| Author | Message | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 855 Registered: 3-2002 |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/20/afghan.us/index.html | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 510 Registered: 8-2001 |
Ross, Since you have been there and I haven't you must have a more acurate depiction of the situation in this area on the border of Afgahnistan and Pakistan than the media has reported. That being said I still think 100,000 US troops scouring that area would yield bin Laden and his folks. Would it be easy, no, would there be casualties, yes, but it's hard for me to imagine that we couldn't pull it off. We have very advanced weaponry and the best trained troops on the world. The kill ration for Navy Seals is something like 1:200. I have no doubt they could get the job done along with heavy infantry of 100,000 troops. Saddam is about to find out how well our military works. Jon | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 849 Registered: 3-2002 |
jon, sorry, but you are wrong about the people of that area. yes, bin laden may have recruited from the local population but most of al queda members are from other countries, as you have said yourself. in general the pathans in the nwfp and neighboring afghanistan do not consider themselves even to be citizens of pakistan or afghanistan, let alone vassals of bin laden. they are a seperate tribe and they make their own rules and enforce them in their area. (i was part of a convoy on our way to landi kotl with a military escort and we were stopped by a swarm of men on horseback who wanted to collect their toll from the military - and they got it !) so, regular gi's would definetely have a hard time telling friend from foe because everyone would be hostile but not necessarily because they are al queda members, but simply because anybody from the outside in their territory is considered an intruder. and at least with the paki military along for the ride, they have a chance of not killing or getting killed for the wrong reasons. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 815 Registered: 5-2001 |
I have learned more from these threads then I could ever from CNN | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 508 Registered: 8-2001 |
Ross, I am aware of the obstacles you have noted. However the point about not wearing uniforms and being unidentifiiable as the enemy is a bit incorrect. Everyone in that area, which is quite large, is our enemy. As you well know the people in this region are the extreme/radical fundamentalists that bin Laden recruits. The people in this region love bin Laden and as far as I am concerned they are all the enemy. They don't need to be wearing uniforms. Read the article from ABC news from Monday. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/pakistan030312_binladen.html Yes it would be hard to find him but our military can do the job better than the Pakistani's many of whom have questionable loyalties to bin Laden. Jon | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 848 Registered: 3-2002 |
jon, ok, we can agree to disagree. regarding pakistan: i think you may be underestimating a couple of things. first off the terrain and whats in it. there is virtually no manmade anything there, its like a moonscape (was there in '86). makes it pretty hard to go in guns blazing since there is no infrastructure to disrupt and the enemy is hiding in caves etc. secondly, identifying your enemy once you get there is difficult. they don't wear uniforms and are obviously intent on not getting caught, so this process takes time and individual effort. what could be done by the big guns has already been done. thirdly and probably most significant, we are already there and the pakistani military is with us (but i would say we are much more effective than they are and their presence is more to help us with the local geography and tribes). different place, different situation, different optimum methods of dealing with it. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 506 Registered: 8-2001 |
Ross, I guess we agree to disagree who presents a clear and imenent danger to US and who we should go after. As you pointed out there are situations where diplomacy must be chucked out the window and force applied. You favor Iraq which you feel is a credible threat. I favor going into the disputed border region of Pakistan/Afghanistan where hundreds of terroritsts, along with their leader, reside. Musharif, in my view is allowing bin Laden and his terror network to reside inside his borders and is unwilling to send his military in to get them. In my view Bush should have issued Musharif an ultimatum. Either your military goes into that region and get him or WE DO! The difference is that I think we should attack and destroy those who have already attacked us and the countries that harbor them while you are more concerned with those who have yet to attack us but in all likelyhood may in the future do so. Jon | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 846 Registered: 3-2002 |
jon, i was not trying to make any link between iraq and al queda, i just happend to mention them both in the same sentence in another thread. i don't know if there is a connection any more than you do; i also don't really think its that important - iraq has the potential for supporting and abetting terror against US interests whether or not he colludes with al queda. regarding your opinions of syria, pakistan, saudi, iran etc. can't say that i disagree with you that much. there are obviously all sorts of mitigating circumstances that differentiate the way the state dept thinks about them, and therefore there are different solutions for dealing with each one - all out preemptive attack may not be the best option for them. but you have to start somewhere. so why not start with iraq and build from there. the situation in post saddam iraq could change the dynamic of the whole middle east, positively ! i think it will definetely change the way things go in syria and iran, because their contributions to the world of terror have been more from the state than individuals. whereas in saudi its a little more difficult given that the terror sponsorship is much more from individuals. pakistan is another issue that can probably be solved much better by co-opting them than by direct confrontation, as we are now. only time will tell as you say, but again i would rather be pro-active and deal with the consequences of that action, than to wait for the next shoe (plane) to drop. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 505 Registered: 8-2001 |
