BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:38 AM

Specious logic, BB. To assert this string of rationalization, you would have to make a case for any probability of GTW being a real event, in the world of real possibilities. If you seriously are arguing that the invasion of Iraq was to reduce the possibility of GTW, then you are arguing from fictitious grounds, from which anything is possible. GTW is definitely a wrong, bad thing. So is having the leprechauns eliminate all the pretty girls in the world. GTW has a slightly higher possibility.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:43 AM

"you would have to make a case for any probability of GTW being a real event, in the world of real possibilities. If you seriously are arguing that the invasion of Iraq was to reduce the possibility of GTW, then you are arguing from fictitious grounds"

Why, because YOU say so? I will listen to evidence, but opinion is just that- OPINION. NOT proof that the premise is wrong.


"Well you were wrong, weren't you?"

DOES NOT address the facts of the matter in the least, and has NO support in any facts presented.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM

There was no evidence any type of weapon found or that had existed that would have had those capabilities. GTW, we are more likely to start a war of that scale that anyone else & there is evidence that we have them & are capable of using them & delivering them within a 45 minute time line.
You keep spouting off about what we've done to prevent events that others were not capable of bringing to the table. You're all hype.
There were no WMD's, roving bio-labs or chemical plants that were to be used for the purpose of attacking US. You keep saying that but we attacked a nation without just cause & couldn't find anything to back it up after the fact. Yes, we were sure, SURE!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:09 AM

As we seem to be discussing GTW, a question for you Amos.

Had the US concentrated on Afghanistan and OBL after November 2001 to the exclusion of all else (i.e. never bothered acting on any other possible threats). What do you think Saddam Hussein's reaction would have been to developments within Iran regarding that country's nuclear programme?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:12 AM

Barry,

"You keep saying that but we attacked a nation without just cause "

I keep saying we attacked because Iraq was NOT complying with the UN resolutions, and HAD a PROGRAM of WMD and prohibited weapon system DEVELOPMENT.

The latter part of your statement is OPINION, until proven, which you have made no attempt to do. IMHO,

1. We had "just cause"

2. The prohibited items found are evidence that Saddam was in violation of his obligations.

3. Those who protested the invasion of Iraq without demanding that Saddam comply have the blood of all those killed or injured upon THEIR hands.


Just MY opinion, since you seem to have your own. I have presented, multiple times, the facts that led me to form this opinion- Please present the ones that give you YOURS.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:59 AM

Some comments with regard to Barry Finn's post of 20 Mar 07 - 10:04 AM:

1) "There was no evidence any type of weapon found or that had existed that would have had those capabilities."

We talking nuclear here right? What you say is very true, but there again nobody said that Saddam/Iraq HAD nuclear weapons. The points that were under evaluation and that were unknown at the time were:

- Is Iraq running a secret development programme directed towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons;

- Is Iraq running a secret development programme directed towards the acquisition of delivery systems for such weapons.

I'd still love to know what it was that Dr.A.Q.Khan had smuggled out of Iraq to Syria, where it was put onboard a Pakistan Air Force Transport aircraft and flown back to Pakistan - My guess is all relevant information, computers, etc related to the first of the points given above.


2) "GTW, we are more likely to start a war of that scale that anyone else & there is evidence that we have them & are capable of using them & delivering them within a 45 minute time line."

Historical evidence runs counter to that Barry. Apart from the two weapons dropped on Japan in time of war, the US has never been to the fore in advocating first-use of nuclear weapons, they have always promoted their deterrant value. The US definitely has nuclear weapons and they would, if necessary, be fully capable of using them, no point in having them if you are not. The readiness time to fire from "cold" is, I believe, about 14 minutes depending on type and launch vehicle, not 45 minutes, which time never applied to nuclear weapons, that was the time it takes to authorise use of and arm chemical or biological weapons.


3) "You keep spouting off about what we've done to prevent events that others were not capable of bringing to the table. You're all hype. There were no WMD's, roving bio-labs or chemical plants that were to be used for the purpose of attacking US. You keep saying that but we attacked a nation without just cause & couldn't find anything to back it up after the fact. Yes, we were sure, SURE!"

