optimistic about their future.
i never said that we liberated iraq for the iraqis. that is indeed a fortunate side benefit for them, but that is not why we did it. we did it to protect ourselves from future problems with a totalitarian despot sitting on huge oil reserves (which he could use to destablize our economy) and who financed many terrorist acts against us and our allies (he paid every 'martyr's' family in palestine $25k after he blew himself up, for example).
the net result by any measure you want to take, is positive.
if you are a humanitarian then fewer people are dying now than before.
if you are a liberal then a despot is gone (you can't be a liberal and accept totalitarianism).
if you are democrat then at least a republican president has doen the dirty work so that the next democratic president won't need to.
etcetc
lets face it, the only people who do not like the outcome of this issue, are people who simply do not like george w bush, or conservative thinking of the moment.
you call me a hypocrite? hardly, i believe everything i say, and say everything i believe. if clinton were the one in office today doing this, i would support the effort because it makes sense. |
Amir (Amir)
Junior Member
Username: Amir
Post Number: 134
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 10:42 am: | |
Lovely picture you paint ross, except it's not true.
The Iraqis are not better off today. Their lot has not and will not change. I can guarantee you that. And they will never risk looking like simpering fools to shake America's hand and vow allegiance with a country that has invaded them, no matter how many puppets we prop up and claim they were "democratically elected." It's a huge mess of our own making, and the positive side-effects you refer to simply don't exist.
The premise was false.
The action was wrong.
The consequences will be bad. |
ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 1348
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 10:25 am: | |
art,
you are saying they intentionally lied.
i am saying that this is as of yet unproven.
i am also saying that if the information they (and everybody else for the last 15 years), were basing their decision on is proven to be incorrect upon close inspection on the ground, then it was an unintentional mistake.
the consequences of that mistake are that we spent a lot of money and lives ridding ourselves and the rest of the world of a totalitarian dictator who had harmful intentions towards the west which would have been excercised at some point in the future.
as a side benefit, the iraqi people were unchained and we might end up with a decent ally and foothold for democracy in the middle east, which should help things go our way down the road.
so net/net, whether it was done based on misinformation or genuine belief in intelligence data, the outcome is still a positive.
you could argue that the timing and the atmosphere and diplomatic efforts could have been better, but you can't always get everything....
and witch hunts aren't the way to go either. |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2656
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 8:54 am: | |
Ross:
No one likes to be lied to. No one likes to pay money, have people die, based upon lies. Whether Bush, et al's statements were mistakes or lies is indeed very important. I would suggest to you, that if the actual facts were known prior to the passage of the United States Congressional authorization to use force, that piece of legislation probably would not have passed, the public approval ratings for such a war would not have been so high, in short, had we known the truth, we wouldn't have done this.
In law, this is called either deceit, fraud, or negligent misrepresentation. In law, it is grounds for recision, damages, punitive damages, and in some instances jail time.
This isn't an issue of hate mongering, its an issue of you screwed up, we are out money, people's lives, and who's going to pay for this. That is simple responsible government. It's accounted being responsible for your own behavior, and I am absolutely astounded that a firm conservative belief would be waived just because its one of your own.
Art |
ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 3:01 am: | |
you guys are falling into one of the ruts that i allude to. you are equating the belief of bush and blair in their intelligence reports, as a mistake to take out saddam altogether.
yes they may have received information that has turned out to not be completely true. but they, along with every other country and their predecessors in office, believed this information to be true - so they are being condemned for acting on that information?
but what really amazes me about this tack, is that the next steps in your argument are that because of this mistake, it is claimed that saddam should have been left alone, the iraqi people are worse off now than they were before, and our leaders should be pilloried for taking action against potential threats to our society when that is one of their primary job descriptions.
no rational person can actually see the situation in this way, unless there is some ulterior motivation. the indignant response of having been lied to (still questionable), does not mean that we should stop doing what is right by the world and stop doing right by the iraqi people now that saddam has been removed, and nor should we be apologetic about that. |
Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member
Username: Gordo
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 4:49 pm: | |
Its funny to hear Blair now, he's now not claiming WMD, its EPWMD "Evidence of Programs of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Whats next, rumours of stray thoughts of weapons of perhaps painful nature?