Your right Ross, I still don't get your argument. Let�s for a moment drop my opposition to pre-emptive strikes and look at the big picture. then under the un charter you had the right to defend yourself. I don't care one iota about the UN charter. Our right to defend ourselves doesn't come from the UN charter. It comes from the basic principles of the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States, and the moral and legal rights of self-defense that everyone is entitled to. The UN and NATO have both proved my point that they are of no use to the United States whatsoever and completely irrelevant to world affairs. One is run by a bunch of third world leaders/despots from banana republics, the other by a bunch folks who expect the US to clean up their messes every time a World War breaks out. You're argument about striking first holds no water in attacking Iraq. There are much bigger threats to the US that deserve more attention than Iraq. Iraq has never threatened the United States. They attacked Kuwait in 1991 not the US. Saddam may have weapons of mass destruction but so do lot of other countries. I believe he has them but so what!! Iran likely is developing them; North Korea, Syria, India, Pakistan, China, Russia and a bunch of former Soviet nations too small to mention have them. Having weapons of mass destruction doesn't automatically mean you are going to use them or that you are going to use them on the US. Let's look at the facts. You say 9/11 changed everything and that we now must pre-empt. Other than one Al Queda operative in Iraq for medical treatment in 2002 and a meeting between a bin Laden aide and an Iraqi official in the Czech Republic a year earlier there isn't much to go on in connecting Iraq and bin Laden. Why the hell are we not going after Saudi Arabia? Nearly all the attackers came from that country and we know that some in the Saudi government supported (financially) the effort to attack us. Forget all the fluff and denials by the Saudis and the Bush administration that this isn't true. I have friends fairly high up in the Department of State who have sat in on meetings about the Saudis. Next let's talk Pakistan. We know where all the important bin Laden folks are hiding, including bin Laden himself. You state that we should make Iraq a priority because one bin Laden associate was in Iraq for two days but somehow ignore the fact that nearly 500-1000 bin Laden terrorists are reported to be at the border of Pakistan and that bin Laden might be there as well. Seem to me that we have a clear and iminent danger from Pakistan for harboring terrorists more so than Iraq. Pakistan is being run by a non-democratically elected military dictator who is currently harboring 1000 terrorists AND YOU WANT TO ATTACK IRAQ. I want to attack Pakistan. Before you claim that Musharif is helping us that is a bunch of baloney. He is helping himself stay in power and so are we. He hasn't allowed us to run the operations in Pakistan, only to assist with intelligence. He is hesitant to go into the ungoverned and disputed territories on the afghan border for fear his people will topple him. AND we are allowing him to stay in power while he harbors terrorists. Plain and simple. Next up, how 'bout Iran. We have conclusive proof that literally thousands of Al Queda operatives trained in Iranian terror camps. We have satellite images of both Bin Laden and his terrorists in Iran as well as confessions from folks at Guantanimo Bay. So look at the facts. Saudi Arabia is the origin of all the attackers and members of the ruling family in SA directly supported them financially. Pakistan is currently harboring hundreds of Al Queda terrorists and most likely bin Laden as well since we know he met with others AL Queda operatives there in December. Iran has trained hundreds of Al Queda operatives and bin Laden's son was recently caught calling his dad from Tehran with a cell phone. What other proof do you need that these three countries ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 and warrant and attack a hell of lot more than Iraq? You can make the argument that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (which I believe they do), you can argue that Saddam is a cruel dictator who treats his people horribly, you can argue that he might sell some of his weapons to terrorists an so on. BUT you can't argue that he is MORE responsible for 9/11 than SA, Pakistan, or Iran. The 9/11 link with Saddam is going out on a limb. Hell we helped train the attackers. We trained them to fly planes in the US, we gave two of them financial aid to attend US Universities, and we gave them legal status to reside in our country. There are plenty of other nations that DESERVE to be attacked and that I personally would have no problem going after. Iraq is low on my list. I believe we have every right to attack any nation that harbors Al Queda terrorists or had a direct link to 9/11. The three countries I have listed fit the bill, Iraq does not. And contrary to what you have indicated I think Bush has done a very good job tracking down the terrorists, freezing their assets and putting some of them on the run. But in going after Iraq he is going off course. I have said it before, back in 2001, 2002, and now. We should be going into Pakistan with our military and searching house to house for that bastard bin Laden. If Musharif faces a revolt over this and loses power so be it. I don't blame Bush for 9/11 nor would I do so in the future. He has done a lot to destroy the terror network that attacked us but he has more to do and I think he could be taking this opportunity to get bin Laden and his followers in other hostile countries that warrant more attention than Iraq. 9/11 is a convenient excuse to clean up the mess his father left behind. Only time will tell if Ross is right or I am right. In 10, 20 or 30 years from now history will know if the US was the only country that used the Pre-Emptive Strike agreement to it's benefit while other countries refrain from doing so. Somehow I have a tough time believing the despots of the world in N.Korea, China, Syria, Libya, Iran, Pakistan and the rest will stand by and let us use this new found power at their expense. Since none of those despots believe the US have exclusive rights to weapons of mass destruction I doubt they agree we also have exclusive rights to pre-emptively attack others when we feel threatened. Feel free to debate my points! Regards, Jon | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1087 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: I couldn't have put it any better than Jon did. He's researched the issues, found the facts, made his case. We differ because you apparently believe that it is in our best interest to take this pre-emptive attack, and despite what the rest of the world thinks, that we will ultimately come out ahead. I hope that you are right, but I disagree with your premise, and fear that you are wrong. At any rate Jon and I will probably get together for a drink while I'm in D.C. and you can expect a further comment about these concerns then. Regards, Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 835 Registered: 3-2002 |