Subsequent to the actions taken four years ago Barry these are the differences:
- Pre-invasion the UN suspected Iraq of possessing WMD in defiance of numerous UNSC Resolutions demanding the destruction of such weapons;
- Post-invasion, the UN now knows that Iraq does not possess WMD;
- Pre-invasion the UN suspected Iraq of running secret research and development programmes associated with chemical and biological WMD in defiance of numerous UNSC Resolutions;
- Post-invasion, the UN now knows that no such programmes are being run in Iraq;
- Pre-invasion, the UN suspected Iraq of running secret research and development programmes associated with delivery systems for WMD in defiance of UNSC Resolutions;
- Post-Invasion, the UN now knows that all such programmes have been halted;
- Pre-invasion, the UN had taken Iraq to task with regard to human rights abuses demanding that appropriate UN organisations be allowed in to monitor events within Iraq. The Ba'athist regime in Iraq refused to allow such organisations entry to the country;
- Post-invasion, the UN are now free to send whoever they want into Iraq to monitor events;
- Pre-invasion, the UN requested that Iraq return 605 Kuwaiti nationals abducted in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait and whose fate was unknown;
- Post-invasion, the UN now know that Saddam Hussein had them all executed.

All hype, eh Barry? There are things that were suspected about Iraq pre-invasion Barry that were believed to be true by many. All those uncertainties have now been removed. One thing is for certain Saddam Hussein was never going to let those facts be established, not for as long as his arse pointed downwards.

The premise of the invasion was perfectly justified, 48 countries were of a like mind, more in fact than took part in the action to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

Didn't matter a toss whether anything was found or not, that was not the object of the exercise, that was to make sure that Saddam and Iraq could not pose a threat to the peace of the region in the future, and that most certainly was done.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: dianavan
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:20 AM

"What do you think Saddam Hussein's reaction would have been to developments within Iran regarding that country's nuclear programme?"

With or without a nuclear programme, Saddam feared Iran.

Not even the Sunnis of Iran supported Saddam. Without the support of the U.S., Saddam would probably have been crushed by Iran sooner or later. With or without nuclear weapons, Saddam was vastly outnumbered.

Thats why it was stupid for the U.S. to get involved. They should have let Iran take care of Saddam in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:24 AM

I seem to recall Ms Rice and several other mouthpieces for the regime saying "we wouldn't want the smoking gun to turn out to be a mushroom cloud." Although this statement is semantically nul, it is a powerful piece of rhetoric which directly communicates the notion that there is such a danger. This was a Bush house talking point, not some random articulation on her part. It was a party line.

As to your question of Saddam vice Iran, I have no idea. I expect he would get nervous about it. It's actually another vector, to me, of the possibility that Iran has done a lot more manipulating of events than has been known about; somehow they come out with the US drawn down and fatigued by taking out their worst neighbor and threat, Saddam. I am reminded that the Persians were renowned as chess players once upon a time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:11 PM

* Saddam's air space- and therefore his wiggle room - had been severely constrained for a long time. We had eyes all over Iraq.

* Had we gone into Afghanistan to punish and capture the al Quaeda and to confine our activities within its borders we would in all likelihood be well along today in restoring the livability of the country. And we would have kept the respect of the world.

* It seems disingenuous for us to keep repeating that Saddam had ignored the UN's ruling when the UN itself saw no need to go into Iraq.

* It is obvious that we wanted to go to war against Iraq- and therefore we did.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:03 PM

Ebbie:

Subject: RE: BS: Maliki doesn't want more U.S. troops
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Mar 07 - 11:19 AM

I think the violence will end quickly if the U.S. withdraws. I don't think it will end in two weeks but it will only end when the U.S. withdraws.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:32 PM

Historical evidence runs counter to that Barry. Apart from the two weapons dropped on Japan in time of war, the US has never been to the fore in advocating first-use of nuclear weapons, they have always promoted their deterrant value.

Actually historical evidence doesn't. When you say "apart from the two weapons dropped on Japan in time of war" another way of saying it would be "the USA is the only country ever to have dropped nuclear weapons on a civilian people". And the clause "in time of war" is irrelevant unless you you believe they can be dropped in times of peace.

As for the inspection of nuclear weapons facilities does the USA allow other countries to inspect its nuclear weapons preparations? No it doesn't.

The USA has a long history of invading other countries, and nothing can take that away except a falsification of history. It has a long history of supporting dictators (including Saddam of course).