I just sincerely hope the wider public doesnt forget when the so and so comes up for re-election, but odds are they will, sadly. |
Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member
Username: Hugh
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 2:32 pm: | |
Gordo: I apologize. I see now that what I wrote was muddled. I'm unsure of what Blair approval rating is. The 75% figure was qouted by NPR (national public radio -- aking to your bbc) as being the fraction of the public, in the UK, who now feel action in Iraq, based on the recent disclosoure of decit, was unjustified and they now feel UK participation was outright wrong.
You're also right about Blairs, by memory of who stark social critique can be in the UK, he's dug himself a very deep hole.
PS: Dean, you're 100%. 9/12 relatives of the bin laden family were flown from their Hampton home (if memory serves) with presidential approval. |
Dean (Deanger)
Junior Member
Username: Deanger
Post Number: 69
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
Sean -- More... Did you read the link you gave me, or just the headlines. I suggest you read the Vanity Fair artcile your link uses as a source. It details these events, makes it clear that within the first 10 days after 9/11, hundreds more Saudis, including "members of Bin Laden's" family... fled the US, with some leaving before other planes were allowed to fly (prior to 9/13). It is a matter of fact that on 9/18 a 727 flew at least five members of the bin Laden family out of Boston. Now, I am not saying these people were connected to the terrorists, but the US did have open investigations into several members of the family to see if any were helping Osama prior to 9/11 already... Moreover, the FBI have since gone on record to say that while they "okayed" the flights, they did not have time to check out everyone who was on them. They were told "from above" to let the people go no questions asked. My point is, the record is all there, we let a lot of people go who might know something. Why do you think they redacted 23 pages of the 9/11 report?
Moreover, this is the administration which authored the patriot act and has questioned hundreds of members of the Arab-American community subsequently with little or no cause. So please, don't try to pretend that the allowing of influential people, some of whom would normally be considered potentially excellent sources of info, wasn't a mistake. It was. That's why the administration worked hard to downplay it ever happened...etc.
I would go on and on, but instead if you would like to know more, there is plenty of reading material out there. Hope you enjoy it, though it is very depressing to read about... |
Dean (Deanger)
Junior Member
Username: Deanger
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 1:57 pm: | |
Sean,
What did I write that wasn't true? They allowed over 120 people to fly out of the country. These were people who had ties to the Royal Family and the Bin Ladens. The FBI did OK it after tremendous pressure to so do from the excutive branch, the origins of which are not-known.
I humble suggest you do a little research. What pray-tell was so pressing that these people were allowed to leave when no one else was?
|
Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member
Username: Gordo
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 1:49 pm: | |
Hugh,
I am not sure if its as high as 75% over here certainly rising but even members of his old party (admittedly those more to the left) were unconvinced until the released intelligence document citing WMD in 45 minutes. The really interesting bit now is where Blair will go...
He prides himself on being pro-europe and yet wants to be the best friend of the USA. Piggy in the middle I'd say. Meanwhile he has a electorate coming to the conclusion that they were duped.
He is a stupid man who has dug himself a large hole. |
Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member
Username: Hugh
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 1:02 pm: | |
Ross: you come off like a sensible man. Why not use Blair's situation , in the UK (where you're from I presume), to infer what the US will realize in due time. The investigation surrounding the evidence Blair used to get the ok to engage into the US/Iraqi conflict has been found baseless, and his popularity rating is at an all time low and the last I heard nearly 75% of the UK now disagrees that the UK should have been involved in the Iragi conflict. Perhaps the UK are a more objective group of people, but I see their objectivity as foreshadowing of public mood when people stop hoping that they weren't decieved.
|
ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
dean, you make a good point regarding the wmd. i guess i am not willing to fault these guys for using and banking on similar evidence that the previous administrations, and other countries, had always agreed upon, now that it turns out it may not be completely right.