chris, art, jon; sorry guys but you still don't get it. as you say chris, the old way was to wait till somebody else struck you first, then under the un charter you had the right to defend yourself. this also had a nice moral and even biblical justification to it and everybody was comfortable. the application of this for the usa was even better since in most imagineable conflicts, somebody else (eg germany, skorea) was going to take the initial hit and we were going to hit back in their defense. fast forward to the post 9/11 world. we are the first target of every terrorist in the world. the next time there is a strike against the west it will be in the usa (or possibly the uk). despite any denials from you guys, i know that you would blame bush (and his conservative government) if this happened. so now what are our (and bush's) options. take the hit and have the whole world approve of us eventually defending ourselves, thereby losing more stability, confidence and economic strength at home; but have our good friends the french, russians and chinese cheer us on from the sidelines as our boys went to war. or determine which areas of the world were most likely to have us in their sights now or in the future, make demands through the un that they disarm or cease their activity; failing that take them out. some aspects of diplomatic niceties and/or the rule of law (which nobody else ever seems to remember when we are the ones getting the short end of the stick), are a casualty of the new reality. the defense of the usa is now a pro-active and preemptive game. it is bush's responsibility to protect us (yes even you art) and our way of life, and he will do whatever he thinks it takes. the sooner you guys and the rest of the world realizes this, the better off we all will be. contrary to popular belief, the usa is not bent on destruction, domination, colonisation or any of the other shuns that we are accused of. we are trying to protect ourselves and our way of life, so whatever country is not perceived to be against allowing us to continue to live as we want has nothing to worry about - those who declare that they would rather die fighting us than live peacefully with us will have a problem. | ||
| John A. Suarez (Futureowner)
Member Username: Futureowner Post Number: 576 Registered: 3-2002 |
" Lets hope it's over fast and the whole thing is too short and uneventful to make the history books." In contrast, let us hope that the liberation of the Iraqi people and the removal of a dangerous and sadistic ruler DOES make the history books. | ||
| Chris Tanner (Ctanner)
Junior Member Username: Ctanner Post Number: 53 Registered: 5-2001 |
Jon, I, like you, take issue with the pre-emptive strike. This appears to me to be a large departure from a long standing philosophy of the United States. My recollection is that US military action has always been preceeded by military action of another country. In the previous wars fought by the US, has the United States ever been the initial invader? Gulf war we went to help invaded Kuwait, Vietnam war we went to South Vietnam, Korean war? Even in WWII, Germany was invading Europe 2 years before we officialy joined the war after Pearl Harbor. Abandoning such a long standing philosophy, supported by so many presidents prior to Bush, makes me unsupportive to the war. It appears to me that the world community has done a pretty good job of containing Iraq for 12 years. Why now, why today, does the containment philosophy have to change? If President Bush could provide a more detailed explanation as to why the containment has failed, he would have the world's support. The problem is, is that he hasn't. We are left feeling that he must know something we don't, or he has another agenda. Whether or not Iraq has completely disaremed, the world community does not Today, see Iraq as the threat Bush does. Europe, which by geography, would be more threatened by Iraq, wants to continue with the present containment approach. They think it is working. In conclusion, so were going to war this week. Lets hope it's over fast and the whole thing is too short and uneventful to make the history books. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 504 Registered: 8-2001 |
It is a fact that part of the agreement that ended the first gulf war was that Iraq disarm. It was clear that the penalty for not doing this was military intervention. With the new resultion (1441 or whatever it was) Iraq was declared BY THE UN in breach of the agreement and listed serious consequences if they did not immediately disarm. Mike, you are technically correct about the penalty for refusing to disarm being "use of force". However I think you are confusing the UN surrender agreement as authorizing US action without UN approval. The authorization to "use force and military action" came from resolution 678, which was passed by the UN Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait but before the onset of war. It is my understanding from my father (who served on the Security Council in 1991) that a further resolution #687 was drafted as the official UN ceasefire before the war even ended and further clarified the option of "use of force or military action" (not the exact wording but same idea). The actual surrender agreement known as the Safwan Accords (the March 3, 1991 cease-fire agreements between Iraq and the coalition forces) was the official surrender agreement that Saddam's generals signed with our forces. That surrender agreement falls under yet another stupid UN resolution # 686 which mentions nothing about disarming or penalties and has language only pertaining to the no-fly zones and the operation of US and Uk war planes in restricted Iraqi airspace. A third UN resolution was passed #688, which dealt with human rights. Just to clarify the only documents from 1991 that allowed for the "use of force" if Saddam did not leave Kuwait or threatened peace in the Middle East was from the UN Security Council in resolutions 678 and 687. Neither of those were signed by Saddam's generals when they surrendered. Saddam never agreed to any penalties for non-compliance to disarm. The actual surrender agreement (UN resolution 686) that Gen. Schwartzkopf and Saddam's generals signed contained no language whatsoever about disarmament or penalty of using force to comply. It may have made mention of res. 678 and 687 but I can't find it anywhere. Furthermore the "use of force" under resolutions 678 and 687 for failing to keep the peace requires a further vote by the Security Council (which we failed to get). Bush was doomed from the minute he signed resolution 1441 because it only mentioned "grave consequences". This ambiguous language gave the UN, France, Germany, and Russia a free card to veto any decision on war. We never had a chance with the UN because they screwed us by making sure there was no specific language about "use of force" or "military action." Had it said "military action" or "use of force" than we would have had the legal right to do so under the UN. Resolutions 678 and 687 can only authorize use of force or war if the Security Council votes to do so and we all knew this would never happen. The other surrender agreement, the Safwan Accords, does not authorize the use of force and makes no mention of disarmament. So to further clarify: 1) UN resolutions 678 and 687 do in fact authorize the use of force and military action if Saddam threatens his neighbors or fails to disarm. However the "use of force" requires a separate UN vote by Security Council members, which we didn't get. Resolution 1441 only mentioned "grave consequences" and was done this way on purpose so it would fail. 2) The Safwan Accords, which was the official surrender agreement made with US forces contains no language about authorization to use force to remove Saddam or to force him to disarm. There can be great disagreement about the moral right to go to war but it's hard to make a case for the legal right since there is no agreement OUTSIDE the UN that allows for this if Saddam doesn't comply. I think the big mistake made by the Bush Sr. administration was working within the UN framework and resolution at getting Saddam to disarm. We should have worded the surrender agreement with Saddam (the one signed March 3rd 91' not the UN ones) to include specific language about using military force to remove Saddam and had his