Nuclear weapons are contemplated and probably still will be.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/s031003.html

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:33 PM

Dear Bobert:

ABC News. Details Emerge About Possible Terror Threat
Suspects, Reportedly Tied to Al Qaeda in Iraq, Sought Student Visas
By PIERRE THOMAS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007 — - Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago "revealed was planning terrorist operations in the U.S."

At the time, Maples offered little additional insight into the possible terror plot. ABC News, however, has learned new details of what remains a classified incident that has been dealt with at the highest levels of government.

Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas -- the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11...

The plot was discovered six months ago, roughly the same time that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by coalition forces. Sources tell ABC News that the suspects involved in the effort to launch the U.S. attack were closely associated with Zarqawi.

The plan also came only months after Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2, had requested that Zarqawi attempt an attack inside the United States.

"This appears to be the first hard evidence al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to attack us here at home," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, former chief counterterrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council.

The plan was uncovered in its early stages, and sources say there is no indication that the suspects made it into the United States. Officials also emphasize that there is no evidence of an imminent attack.

The hunt for suspects continues, however, and some fear that al Qaeda recruits in Iraq could be easily redirected.

"Anyone willing to go to Iraq to fight American troops is probably willing to try to come to the United States," Clarke said.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 01:38 PM

Dear Dickey:

What is your point? Are you trying to imply that the invasion of Iraq is now rationalized by the fact that, since it was done, AlQeda in Iraq has grown fat?

Wouldn't the exacerbation of alienation and enmity in Iraq as a direct result of invasion have been a predictable result?

In fact, didn't some voices predict it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:04 PM

Bobert:

Do those leather jacked, boot wearing, tree dwelling, neanderthal goons lack personal hygiene?

Neanderthal may refer to:

    * Homo neanderthalensis — a prehistoric hominid
    * Neanderthal Man — 1970 hit of the band Hotlegs
    * Neanderthal, Germany — a valley in Germany where the fossils of the former were first found
    * Neanderthal — a book written by author John Darnton
    * Neanderthal woodworker — in Internet woodworking communities, someone who uses hand tools exclusively

Neanderthal is also used as an insult meaning uncivilized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_%28disambiguation%29

Ted Kennedy November of 2003 referring to Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada:

"What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president of the United States for any court, federal court in the United States."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0311/14/ip.00.html

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

"* It seems disingenuous for us to keep repeating that Saddam had ignored the UN's ruling when the UN itself saw no need to go into Iraq."

The UN itself saw no reason to act ( in time to save lives) about:

1. Cambodia
2. Bosnia
3. Rwanda
4. Sudan


So I guess we should not have done ( or do) anything in those cases?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

Dickey, what is the matter with you? You post this: "What I have heard on Mudcat is that if US forces pull out of Iraq, everything will get "sorted out in two weeks ".

and then for corroboration you use what dianavan said: I don't think it will end in two weeks but it will only end when the U.S. withdraws.

I repeat: What is the matter with you? Your own credibility matters not at all to you?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:25 PM

Well now Ebbie:

* Saddam's air space- and therefore his wiggle room - had been severely constrained for a long time. We had eyes all over Iraq.

No actually we didn't have, "eyes all over Iraq". At least not according to the good Dr Blix, that was precisely one of the things that he complained about - matter of record, you can read about it in his reports to the UNSC.

* Had we gone into Afghanistan to punish and capture the al Quaeda and to confine our activities within its borders we would in all likelihood be well along today in restoring the livability of the country. And we would have kept the respect of the world.

Sort of in the category "If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle". Still leaves the question about how Saddam would have viewed Iran's nuclear programme. The situation in Afghanistan today would have been marginally better. As to the US "keeping" the respect of the world. A question for you, apart from a few places at very specific times and for extremely short durations, when did you ever think that the USA had the respect of the world? - Give you a clue - Apart from immediately after WW II in Europe, Never.

* It seems disingenuous for us to keep repeating that Saddam had ignored the UN's ruling when the UN itself saw no need to go into Iraq.

As pointed out by BB, the UN sees no need to anything, anywhere, anytime, given any set of circumstances. As an international organisation it has proved itself to be a complete and utter waste of space time, after time, after time.

* It is obvious that we wanted to go to war against Iraq- and therefore we did.

Only after careful evaluation based on the information available from the UN inspectors on the ground at the time - I am talking about 17th February, 1998.

