 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Vote to Impeach Bush
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:44 AM Peg: What huge loss of civilian life? Were they Civilian or Military? Were they Saddam's numbers? When and where did the US military sate they would kill civilians heedlessly? Do you think I am being paid to oppose your opinions? Where is this charge of being disingenuous come from? Does this mean I am lying? All I am saying is I where this prophecy about millions of innocent people dying from bombs being dropped on them comes from? I am trying to find out what that is based on. The response I get is that I am stupid because everybody knows it but me. Show me the facts and convince me. The best way to learn something is to try to teach it so teach me. I am all ears. Heil to your leader, Do you have a leader? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 22 Feb 03 - 12:56 PM Troll: I appreciate you defending me but we must defend freedom of speech too. I can take the accusations and they do not offend me. Let the anti-war protestors express themselves. Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves. I waiting to see what happens to the people in project human shield. Saddam's men will be hiding behind them with their gun barrels pointing out under their arms while our patriots are trying to topple the Saddam Hussein regime. There will be 500 to 600 media people embedded in to the troops so the world will see first hand what is going on. When Saddam pulls the dead baby bodies that he is storing up out of the walk-in boxes and stages them for evidence of a civilian massacre, we will know the truth. I hope I will see the liberation of the children in the Baghdad prison where they hold the 2 to 12 year olds to be tortured if their parents do not do Saddam's bidding. It is hard to believe that Baghdad which is considered to be the Cradle of Civilization has become the worst example of man's inhumanity to man. Oops, I had better shut up or I will be branded a Crusader as well as a Warmonger. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:04 PM I found something I want to share. It is at Iraqvoice.com Will the anti-war protestors please go to this site, read these polls and voice their opinions. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:18 PM Troll-where exactly did you get anti-semitism from? I didn't read anything that could be thus construed. Oldguy-The "attacking innocents with bombs" comes from the fact that part of Bush's stated attack plan includes leding of the attack with 3000 cruise missiles fired at targets in Baghdad. I imagine that those targets are military, but given our record with guided weapons in the past, some of them will undoubtedly hit and kill civilians. The real question is why is Bush leading of with a bombardment, useful only for destroying fixed emplacements and creating terror, rather than an airmobile attack, which could, if properly executed, disable the command networks of the Iraqi military with much less loss of civilian life? I imagine that the stated reason is to avoid mass casualties among the first wave, but I would like to point out that everyone in the paratroops volunteered for that position, and if they didn't know that their life might be risked when they joined the army, they damn well should have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:50 PM I think I would ask what kinds of bombs. I heard Donahue say "dropping incendiary bombs on innocent children and old people". That is incorrect. The munitions of today are 10 times more accurate than in the 91 war. They will be targeted at their military command and control centers. They are seldom dropped any more unless we are trying to blast down into tunnels and underground bunkers. I am sure that daisy cutters will rain down on the 50 palaces and anybody inside will be doomed. I don't consider them a civilian target. Most of them are smart bombs that are launched. We have E-bombs that are cruise missiles emitting microwaves that fry electrical circuits. They can actually fly down airshafts into bunkers. The main objective of the 3000 "bombs" is to soften them up and disable the army for our ground troops. Another objective is to just psych them out and possibly make the army surrender or stage a coup by showing such massive fire power. I have a suspicion that Special Ops wearing civilian garb will be on the ground even before the air assault begins to disarm the explosives Saddam has had placed on all of the big infrastructure items like dams, bridges, power plants and oil fields. The military would be foolish to tell everybody their battle plans but I have faith that they are bending over backwards to minimize civilian casualties. Otherwise why would they be operating the Commander Solo and dropping leaflets to the citizens? Please take a closer look at what their plans might be before ringing the alarm bell. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Peg Date: 22 Feb 03 - 03:23 PM Old Guy wrote: Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy - PM Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:44 AM Peg: What huge loss of civilian life? Were they Civilian or Military? Were they Saddam's numbers? --There was another thread recently which offered figures on civilian and military casualties in the Gulf War...the numbers vary but the range was somehere between 65,00 and 120,000...some of these figures were quoted by the US Army. When and where did the US military sate they would kill civilians heedlessly? --that's my whole point. You seem to think that because they say they won't target civilians, civilians won't be killed. I offered the many dead from the Gulf War as evidence that saying it doesn't make it so. Do you think I am being paid to oppose your opinions? Where is this charge of being disingenuous come from? Does this mean I am lying? --I am not "charging" you with being disingenuous, it is merely an observation. I DO think you are quite naive to believe some of the things you're spouting...perhaps you think the same of me. But much of your rhetoric echoes the military rhetoric being shoved in our faces by the media these days. I teach media studies for a living so I tend to have a healthy