generals sign it. THEN I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS WAR AT ALL. I think Art and I agree that the war is wrong for different reasons. Even though Art is a lawyer and thus I would assume very concerned about procedural correctness, I also think he is looking at some moral factors as well (repercussions from terrorists, harm to the economy, innocent civilians killed, US servicemen killed and restructuring costs). My NUMBER 1 reason that I think this war is a bad idea stems from one simple argument. We are attacking a Sovereign nation that has not attacked us and DID NOT sign any surrender agreement outside the UN stating it authorized the use of war by the US. Why is this one single item so important to my thinking? Simple it authorizes the use of PRE-EMPTIVE strikes on other countries without provocation. You can make all the arguments you want about bio/chem weapons, nuclear weapons, having them fall into the wrong hands, etc. Bottom line is that we were not attacked by Iraq only threatened by them indirectly by their actions or in this case lack of action (disarming). This same argument could one day be used to justify the North Koreans invading Seoul because they faced a threat from 36,000 US troops on their border, or an invasion of Taiwan by the Chinese after we sell $1 billion worth of missiles to the Taiwanese government. The Indians can do the same next time the Pakistanis decide to test another nuke in the dessert. The list goes on and on. The resolution (surrender agreement) that Mike alludes to can be found at: http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL31641.pdf Regards, Jon | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 83 Registered: 4-2002 |
MFZ- Why would the United States ever complain to the UN ? They"re just a bunch of third world pussies. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1081 Registered: 6-2001 |
MikdB: If they use gas, etc. they've lied. Having said that, however, I still don't agree that we have the right to attack them. Unless those weapons are used beyond their borders, who are we to say they shouldn't use them? However, if they do have them, and use them against our troops, then they get what they deserve. If they don't use them, and remember this is a fight to the death for them, and we subsequently find them, we've planted the evidence. If that occurs, we're the liars. regards, Art | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Junior Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 97 Registered: 2-2003 |
Let's just get on with the war and be done with it. You guys made up your mind, it's your people you are sending over to kill (probably) innocent lives, just don't complain to the UN that you lost so much money and army personnel just to invade a country and erect a supposedly new democratic nation (and obtain a new source for oil). | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Junior Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 79 Registered: 12-2002 |
Art, As a reasonable adult I am sure you realize that there are many facets to any international situation - just like this whole Iraq situation. It is a fact that part of the agreement that ended the first gulf war was that Iraq disarm. It was clear that the penalty for not doing this was military intervention. With the new resultion (1441 or whatever it was) Iraq was declared BY THE UN in breach of the agreement and listed serious consequences if they did not immediately disarm. The onus of proof is on IRAQ to show they have disarmed. Blix has come right out and said they have not cooperated fully with the inspections. These are facts. Whether your personal opinion of what Iraq agreed to leads you to feel this is unfair is irrelevant. You claim Bush has no right or authority to attack Iraq - you are wrong on that. Moving on to the moral argument. Saddam is respondible for the deaths of millions - including Kurds in the north, Iranians, and his own people by sending them into hopeless battles. Not to mention the terror he inflicts on his own people. I believe the USA has the moral authority to take him out. There is no proof of a direct link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. If that is your only metric for whether war is justified, then it is unprovable either way... but by claiming this is the metric, you ignore the other facts I listed above. As to whether war is indeed good for the future of this country... well, we each have our opinions. Personally, I think stability and "known quantities" are always a good thing. Iraq is unreliable and unpredictable and that is not good. They hate the USA and that is not good. They have the means, the money, and the will to support terrorists - terrorists that have made it clear they WANT the US and it's people to die. That is dangerous to us. I can say that overall this whole thing will be a net plus, and you can argue that it will be a net minus, and neither of us will concede the argument because there is no way to prove it one way or the other. However, the FACTS presented above show that we have the legal AND the moral right to do this thing in Iraq. You made a comment before that we are ignoring the will of the international community and our "friends" by doing this. Well, 2 out of 3 people support going to war with Iraq in the USA. Aren't you ignoring the will of the US population by skipping over that fact? We have 31 countries that have agreed to help us in this war. How can you say the international community doesn't want it? Do you really mean France, Russia and China? Why is their will more important than ours? And now France says they will get into the war if chemical weapons are used. If they were morally opposed to war with Iraq, why is it "ok" if NBC weapons are used? Either you are against it or for it. France did not agree to any ultimatum - inspections found chemical weapons... so France's own criteria for what makes this war just or unjust are pretty screwed up. Art, what will your opinion be if NBC weapons are indeed used on our troops, PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT that Iraq was in violation all along of their agreements. THEN will you think this war is justified? The arguments I presented say nothing for the future of Iraq. Iraq will be much better off given the chance to rule themselves, as opposed to having a dictator in power. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 812 Registered: 12-2001 |