Folkiedave:

It's a pity that you didn't also quote what Barry's contention was, i.e. "GTW, we are more likely to start a war of that scale that anyone else". Barry was stating that the US is more likely to start a Global Thermonuclear War than anyone else. That contention is baseless and is not borne out by history. During the period of the "Cold War" the USA had chances to do exactly that and did not take them. I will stand by what I have said regarding the US reliance on nuclear weapons as deterrants. Your link regarding the declassified documents from the Vietnam era tend to bear out US reluctance for "first-use".

I believe that there were verification inspections, by US and Soviet Officials, in place for both START and SALT.

This long list of countries invaded by the US, bearing in mind Little Hawks definition of "invasion", any examples dave, that were:
- Intervention not at the specific request of the government of the country involved;
- Intervention not as part of a United Nations Force
- Intervention at the request of the United Nations
- Intervention as part of a NATO Force

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:34 PM

Ebbie:

You said not even close.

It looks close to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:47 PM

Well, T-zer... I'm not sure how you werer brought up but a "lie" in our family meant telling a story that weren't true... We ceratinly have been thru a lot of those scenerios with yer heros, Bush and Blair...

We've had Bush tell the Amercian people that in a State of the Union Adress that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger after his own intellegence folks had investigated such claims at the request of Cheney and found no evidence...

Why isn't that, in your book, a lie???

Well it's either a lie or incompetence on behalf of Bush...

And lets not forget the badly doctored 20 year old term paper (or what evr it was that the CIA later said was a joke) that Blair came up with and gave to Bush just before that address to the country...

Lie or just plain incompetence???

What about Bush still telling folks, as if it were a concrete hard fact, that if we "don't fight ''um there, we're gonna have to fight 'um here"... His own intellegence folk have just this week said that is "unlikely" yet Bush is out there with that story...

Yeah, maybe we disagree on just what constitutes a "lie"... What, if you are too politically steeped to ignore the "truth" and go telling stories that you thought might be the truth when, in reality, have nuthin' to do with the truth, that ain't liein"???

If that's yer take, T-zer an' others, then maybe you need to go back an' talk with yer mama's about what is lieing...

And just for the record, I've stuck with one story from the very beginning... Can you Bushites say the same???

Well, of course not... You move the goal posts every time the story isn't goin' yer way...

And, Ebbie, I've deducted that Dickey will say anything to get folks attention and to change the subject when he has a weak argument, which BTW is just 'bout all the time, so I'd suggest you do what I've been trying to do in ignorin' him...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:57 PM

Amos:

What is your point? Do you agree with Bobert the the "If we don't fight them there we will fight them at home" is a lie?

What is your opinion on thse tree dwelling, leather jacketed, boot wearing, neanderthal goons?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 04:58 PM

"What is your opinion on thse tree dwelling, leather jacketed, boot wearing, neanderthal goons? "

The Blackwater army?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 05:26 PM

See, now here I stop playin' with the pudder long 'nuff to go have a yummy slald fir supper and there is Liar Bush on the TV over this issue of the firings of US attorneys and he says that all he is willing to do is send Harriet Myers and Karl Rove to Cogress to appear behind "closed doors' to answwer questions but under no cicumstances is he willing to do so if his people have to take an oath to tell the truth????????????????????????????

What they Hell is this all about, anyway????

"Well, sure, I'll send my people up there but they don't have to tell the truth..." is purdy much waht Bush's proposal amounts to...

But is this ***proof positive*** that Bush lies or his people lie, T-zer and others might ask??? Well, techncially, no but it certainly smell of a lie or he'd send 'um up and say "Hey, tell them folks the truth..." wouldn't he???

I mean, this entire argument is upsurd... It is beyond believe... Bush has become the O.J. Simpson president... Everyone knows it...

Okay, I will give him the shadow of the doubt that he actually, in his incompetance, believes the stuff he says and in that case he isn't just a liar but a ***pathological liar***...

I mean, this admionistartion has become a farce...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

I think there's a lot of irrational fear and hatred in life, Dick. And when you soak up too much of it without facing it honestly, you become toxic. You make targets out of your fellow man, and believe great evil of your kind. You start waves of slaughter and turn a blind eye to human suffering. But deep down, behind the poison and the fear and the hatred and the pain you have swallowed up, you have a soul somewhere that knows all, and sees the truth. But the truth is unpalatable, so you need to scurry around and find explanations, hold them, close and regenerate them whenever they start to wobble. Because if you don't have it all explained, you might someday have to face the pure and plain truth of your own destructiveness. And that would drive you mad.