are you referring to my #4 that we are not chasing alqueda in pakistan, or that we are attracting islamic extemists to iraq?
i am not up on the flight out of the binladens - although i know quite a number of them still reside in the usa and uk.
i don't agree that we can lay all of the red ink at bush's door. the economy was a little shaky when he came, 9/11 catalyzed a recession, he has tried to stimulate things with the tax break. where things have gone a little awry is perhaps with the second tax cut, and the unexpected extra amounts to pay for iraqi reconstruction. its bad but not insurmountable if things start clicking in over the next 1-2 years.
this is not my favorite way of arguing, but i will throw in that the credible democratic candidates for the president would be unlikely to do anything dramatic in the immediate period either, but then as always would be quick to take credit for the eventual upturn when it came about...
gordo, as far as wound healing, i think it is already happening. eg germany, and russia are already back to meeting bush in person and discussing. chirac needs to give a little as well though, and he has started down that road. i imagine that powell and straw will get them around before year end. i do agree that once that happens it will make things seem a little easier anyway. |
Sean F (Agracer)
Member
Username: Agracer
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 11:46 am: | |
"This is the adminstration that allowed over 120 Saudi Nationals with direct connections to the Royal Family, and the Bin Laden's, to fly out of close airspace from the US on SEPTEMBER 12, 2001. That flight of evidence was a staggering 'failure' for this country."
It's amazing what poeple will believe simply because it fits with their adgenda. Do a little research.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm |
Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member
Username: Gordo
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:44 am: | |
Ross,
I guess we will never know for sure. Maybe I am just cynical but I believe WMD was the Trojan Horse to:
Go finish what was unfinished in '91 namely whacking SH
Secure the oil fields
Install a democratic/pro US/pro GB government going forward.
At the end of the day I think they banked on the fact they would find SOMETHING suitable to hold up as WMD. The fact that they can't but are still at this late stage hunting convinces me even more.
Somehow the US government has to find a way to heal the wounds with the richer UN countries IE France and Germany, but this will take considerable time. Once that can happen there will be much greater assistance and the burden on the US should be eased. Chirac is just trying to make it hurt but it can't last. |
Dean (Deanger)
Junior Member
Username: Deanger
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:43 am: | |
Ross,
Please explain Sec. Powell's address to the UN, then, when he cited credible current CIA documents and photographs, all of which turned out to be either false, or at least five years old. I understand what you are trying to say, however you have to understand -- what you are arguing is the fact that they haven't planted WMD is proof they didn't lie previously. I'm afraid that is not compelling. For example, if they 'find' WMD tomorrow -- will that prove they were lying all along or will you then say they were right all along.
Perhaps they haven't planted WMD because the risks of doing so outweigh the benefits. Moreover, they have done a good job of slowly over the course of time reducing expectations anyway... They don't need to find WMD anymore in their minds.
Moreover... I have yet to hear of a single person within the intellegence community that agrees with your #4.
BTW -- I am not a Liberal. I believe that this adminstration is ultimately going to cripple conservatives for the next 20 yrs by giving the Republican party a bad name.
This is the adminstration that allowed over 120 Saudi Nationals with direct connections to the Royal Family, and the Bin Laden's, to fly out of close airspace from the US on SEPTEMBER 12, 2001. That flight of evidence was a staggering 'failure' for this country.
Moreover, here in CA we are about to recall a Governor because a bedget surplus turned into red ink. What do you think is going to happen next fall when the American People are faced with the fact that this adminstration turned a record national surplus into record national red-ink?
There is a reason people like John McCain have distanced themselves from this group of oil people... |
ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 9:09 am: | |
but gordo, you are saying that you have been lied to. it does appear that way, but as i said below, if our leaders were lying to us with 100pct malicious intention, then why would they not be as malicious again and plant wmd evidence to get that monkey off their backs? they didn't plant anything, hence i have to believe they were not trying to trick us the first time, they must have genuinely believed the information they were given and passed on to us. that is altogether a different scenario, and one that means we shoudl give them the benfit of the doubt when it comes to reconstruction. |
Gordo A. (Gordo)
Junior Member
Username: Gordo
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 8:58 am: | |
This issue is a contentious one, I do think it is however a bit unfair to categorise anyone not in favour of the events leading up to the war or the war itself as hate mongers spouting shortsighted truths for policial gain.