Thanks Art: I'm comfortable with disagreement. And, in fact, i would condone going into Saudi Arabia if it could be established that they are feeding the terror machine (which i think they are). One area where we might not disagree, though is that i regard this stuff more in the nature of a police action than empire building. Yeah, i know, the Romans were pretty good at allowing their conquered territories to maintain a semblance of their established culture, but "conquest" and empire building, at least to me, are not what this should be about. Rhetorically, you might say, well, all we really want is to establish puppet govt's friendly to our side:- dunno exactly what the boys in Washington have cooked up (bet they have various ideas, too), but so long as it is a society that functions, and has some passing familiarity with human rights, i'm good with it for now. (Consider this, we deal with all kinds of societies which differ from ours in many ways, without the threat of war and indeed, except for Japan, none has attacked us, on our soil, in quite along time). If we can get there without bloodshed, i'm all for it. But i have yet to hear much from our Arab or Muslim brothers that gives me much comfort. In fact, the more i learn, the more i believe that this is indeed a religious war for our enemies, and don't see reason or compassion as an effective deterrent to their madness. The tougher question may be a nation state that is incapable of thwarting terrorism, even if it doesn't condone it. (This is how Saudi Arabia seems to characterize itself, and even if that were true and the powers there were not funding terrorists as i suspect they are, i would still support a "police action" into their turf to get rid of the bad guys. Yeah, i know it violates traditional notions of international law, violates national sovereignty, etc., but whether or not they are unwitting accomplices, the fact remains that terrorists seem to exist and thrive within their borders. I'll also bet, while i don't practice international governmental law, that there are principles saying governments cannot ignore a criminal element within their borders, if it impacts others outside their country). As i wrote this, it suddently struck me that this has been precisely Arafat's position, until quite recently, ie, don't blame me, i can't control the terrorists in my midst, but yes, i am still the boss, you must negotiate with me. Ah, this posting is too long already. Thanks for the acknowledgement about the sincerity of my remarks, cause i am constantly struggling with what is right here. As i think all of us should. As to the liberal/democrat v. conservative/republican thing, i think its hard to pigeonhole complex issues. I don't buy into the extremes of either party. I wish more politicians could speak with their true beliefs rather than what they think their constituency wants to hear; i suspect they would actually gain greater support, and if it were based on honest, well-considered views, might even persuade others. The rhetoric that passes for political discourse is often a pale imitation of real, and meaningful dialog.Regards. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 295 Registered: 11-2002 |
Yes, but Art - WHERE IS THE PROOF? GIVE US THE PROOF THAT THEY KILLED. That's all we want. Free Manson! He's a victim! | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 502 Registered: 8-2001 |
Art, Just read the article. Unfortunetally there is no way of authenticating it. Doesn't mean it's not true but anything that comes out of Saudi Arabia can be taken with a grain of salt after 9/11. Regards, Jon | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1080 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: 1. Hilter was never convicted. you don't try dead people. 2. As to Manson: Try LA Superior Court 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA for Manson's conviction. I believe they are on line, but don't know if the records go back that far. The reason we know that Manson was convicted of murder, not conspiracy is that conspiracy doesn't carry a death sentence, which is what he got for those murders at his trial. I know he is still alive, but that is because the Supreme Court held the California Death Penalty law was unconsititutional in the early 70s, and because of that, his sentence was communted to a life sentence, and because we hadn't enacted the life without the possiblilty of parole at that time, he now gets a parole hearing every once in a while. His chances of getting out are less than nil. Hope that clarifies the issues. Jon: I left the website of the Saudi Minister's piece on BBC. Take a look. Art | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 501 Registered: 8-2001 |
Currently out of town and would love to join the debate to add my 2 cents worth. Will chime in on the economic front and Pres. Bush a bit later. Dave: the letter you mention would be interesting to see though I question if it actually exists. Lastly, on BBC there is an interesting comment by the Saudi Foreign minister who says that he has seen a letter, generated in 1991, signed by Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, et al, urging the take over of Iraqi so that the USA would not have to rely upon OPEC. Highly unlikely that Rumsfeld was any part of this supposed letter as he was the head of GIC (broadband company) and not part of the Bush administration at the time. Wolfowitz was part of the Bush administration I think. Regards, Jon | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 866 Registered: 5-2002 |
I must be crazy then Art. I swear that I have watched a zillion documentaries on WWII and Charles Manson, and I have yet to see where either person was convicted of murder. As an attorney, you have to deal with the facts. Please tell me the facts: What person was Adolph Hitler convicted of killing, and where is the court record of his conviction? What person was Charles Manson convicted of killing, and where is the court record of his conviction? I know he was convicted in CONNECTION with the Tate/La Bianca murders, a la conspiracy, but what person was he convicted of himself personally murdering? Strange how you want the absolute facts on Saddam Hussein, but you can't even furnish the absolute facts on two of history's most notorious characters that anybody with common sense KNOWS are evil people. How come we're suppose to cut Saddam Hussein so much slack when it comes to proof of his evil doings? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1079 Registered: 6-2001 |
Wm: I agree with you regarding our policy. It isn't based upon Iraq's alleged actions. Of course the middle easterners did 9/11, just not Iraqis. Follwoing your logic, perhaps we should have attacked the Saudis. The issue is, did their government condone the behavior? If so, then we need to do something about it. If not, it was just criminal action by their citizens. Where you and I disagree is what to do about it. We can't just take over the entire world because we think that an areas policies are adverse to us. That will ultimately lead to grief for all of the US, maybe not immediately, but sooner or later: all empires fall, sooner or later, and make no doubt about it, what is going on is the making of a US empire, with a little help from our friends. I have read the various policy arguments, and think that we are going down the wrong path. Couple that with the dead and destruction this will entail, and I think that its a huge mistake. If you take the reasoned opinions on this board (not all of the comments are well reasoned) your is prehaps the most honest, but I do disagree with it and think this is not a good thing. IMHO | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1078 Registered: 6-2001 |
Arlie: Deapite your comments, we do have conclusive proof of both Manson and Hitler' killing people. Despite the loons that suggest otherwise, we do have that proof in spades: We have pictures, we have testimony, we have dead bodies, we have the weapons used to kill their victums. Get real. Use a real argument, real people, etc. Getting back to the issue: Where's the beef? Show me where there is a connection between Hussein and dead in the US and or an immediate threat to the US. By the way, Blix says that a lot of the evidence provided to the UN by us is fabricated. If that's true, it casts strong doubts on the entire deal. Art | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 82 Registered: 4-2002 |