Well, I am glad you're holding them in place because I wouldn't want you going mad on us...but I do have to say it is a lot easier if instead of wholesale rationalizing, you face your own feelings plainly and get them squared away so you can live with yourself. If you untoxify your own heart, you will be a much freer being and you won't have to do all that heavy lifting to keep things rationalized and justified all the time.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:18 PM

Send him a bill fir 5 cents (aka Peanuts), Amos...

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:37 PM

Yes Amos. Hence terms like neanderthal goons and outfits like al-Qaeda.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:31 PM

Ebbie: Yeah, well, err, I did attribute that to Dianavan when in acutality she said she did not think it would end in two weeks. It was someone in a news story that she referred to that siad it woulkd be sorted out in a week or two. I also read something where a Sunni woman said it would be sorted out in two weeks.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:29 AM

Yes action was taken BB, the wrong action & there is no lack of evidence of that either. If you think that all's well with the US & Iraq & the world then you are blinded by your beliefs.


<"It is obvious that we wanted to go to war against Iraq- and therefore we did.">

<"Only after careful evaluation based on the information available from the UN inspectors on the ground at the time - I am talking about 17th February, 1998.">

<"Barry was stating that the US is more likely to start a Global Thermonuclear War than anyone else.>

The US is spending millions if not billions on the development of "Bunker Busters". You mean to tell me that the US doesn't mean to use these as needed after spending that kind of money not to mention the resources, they have every intention of using them "when & if". Becuse of the development of these "BB's" the atomic clock was pushed ahead, of course there were a few other reasons but the "BB's" was a part.

<"If we don't fight them there we will fight them at home">

I believe they want US out of their backyard & out of their politics, which translates 'get the f&#k out of our lives. Which is what we should've been doing from the start.

We treated this whole mistake like a Doctor treats the symptoms of a disease. Treat the causes would've been the place to start.
Our failure to use intelligence was the first mistake. WE should've know that there were groups out there that hated US. No shit we dd, but we didn't bother to find out WHY, we didn't care why & we ignored why! Next when we did decided to try & find out about what these people & these groups were all about we found that we didn't know squat about them, their culture, their language, their habits, their religons, their beliefs, their values, & we really didn't care anyway. If we had we probably could've opened up a few channels for communication. BUT we don't do that & we still don't do that. We meddled in their lives & we still are treating the symptoms & are blinded to the causes. Oh well! "Live & learn" or "die dumb"!

LOOK TO THE CAUSES, FOLLOW THE MONEY, LISTEN TO THE WHISPER IN THE WIND!

Fuck, it useless!

Bush couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fist full of pardons! An' some idiot's have gone & given him a job, oh, shit! Damn drunk shouldn't be driving a cab never mind a the wheel of a nation.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:00 AM

"You mean to tell me that the US doesn't mean to use these as needed after spending that kind of money not to mention the resources, they have every intention of using them "when & if". "

So, PLEASE give me the examples of the nuclear weapons USED by the US after 1945..... Since we developed so many, SURELY we used a whole bunch of them...

Or could it have been their development AS A DETERRANT that kept us from HAVING a nuclear war????????

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Amos
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:36 AM

4,000 march downtown to protest Iraq war

March 21, 2007
BY LISA DONOVAN Staff Reporter
About 4,000 war protesters, under the watchful eye of hundreds of Chicago Police officers, walked 1½ miles to the Loop Tuesday night pumping "Impeach Bush" signs and chanting "Hey, hey, ho, ho, our troops in Iraq have got to go."

With a chilly breeze off Lake Michigan, protesters marking the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq began at Oak and Michigan at 7:30 p.m., marching to Daley Plaza as approved in a request to the city. Police officers lined the marching route. No arrests were reported.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 11:52 AM

"The White House said they were surprised by the size of the protesting crowds. Why doesn't it surprise me that they were surprised?" David Letterman

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:41 PM

Chicago - 4,000 march downtown to protest Iraq war.