I live in the UK, I of course supported the war in 1991, its a shame the job wasnt finished properly. Going in this time without an agreed mandate was a riskly ploy, had we gone in and found the evidence that was used as justification the arguments wouldnt be raging on now. I resent being lied to, damn it these are elected these people (in the US and here) that represent us. With respect I couldnt care less about the upcoming election other than to hope for the sake of us all GWB is out. Then hopefully the same fate for 'President Blair' over here.
Like you I am not trying to inflame, but purely point out that like every situation there are two sides to the coin, and I expect others like myself are not looking for political gain...
|
ross koller (Ross)
Intermediate Member
Username: Ross
Post Number: 1339
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 29, 2003 - 8:12 am: | |
a few things have started to become repetitive in the views of liberals regarding our president and the situation in iraq:
the liberal contentions:
1. bush and his cabinet were wrong to contemplate a war with iraq.
2. bush and his cabinet lie all the time, and specifically about wmd in iraq.
3. bush and his cabinet should not push for the money to rebuild iraq and thereby create an ally, but instead should concentrate on stimulating the economy at home.
4. bush and his cabinet should be concentrating on chasing/killing alqueda terrorists instead of doing anything in iraq.
whereas the fact is that:
1. it has come out that clinton/albright were contemplating taking out saddam a number of times, but backed out for various reasons (we won't get into too much speculation here).
2. if bush lied about the wmd situation, then such an unscrupulous (and apparently all-powerful)person should then plant some evidence in iraq so that wmd could be 'found' to vindicate himself. he has not done so, even though this little bit of chicanery would be saving him untolled political grief at the moment. so is he really such an unscrupulous liar or did he act on information that he believed to be true, but has not yet (and may never be) proven?
3. the money earmarked for rebuilding iraq (about $20 bil), has a heavy weighting on the use of american material and engineering. there are obviously local labor charges which will be incurred, but the majority of the money will actually end up back in the coffers of american companies. these companies will in turn post better results, possibly hire more people, and add to the country's gdp and tax revenue. so in fact, an iraqi stimulus package helps the economy in the long run. add to that the fact that by creating a better iraq, they will more likely remain our ally (they don't get on too well with any of their neighbors lest we forget), and they will show the rest of the muslim world how well they were treated by americans and thereby lessen our bad rep in that part of the world. and they will continue to be customers for american products and help us thwart syria and iran. this is not some new neo-con thought - this is the same thinking as the marshall plan, which was hatched under a democratic government, and recognized by all, as the way to leave a conquered enemy to ensure long term benefit for the victor.
4. the mere presence of american troops in iraq, has had the effect of drawing in every islamic fundamentalist with enough bus money to get to baghdad. who better for them to prey on, and then get killed/captured by, than the american military who exist and are trained for this type of job - and better on foreign soil than in our streets at home. look up the body count before you rage all over that one.
and furthermore, we have not left afghanistan militarily, and still have large numbers of troops and special ops there and in pakistan, who are chasing down al queda. and they make advances and captures every week. admittedly they haven't caught the big guy yet, but the game isn't over yet either.
much of the war against terrorism remains off the radar scope because if all info were divulged to the masses, hysteria could ensue. just this weekend, the head of MI5 said that their office had thwarted about 180 terrorist attempts in england this year. the news only picked up a handful of those.
what i am getting at is that i hear these arguments by the hate mongers all the time, and yet the facts don't support them. do they persist in repeating these shortsighted untruths for simple political gain as we near an election year? why do so many people in america and our own media want us to fail in iraq?
this was not meant to inflame anybody; i was just trying to point something out and ask a general question, so please keep your responses civil. |
|