No, William, that was not my car in Piermont, NY. Currently, I'm not driving a Ferrari. Quite soon, though. Jake in the U.S.A. | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 811 Registered: 12-2001 |
Hey, Jake: i saw a red 348 ts with the words "Rampante" on it license plate, parked in Piermont NY a couple weekends ago. Was that you? | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 863 Registered: 5-2002 |
Art said: "While I have no objection to defending ourselves, lets take a look: where is the connection between Hussein and 9/11? I have seen none, nor have I heard anyone else suggest that in the past Hussein has given aid to those who have attacked us. " Hey Art, answer me this. Has any historian ever submitted conclusive proof that Adolf Hitler EVER killed anybody himself? Sure the entire Nazi government murdered millions in their evil, misguided effort to form a perfect world. But did Adolf Hitler himself ever kill anybody? Do we have conclusive proof that he was a murderer? Do we have conclusive proof that Charles Manson ever killed anybody? There are rumors that he murdered one man out in the desert compound where his "family" lived for a while, but no actual proof. Once again, we know that he led his bizarre "family" on their killing spree, but do we have "proof" that he actually killed anybody? If we have no actual proof against Adolph and Charlie, then I guess they were pretty much victims of the evil people that surrounded them, right? Just like poor old Saddam Hussein. He's just a nice guy surrounded by evil people, right? As an attorney, you don't want to condemn Saddam Hussein without conclusive proof. In that vein of thought, would you please point me to the official archives that will prove to me that Adolph Hitler and Charles Manson actually killed anybody. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 294 Registered: 11-2002 |
I try to ignore Art, because his political slant has been completely corrupted by the dirt-bags he represents. That, and he complains about our dependency on oil while flying his airplane and gunning around the bay area in his Ferrari. | ||
| jake diamond (Rampante)
Junior Member Username: Rampante Post Number: 81 Registered: 4-2002 |
Maranelloman, Ross, Whart = my idols !!! Don't tread on me. Jake | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Member Username: Whart Post Number: 808 Registered: 12-2001 |
Art: You will concede that the 9/11 attacks were precipitated by Mideastern radicals, mainly from our "ally," Saudi Arabia, with whom we continue to maintain relations largely because of our oil dependence, yes? Will you also concede that radical muslims wish to exterminate the West, and that these are not people with whom we can meaningfully negotiate? Saddam probably deserves killing, just on principle, whether or not his regime had anything to do with 9/11, and even if you assume that he is unlikely to supply terrorists from other states with WMD. I do believe that our policy is based in great part upon establishing a serious foothold in the middle east, without using our support of Israel as a pretext.(The very fact that aligning with Israel makes us Zionist suggests that the issue is fraught with religious hatred). I believe that the people who have sworn to destroy us will do just that unless we take steps to stop them. I don't even view this as preemptive, in light of 9-11. Ultimately, i believe Iran will fall (again), that Syria will have to clean up its act, that the Bekka Valley will have to be rid of Hamas, et al and that the other states who sponsor terrorism, including the Saudis, are rightfully within our sights. Why? Because if we don't stop them, they will destroy us. I don't think we have much choice. Yeah, we could negotiate till we're blue in the face(gee, that sounds familiar) and still get nowhere, or make agreements, like the one we did with North Korea, or the peace accord that was proposed and rejected by Arafat, but ultimately, we get nowhere if the people we are negotiating with do not wish to reach an amicable solution. So, are you suggesting that we could reach a meaningful accord with those the wish to kill us? And, if so, would you rely on that, for the safety and wellbeing of your family, friends and nation? What Bush is doing is so "unpolitical" that you'd have to believe he is self-destructive; unlike that champion of moral clarity,Clinton, he is not shaping policy on the basis of being well-liked. We've had enough of that already. And, Bush's biggest critic, Jimmy Carter, has already proven that singing "Kumbaya" gets you a job making furniture while Americans die, needlessly, at the hands of those whose avowed goal is our destruction. I take them at their word. Its nice to be above it all, to be in touch with humanity, and wish that reason could prevail, but given who we are dealing with, I find that implausible, and, to be honest, recklessly naive. (With all due respect). | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1077 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: You're rite, Dave did it. However, I didn't expect a response immediately. The book does have certain insights into the conversative thought process. I'm not saying that all conservative ideas are bad: the welfare reform was exactly what was needed. And there are other conservative ideas which are excellent. HOWEVER: when you read the book, you will see the methods use to put across the agenda. Not good, if true. Nothing is ever 100%, but I think that Bush has dragged us into something, using some of the tactics described in Brock's book, which later we will regret. Just remember that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a fraud, and we didn't discover that unless decades later. Regards, Art | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 834 Registered: 3-2002 |
art, i am not the one who responded to your economic assertions. but while i am at it....obviously capital removal from markets is not conducive to sustaining firm prices....but sorry to tell you but this is what happens in a bear market after the bubble bursts (and by everybody - not just foreigners), and despite your efforts to lay this in bush's lap, it doesn't wash with any economists (except perhaps those based in ca). regarding the proof that you want to connect iraq with 9/11. well i don't have it. but this is a wasted argument because you don't have proof to the contrary, and i for one would rather be safe than sorry. regarding the proof that the usa and britain put forward to the inspection teams regarding iraqs efforts to acquire uranium in west africa; yes this was subsequently proven to be false. guess who gave us this info so that we could present it? according to the economist it was the french intelligence services - make of that what you want. of course, in the 30 minutes since your post, i was not able to read the book you mentioned. however, (if this is the subject of the book) i am probably in some agreement that the religious right had/has a disproportionate and somewhat undeserved influence in the usa. does this mean that all conservative arguments are so wrong that they require their proponents to demonize the opposition in order to gain currency? i kind of doubt it. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1076 Registered: 6-2001 |