Population of Chicago - 2.8 million

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 04:34 PM

From the ANSWER website:

Tens of thousands march on the Pentagon
50,000 march in Los Angeles, 40,000 in San Francisco
Le Monde, ran a significant article under the headline, "More than 50,000 People Protest Against the War in Iraq," about the March on the Pentagon

Quite a difference from what is reported elsewhere:

The Guardian:

   10,000 to 20,000 anti-war demonstrators marched, with a smaller but still sizable number of counterprotesters also out in force. An hour into the three-hour Pentagon rally, with the temperature near freezing, protesters had peeled away to a point where fewer than 1,000 were left.


The Washington Post
Veterans, Others Denounce Marchers Counter-Demonstrators Number in Thousands

Several thousand vets, some of whom came by bus from New Jersey, car caravans from California or flights from Seattle or Michigan, lined the route from the bridge and down 23rd Street, waving signs such as "War There Or War Here." Their lines snaked around the corner and down several blocks of Constitution Avenue in what organizers called the largest gathering of pro-administration counter-demonstrators since the war began four years ago.


API
About 200 police officers were on scene in Hollywood for security, said Los Angeles police Sergeant D. Costi.
Authorities estimated attendance at 5,000 to 6,000 people, said Officer Norma Eisenman.

War protest draws 3,000 in march to S.F. City Hall
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - Thousands of marchers, angry but energized by a sense of growing support for their cause, closed down a major downtown thoroughfare Sunday in a largely peaceful display of opposition to the Iraq war.

Protesters march against Iraq war
BBC

In Los Angeles, police estimated that up to 6,000 people demonstrated in anti-war rallies which included flag-draped coffins being carried through the streets of Hollywood.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 04:54 PM

At least Iranian Media is on the same wave length with ANSWER:
Anti-war protest rocks Pentagon
Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:20:12
Thousands of demonstrators marched to the Pentagon on Saturday to mark both the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invading Iraq and the 40th anniversary of the march along the same route to protest the Vietnam War.
According to the New York Times, the march coincided with other demonstrations in Washington, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and elsewhere in advance of the March 20 anniversary of the invasion.
In Washington, a coalition of liberal Christian groups on late Friday led several thousand people in a march that began with a service at the National Cathedral. More than 200 participants were arrested praying in front of the White House.
Saturday's march was organized by the Answer Coalition - named for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism - an organization that was initially associated with the Workers World Party and now affiliated with a breakaway faction called the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
The turnout for the march was smaller than the crowd that gathered two months ago on the National Mall for a demonstration opposing the Bush plan to send more troops to Iraq, however, they were much agitated than before.
Judging by the speeches and placards, the marchers this time set their sights on sweeping goals, including not only ending the war but also impeaching George W. Bush and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Many carried Answer Coalition signs bearing the image of the Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara.
Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. "It is about radicalizing people," he said in an interview.
“You hook into a movement that exists - in this case the antiwar movement - and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism," Becker added.
In a speech before the march, Cindy Sheehan, who made headlines in 2005 camping outside the Bush's Texas ranch after her son was killed in Iraq, called the president and his military advisers “war criminals."
"We want the people in the White House out of our house and arrested for crimes against humanity," Sheehan said.
As they gathered before the march, the protesters met what several veterans of the anti-war movement described as an unusually large contingent of several hundred counter demonstrators.
Crossing the bridge toward the Pentagon, the marchers met another group of about 50 counter demonstrators by the Arlington Cemetery, one holding a sign that said," “Go to hell traitors."
Near the Pentagon, police officers in riot gear spread across the road, effectively blocking the demonstrators from approaching the building. Five people were arrested by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency for violating the orders, said Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
Many in the crowd though unfamiliar with the Answer Coalition but said they had come from across the country for a chance to voice their dismay at the war.
Alan Rainey, an adjunct professor and small publisher from West Lafayette, said he had not attended a protest since 1973, not long after he had returned from military duty in Vietnam. On Saturday, he carried a banner that read, "Help drive the snakes out of the White House," depicting snakes with the faces of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
“This war is criminal," Rainey voiced his anger, adding, "We impeached Clinton for a indiscretion with an adult."
Judy Creville, who came from Michigan with her two sisters, said she had opposed the war from the beginning but never attended a protest before. "They got on my last nerve," she said.
Zohrea Whitaker, another angry protestor who came from Sacramento she had a son serving over there, and wanted him home.
"Too many people have died and it doesn't solve anything," said Ann O'Grady, who drove through snow with her family from Ohio. "I feel bad carrying out my daily activities while people are suffering," she added.
Organizers of the Saturday protest did not anticipate comparable numbers. Authorities no longer give crowd estimates publicly.
Some active-duty servicemen also joined the anti-war protest, following rules that allow them to demonstrate but limit what they can say.
Petty Officer Jonathan Hutto, who is on active duty with the U.S. Navy, told the crowd that the people had voted against the war in the November elections and "we're here to cash the check."

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Folkiedave
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 05:34 PM

any examples dave, that were:
- Intervention not at the specific request of the government of the country involved;
- Intervention not as part of a United Nations Force
- Intervention at the request of the United Nations
- Intervention as part of a NATO Force

Iran 1953
Guatemala 1954
Lebanon 1958
Cuba 1961
Grenada 1983

Next?

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:33 AM

"Or could it have been their development AS A DETERRANT that kept us from HAVING a nuclear war????????"

So does that mean that Iran won't use them if developed? Why would you worry in that case? Or are they so different & are we beyond them? If they are such a detterrant, then everyone ought to own a couple. A few for the West Bank a couple for the East Side of Brooklyn, South LA, Bora Bora?

We Nuked Japan & didn't need to (IMHO). What happens when some idiot thinks we need to?

Dickey, I'd say that the Iranian assesment was closest to what I saw. My guess was 25,000 to 30,000 could've been more, I'm not an expert on estimating crowd numbers. The amount of counter protesters were, I'm sure no more that two hundred, smaller I'd think with far less tha 50 on the other side of the bridge & hardly any on the bridge except for the one I saw being arrested. It's also close that very few remainded till the 5:00 pm ending. We arrived at the Pentagon at probably 2:00 so the 3 hr standing in the cold was a little tough on most. I'd also say that most weren't dressed for the temps. It started out nice, at 11:00 am I was tempted to leave my heavy coat on the bus. I could see line of marchers had extended from the Lincoln Memmorial over the bridge & to the Pentagon parking lot, probably 2 1/2 miles in length.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 04:54 AM

"We Nuked Japan & didn't need to (IMHO)." - Barry Finn

But there again Barry, you were never likely to be in the place of those US Marines who having just fought for Iwo Jima would be staring at the upper side of the ramp of the landing craft heading in to spearhead "Operation Olympic".

The decision made by the President of the United States at the time was the correct one, it saved the lives of his own countrymen his primary responsibility. What your opinion of that decision is now after 62 years is irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 07:33 AM

That Japan was ready to sign.

"But there again Barry, you were never likely to be in the place of those US Marines who having just fought for Iwo Jima would be staring at the upper side of the ramp of the landing craft heading in to spearhead "Operation Olympic".

And that is a poor excuse for the desamation of innocents. That was a civilian target. But then so were the Iraqi targets.

No I wasn't there & neither were you but my father was & he believed it to have been inhuman, unnessary. He was a well decorated vet from that theater & he protested against Viet Nam. You always go for the killing effect 'T'. To you it's always the best way.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM

"You always go for the killing effect 'T'. To you it's always the best way." - Barry Finn.

Not at all Barry, quite the opposite as a rule. Only difference is that if attacked I will fight back. I will stand by what I said before regarding the decision and necessity to drop the two Atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

"The decision made by the President of the United States at the time was the correct one, it saved the lives of his own countrymen, his primary responsibility. What your opinion of that decision is now after 62 years is irrelevant."

After those bombs were dropped and the Japanese did surrender unconditionally as required, a poll taken amongst the 650,000 predominantly American servicemen who had been earmarked for the invasion of mainland Japan I believe would have been greatly in favour of President Trumans actions.

Ready to sign were they Barry

The Potsdam Declaration or the Proclamation Defining Terms for Japanese Surrender was a statement issued on July 26, 1945 by Harry S. Truman, Winston Churchill, and Chiang Kai-Shek which outlined the terms of surrender for Japan as agreed upon at the Potsdam Conference. The agreement stated that if Japan did not surrender, it would face "prompt and utter destruction".

Potsdam Declaration:

The proclamation stated that the full force of the United States, the British Empire, and National Government of the Republic of China would strike the final blows upon Japan.