Ross: The removal of capital from our markets causes problems, no? Loss of our capital causes reduced spending, and guess where we end up: slow economy. Not rocket science. Substantial money was loss. While I have no objection to defending ourselves, lets take a look: where is the connection between Hussein and 9/11? I have seen none, nor have I heard anyone else suggest that in the past Hussein has given aid to those who have attacked us. My understanding is that he has provided aid to those who have attacked Israel, but not to those who've attacked us. There is no such connection, based upon all that I have heard. Despite that, Bush has continued on to claim the opposite, but our allies have demanded proof, and apparently Bush has either little or none. It also appears that Bush, et al have apparently fabricated evidence to present to the UN and was caught. Those are facts. Again, if you can show me facts, that establish that Hussein had something to do with 9/11, I'd be all in favor of a war. You haven't been able to do that as of yet. Ken Pollack, the man who in greatly in favor of taking out Hussein, suggests that any problem with Hussein is well into the future, and that by attacking him, we increase the risk of a terrorist attack. It just appears to me that there is no logic here. Ross have you read the book I mentioned? You might want to read it, there are many insights in the book, apparently from someone who was there when the stragedy was formed. Maybe he is lying, but I haven't seen anyone attack the book with facts disporving the statements contained in the book as of yet. Take a second, buy, borrow, or otherwise get possession of the book, and then, let's have a discussion about the religious right's conservative agenda based upon an eyewitness report of what he saw, what he did, and what he heard. Regards, Art | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 872 Registered: 1-2002 |
Art, please allow me to respond, in parentheses, to some of your assertions. I do this respectfully, as your opinions are no more or less valid than mine: "Bush has done the following to cause more grief in our economy: 1. alienated those who put money into the system, i.e., our allies in Europe, and the Middle East who invested their money here and have been withdrawing it because of the uncertainity, (I see no evidence that foreign investment in the US, which is NOT of strategic benefit to our country, has dropped for any reasons other than the drubbing these--and all--investors have taken from the markets' drops which began during the previous administration) 2. taken a no holds barred approach toward all of his agendas (as any president does, including Clinton), and instead of a tax reduction that would truly stimulate the economy, given his friends (known as the people who actually pay taxes??) a tax break (Art, just in case you didn't know: besides the one time $600 rebates, NONE of Bush's tax breaks, for anyone, have yet gone into effect; I would advise a familiarization with these facts before going on an ideological rant). Why he didn't push for an investment tax credit which would have directly produced jobs, I have no idea (a very legitimate question; I suspect the reason is that the liberal Dems would more likely support tax benefits that flow to many of their voters than those that flow to the "big business" that they seem to loathe so much, regardless of the actual trickle-down effects). I understand the reason Bush did not go the U.N. to see if his resolution authorizing war, is that he knew that the resolution would not have a majority. What these folks apparently either fail to realize, or refuse to realize, is that there must be some reason why our friends (and they were our friends until we started insulting them (Art, we have not insulted France or Germany; when the French insult us by calling us arrogant, and the Germans insu7lt us by calling us warmongers, I laugh; but where did we insult ANYONE???), and even despite our poor behavior (yeah, I guess getting attacked by terrorists, and desiring to prevent it from happening again, was poor behavior) are probably still our friends) may have good, valid reasons for their positions (perhaps they do; but I will place the safety of the US ahead of our allies' reasons anyday; and, when France rejects a US proposal BEFORE Iraq does, it really makes me suspect that there is nothing legitimate about France's position). Lastly, on BBC there is an interesting comment by the Saudi Foreign minister who says that he has seen a letter, generated in 1991, signed by Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, et al, urging the take over of Iraqi so that the USA would not have to rely upon OPEC. If there is any truth to those statements, then it appears that we are on a war of conquest, not a war of liberation (well, that is a good point, and I hope that, even if that letter is legitimate, our current policies do not reflect this view; time will tell; but the FACT that Iraq has violated 18 UN resolutions, most of which allow force be used for enforcement, underly the legitimacy of our actions, as distasteful as they may be to you or me). It is generally hard to reason with conservatives (substitute "liberals" after you climb down from your blindly ideoligically self-righteous high horse), because they firmly believe that they are right, and are usually unwilling to listen to the other side, perfering to demonize them in an attempt to discredit their ideas (yup, sure sounds like (a) liberals, and (b) exactly what YOU YOURSELF are doing). A great book on the subject is: "Blinded by the Right", authored by a fellow by the name of Brock, who was in the inner circle of many conservate think tanks, and changed his position, and pushed his book. Great reading on how we got to where we are." | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 830 Registered: 3-2002 |
interesting word choice art: 'It is generally hard to reason with conservatives, because they firmly believe that they are right, and are usually unwilling to listen to the other side, perfering to demonize them in an attempt to discredit their ideas.' the same thing can be said for the 'left' on any number of issues. take any and every democratic platform for the last 30 years and see how they describe the GOP. listen to the average war protester's reasons for marching around with a banner - usually complete babble. listen to your gov davis' on the subject of energy policy in ca. the list goes on...... i am surprised at this blanket statement from you. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1075 Registered: 6-2001 |
Here's the address for the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2851723.stm | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 1073 Registered: 6-2001 |