They warned that "The might that now converges on Japan is immeasurably greater than that which, when applied to the resisting Nazis, necessarily laid waste to the lands, the industry and the method of life of the whole German people" and this power of the Allies would lead to "the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devastation of the Japanese homeland" unless Japan ended the war. Also that:

- Militarism in Japan must end.
- Japan would be occupied until the basic objectives set out in this proclamation were met.
- The terms of the Cairo Declaration would be carried out and Japanese sovereignty would be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as the Allies determined.
- The Japanese army would be completely disarmed and allowed to return home.
- Those who had led Japan to war must be permanently and finally discredited, and abandoned.
- War criminals would be punished including those who had "visited cruelties upon our prisoners".
- Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
- Japan should be permitted to maintain a viable industrial economy but not industries which would enable her to re-arm for war.
- The treaty was not intended to enslave the Japanese as a race or as a nation.
- Allied forces would be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Now that is what the Japanese, who Barry says were ready to sign, rejected out of hand on 26th July, 1945. The time then runs as follows:

6th August, 1945 - Attack on Hiroshima
9th August, 1945 - Attack on Nagasaki
15th August,1945 - Japan Surrenders unconditionally
2nd September, 1945 - World War 2 Officially ends with the signing of the Peace Agreements.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Barry Finn
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 05:47 PM

Here's the opinions of Generals Eisenhower & MacArthur & Admirals Nimitz & Leahy & others about Japan's surrender prior to bombimg.

"Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.
One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[67][68]
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[68] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[69] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[70]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[71]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[71]
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[72][71]


What was originally the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall has now been turned into the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The atomic bomb exploded almost directly overhead.
The survey assumed that continued conventional bombing attacks on Japan—with additional direct and indirect casualties—would be needed to force surrender by the November or December dates mentioned.
Many, including General MacArthur, have contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on Kyûshû, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.
Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945."

It was the 1st nuclear attack anywhere & it was uncalled for! It was a war crime & a crime against humanity.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 08:31 PM

Well, deja vu, on the discussion of wheatehr or not the US ***had*** to nuke Japan, or if it had to ***re-nuke*** them as if they might have not gotten the 1st nuking...

I agree with Barry... There were other ways for the US to have shown the Japanese that they, the US, had indeed figured the nuke out before anyone else an' if Japan wanted to escape having one dropped over one of their population centers then perhaps Japan migh consider a surrender...

Yeah, the US could have dropped the Nuke off-shore and sent a communique for the Japenses to just look out over the horizon...

This would have been a more humane decision...

Yes, I understand the absolutely horrendous battles between our two countries... My uncle was wounded twice in the Pacific and came home after what he'd done and seen and drank himself into the grave but...

This would have been the more humane course...

No one can say theu ***own*** the correct opionion on this decision... Not Teribus, not Barry, not any one... There is no ***proof positive*** waiting to be unleashed on this decison that makes it right... or wrong...

There is, however, differences in the way that folks like Barry and I look at ***conflict resolution*** compared to the way that a Terribus, or breadedbruce or a Dickey would choose...

I have said many times that with an increasingly shrinking and interdependant world economy that *** killing*** folks with whom you disagree is no longer a ***luxary*** that the world can afford...

I wouldn't have made a decision to use the nuke over a population center, regarless of me anger... Just as I wouldn't have decided to invade and occupy Iraq... Neither, IMO, solved probelms but created larger ones that we just pass down to our kids to solve...

At some point in time, mankind will quit this cycle of failure...

...or it won't and given the amount of munitions now vailbale to mankind, mankind will just, for all practical purposes, put itself into the extinct column...

That was what the folks who marched on the Pentagon were trying to say...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Dickey
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 06:58 PM

I agree that to nuke Japan twice was too much. But you have to consider the the state of affairs and the mindset at the time. Nobody knew the real horrors of nukes and they were so pissed off and worn out that they were numb to such things anyway. They were warned and given time between the two bombings to respond. What would Japan have done if they had the oppertunity to use nukes on US cities?

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Watch the documentary "Fog of War" by Robert McNamara.

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 04:27 PM

FUCKING TWATS!!!!
GO FUCK YOUR MOTHERS HAHAHAHA
YOU ALL SUCK BIG BLACK COCK
I FUCK YOUR MOTHER HARD IN THE ARSE SHE SCREAMED SILLY SHE LOVED IT SO MUCH
HER CUNT IS LIKE A HOTDOG BEING THROWN DOWN A CORRIDOR

FUCK YOU

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:10 PM

???

Subject: RE: BS: The march on DC for Impeachment 3/17/07
From: bobad
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 06:38 PM

Someone's got a beef.