Martin: I agree with you. Bush has done the following to cause more grief in our economy: 1. alienated those who put money into the system, i.e., our allies in Europe, and the Middle East who invested their money here and have been withdrawing it because of the uncertainity, 2. taken a no holds barred approach toward all of his agendas, and instead of a tax reduction that would truly stimulate the economy, given his friends a tax break. Why he didn't push for an investment tax credit which would have directly produced jobs, I have no idea. I understand the reason Bush did not go the U.N. to see if his resolution authorizing war, is that he knew that the resolution would not have a majority. What these folks apparently either fail to realize, or refuse to realize, is that there must be some reason why our friends (and they were our friends until we started insulting them, and even despite our poor behavior are probably still our friends) may have good, valid reasons for their positions. Lastly, on BBC there is an interesting comment by the Saudi Foreign minister who says that he has seen a letter, generated in 1991, signed by Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, et al, urging the take over of Iraqi so that the USA would not have to rely upon OPEC. If there is any truth to those statements, then it appears that we are on a war of conquest, not a war of liberation. It is generally hard to reason with conservatives, because they firmly believe that they are right, and are usually unwilling to listen to the other side, perfering to demonize them in an attempt to discredit their ideas. A great book on the subject is: "Blinded by the Right", authored by a fellow by the name of Brock, who was in the inner circle of many conservate think tanks, and changed his position, and pushed his book. Great reading on how we got to where we are. Art | ||
| Jesse Hoffman (Hoffmeister)
New member Username: Hoffmeister Post Number: 16 Registered: 12-2002 |
  | ||
| joe saldana (Ironjoe)
Junior Member Username: Ironjoe Post Number: 149 Registered: 12-2001 |
These Dumb CUN_S DONT even know were already at war with Iraq,these no-good wh_res should be air-lifted to one of our many transparent sites over there, for a Blind-Eye PARTY with the guys...... | ||
| ken rentiers (Rentiers)
Junior Member Username: Rentiers Post Number: 146 Registered: 2-2003 |
Further research determines the fat one in the middle (Maines) is from Lubbock. DFW is off the hook. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 500 Registered: 8-2001 |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81177,00.html Apparently they changed ther "tune" a bit after folks got angry and stations dropped their music. As far as I am concerned they car stay the hell in Europe, preferrably France. Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 858 Registered: 1-2002 |
Martin, far be it for me to use FACTS to interrupt your ideological rant....but the economy started "tanking", aka cycling downward as part of its normal, historical cycles, in early 2000. Now, who was president at that time? Just asking. I have seen no evidence of anything Bush has done to "effectively ruin" the economy that cannot be correctly attributed to (a) normal economic cycles; (b) rapid deflation of the dot-bomb/NASDAQ balloon that was incubated during the previous administration & also was popped then as well; or (c) Sept. 11, 2001. 'Nuff said. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 814 Registered: 10-2002 |
Martin Harding? Hoover? Coolage? Johnson (The one who was impeached) Grant who ran over and killed a woman while drunk driving ? There are a few who might challange for that title. | ||
| Martin - Cavallino Motors (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 4020 Registered: 5-2001 |
BTW it was just one of the Chicks. Then, why can we not all agree that Bush is an idiot that has effectively ruined this country's economy and is probably the biggest brain dead idiot ever occupying the White House. ...just asking! | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Junior Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 204 Registered: 1-2003 |
I wonder how long the Dixie Pixies had to think about it when they accepted the invitation to appear at the inauguration of George W? I wonder how much appearing there boosted their public image among the more conservative population? Could the ever be invited back??? NOT!!!! With most of their audience being considered somewhat conservative, I wonder how big a hole she shot in her foot when she made that statement? Sincere apology, Yea right!!!!!!!! | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 856 Registered: 1-2002 |
I cannot express how gratified I am that this Dixie D!psh!ts situation is getting exposure across all the media--TV, cable, newspapers, web, etc. And the dipthong who uttered the words has been forced to apologize (yah, and I'm sure it was a sincere apology) to Bush, after spending 3 days telling her critics to pound sand. LOL! | ||
| ken rentiers (Rentiers)
Junior Member Username: Rentiers Post Number: 145 Registered: 2-2003 |
Damn! Willie Nelson? Nope - that was Austin. I know, I know - Destiny's Child was from HOU!!! (ralphing) So was South Park Mexican. ZZ Top ! Thass it! ZZ Top. Whew! | ||
| William Huber (Solipsist)
Member Username: Solipsist Post Number: 716 Registered: 9-2001 |
Ken, SRV was from south Dallas. The Oak Cliff area, thats were he is buried. The Dixie Clits are from the Dallas & Ft. Worth area, but who cares about their crappy soccer mom music. | ||
| "The Don" (Mlemus)
Advanced Member Username: Mlemus Post Number: 3070 Registered: 8-2002 |
I did not need another one. | ||
| Jere Dunham (Questioner)
Junior Member Username: Questioner Post Number: 203 Registered: 1-2003 |
Des, I'll bet you like the American Civil Liberties Union too, don't you? Give me a break!! | ||
| ken rentiers (Rentiers)
Junior Member Username: Rentiers Post Number: 141 Registered: 2-2003 |
Remember, the Dixie Chicks are from Dallas. Houston otoh gave us Stevie Ray Vaughn! | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Advanced Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 2834 Registered: 8-2002 |
i never liked 'em, but i like them, now... | ||
| DHutchison (Hutch308)
Junior Member Username: Hutch308 Post Number: 235 Registered: 1-2002 |
There'll be plenty of 'wide open spaces' for them to sing about after we bomb the sh*&t out of Iraq!! | ||
| Tyler (Bahiaau)
Member Username: Bahiaau Post Number: 613 Registered: 12-2001 |
What a bunch of B*$%#@! Well, the upside of all these Hollywood types speaking out is I've been spending a lot less time going to movies and buying CDs and watching TV. Now I have more time to work and more time to spend on my favorite hobby, Ferraris. | ||
| Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member Username: Vwalfa4re Post Number: 738 Registered: 5-2001 |
What do they know? I bet they can't even tell you who the vice pres is. | ||
| William Huber (Solipsist)
Member Username: Solipsist Post Number: 714 Registered: 9-2001 |
Damn, I remember seeing "The Dixie Clits" back in 1990 in Ft Worth. The total audience was about 7 - 10 people. I was trying to pick on of them up. (There were five of them back then) Fame sure hit them fast. I guess there's gone Hollywood now, lets now see how welcome they are in there home state. Those ungrateful little @#$%!!!! | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 854 Registered: 1-2002 |
Heck, I'm from texas, and I'm ashamed the Dixie Chicks are from here!!!!!!  | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 853 Registered: 1-2002 |
At a recent concert in England, The Dixie Chicks said the following..."Just so you know," we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Hypocrites should move to Iraq if they feel that strongly... I'm from Texas, and I'm ashamed these wankerettes are from here!! |