disregard for it... All I am saying is I where this prophecy about millions of innocent people dying from bombs being dropped on them comes from? --it's not prophecy, it is, if you will, conjecture based on what happened in the region just over ten years ago. I am trying to find out what that is based on. The response I get is that I am stupid because everybody knows it but me. --sorry, but I do think you are naive to think there will be no loss of civilian life in Iraq as a result of an invasion. Show me the facts and convince me. The best way to learn something is to try to teach it so teach me. I am all ears. --I have trieed to do so but you reject it; I can't do much about that. Heil to your leader, Do you have a leader? --not one I trust....nor did I vote for him and neither as far as I can tell, did a democratic majority...as far as i can tell the Supreme Court utths man in office. Troll wrote: Peg, just what was the "huge" loss of life in the Gulf War among the civilian population. "Huge" is a little vague, a trait you were just lambasting Old Guy for. --see above. I had thought it obvious to anyone who is apparently trying to discuss the impending war as if they have some sense of our history; I mean, why would someone be in favor of this invasion of Iraq without at least acknowldging the facst of what happened in the Gulf War?? Seems a logical assumption. I guess I was wrong about that. I know of no state where children are allowed to have guns legally so disarming the school kids sounds like typical hysteria tactics to me. --I don't either and yet the kids are still bringing guns to school and gunning each other down. I was raised in a house full of guns and never once did any of us handle a gun improperly or remove it from the house except when taking it hunting. There is a PROBLEM in case you haven't noticed and if parents are going to continue to be irresponsible then the only way to deal with it is make the gun laws tougher; that means taking them away from adults who can't demonstrate basic understanding of safety. If you want to mouth off and spout your anti-semitic slogans when you are with your friends, feel free. --I see no anti-Semitic "slogan" in my post. My reference to the salutation of the Third Reich was meant as ironic comment upon where things are headed in this country. Hitler slaughtered more than Jews so if I am being anti-Semitic I suppose I am also being anti-gay, anti-Catholic, etc. and yet you don't include these; why? BUT DON"T DO IT HERE! It is highly offensive to me and, I'm sure, to a lot of other people on the Forum. --I am offended at the implcation that the impending invasion of Iraq is being bandied about as if it is somehow some innocuous little foray that won't leave thousands dead...it will, and anyone who denies that is being naive. I don't give two whoops in hell how clever you thought you were being, it is offensive. If you don't have the sensitivity and common sense to realize that, nothing more that I can say will make one iota of difference but I will recommend a trip to a Haulocaust Museum. Maybe, just maybe, you'll start to get the message. --I am more than familiar with the Holocaust. I meant no offense. I think the comparison with the Third Reich is highly appropriate here. If you have no sense of irony I can't help you, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Troll Date: 23 Feb 03 - 12:05 AM Peg. Very good. You held your temper. I happen to believe that the Government has no right to keep someone from being an idiot. I agree that there are plenty of people who should not be allowed to touch guns. Ever. There are [eople who should not be allowed to walk to the corner store without a nanny. But our Constitution does grant that right and it is not right to take away ANY from everyone because of the abuses of a few. Should Freedom of the Press be abolished because certain newspapres or broadcasters play fast and loose with the truth? I didn't include the Slavs and the Roma either. I suppose I chose anti-Semetic because of my own family. I could just as easily have said Russian or Hungarian. Regarding the numbers of civilians killed during the Gulf War, I feel that you should be more specific when you speak about things that can be and have been counted. You seem to me to have demanded that sort of specificity from others in this thread -for example "again, this vast oversimplification and overgeneralization...who precisely is the "American public?" "Those jack-booted thugs stand for everything BUT security in my book." Do not demand from others that which you are not willing to do. The people who have put together the "Patriot Acts" are not trying to overthrow the Constitution. They are simply frightened little men of limited competence who are trying desparately to protect the country from terrorist attack. They are not doing a very good job but this is all they could think to do; turtle up, clamp down and hope it doesn't happen again. Believe me, these guys are not the Gestapo. They wouldn't know where to begin. If you think the Third Reich comparrison was apt, read up on the restrictions in place in both the Us and Britain during WWII. And if you really want to see a repressive document, rear the UN Declaration of Human rights sometime; you know, the part that says that you can do anything you want UNLESS it interferes in some way with a UN program or goal. And there are people who think that THIS it the greatest document on human rights ever written. I wouldn't worry too much about the Homeland Security Act and it's children. It must first get past the Supreme Court and I don't think it can do that. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 23 Feb 03 - 12:28 AM Peg: I would like to know how many of the between 65,000 and 120,000 dead in the '91 war were civilian. I can't find where you said heedlessly but I want to know where the estimate of millions being killed comes from. I think it is a conclusion, a guess made by people that are looking for a reason to protest which is being repeated over and over. Say it enough times and you will have the citizens of Iraq believing it. It would be foolish for me to say no innocent people will be killed but I have faith that the military is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Of course Saddam will be doing everything he can to cause civilian casualties which he can blame on us. Civilians will be dying even if nothing is done. After Saddam get more powerful will the dying cease? No, there will be a war sometime in the future that will cause even more civilian casualties. I want to hear one anti-war protestor say that it is OK for the people living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to suffer because we should not go to war with the Iraqi regime. They say they hate Saddam and they say the people are suffering but they never say it is OK for them to suffer. That it is in their best interest to suffer. They just go back to their "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine As for Bush not getting the popular vote, the way our founding fathers designed the government, they included a thing called the Electoral College. The Electoral College allows people to win that do not get the majority vote. We cannot fool with any thing the founding fathers wrote can we? There were other states with issues like the hanging chad that were never recounted as many times as Florida so the total number of popular votes will never be known. Let's have some sources and facts to base our opinions on. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 23 Feb 03 - 12:42 AM Old Guy says: "I want to hear one anti-war protestor say that it is OK for the people living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to suffer because we should not go to war with the Iraqi regime. They say they hate Saddam and they say the people are suffering but they never say it is OK for them to suffer. That it is in their best interest to suffer. They just go back to their "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine" Old Guy, I mean no disrespect, but the only appropriate response is DUH! I've said over and over again that the issue is not whether Hussein is a good guy or not, and it is not whether the Iraqi people are better off under Hussein or not under Hussein. You insist on casting people who are anti-war as pro-Hussein. OF COURSE WE WILL NEVER SAY IT IS OKAY FOR THEM TO SUFFER! If you are not familiar with the "straw man" fallacy, please go look it up, and then please, please,please stop succumbing to it. Thank you. Peace, music & compassion my good man. TIA |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Peg Date: 23 Feb 03 - 01:19 AM Old Guy wrote: Peg: I would like to know how many of the between 65,000 and 120,000 dead in the '91 war were civilian. --I think the estimate is somewhere around 85,000. But as I said, sources vary on the exact count. I can't find where you said heedlessly but I want to know where the estimate of millions being killed comes from. I think it is a conclusion, a guess made by people that are looking for a reason to protest which is being repeated over and over. Say it enough times and you will have the citizens of Iraq believing it. --well, seeing as the military has plans to unleash firepower amounting to ALL of what was used in the Gulf War during the furst THREE DAYS of any future attack on Iraq, I would guess millions is a pretty safe estimate. It would be foolish for me to say no innocent people will be killed but I have faith that the military is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Of course Saddam will be doing everything he can to cause civilian casualties which he can blame on us. --at least you admit you're being foolish. And why should Saddam blame "us" for inflicting civilian casualties pn his own people? Why does the United States need to solve Iraq's problems? There are plenty of countries where tyrannical dictators are making life hell for their people. Venezuela, for example. Cuba is another. And many areas of Africa are in horribel shape. Why aren't we declaring war on them? Your logic in the statement above sems to be saying we need to attack Iraq to protect the Iraqi people. This is not the job of the US government. Civilians will be dying even if nothing is done. After Saddam get more powerful will the dying cease? No, there will be a war sometime in the future that will cause even more civilian casualties. --what war are you talking about? This is what I mean about you being vague. I want to hear one anti-war protestor say that it is OK for the people living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to suffer because we should not go to war with the Iraqi regime. They say they hate Saddam and they say the people are suffering but they never say it is OK for them to suffer. That it is in their best interest to suffer. They just go back to their "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine --no one wants the people in Iraq to suffer but if the U.S> invades, it will be US inflicting the suffering. OUR bombs. If you care so much about the people in Iraq suffering, then why aren't you supporting a diplomatic solution? Answer: you've bought the war-mongering media hype, just like the government wanted you to. As for Bush not getting the popular vote, the way our founding fathers designed the government, they included a thing called the Electoral College. The Electoral College allows people to win that do not get the majority vote. We cannot fool with any thing the founding fathers wrote can we? --oh for pete's sake are you really this out of touch???? The electoral college had NOTHING to do with Bush getting "elected." It was a highly irregular and clearly illegal decision by the Supreme Court that did that. And since you're askig, yes, I think it would be a fine idea to undo a fair amount of what our "founding fathers" did. They were rich white men who were really only looking out for rich white men like themselves. But the main thing you need to know is that the "founding fathers" (I suppose it depends who you mean here) did not implement the electoral college...your grasp of history is shaky. There were other states with issues like the hanging chad that were never recounted as many times as Florida so the total number of popular votes will never be known. --actually, they were all accounted for but in the wake of 9-11 the media did not put a whole lot of focus on the story...funny, that. Let's have some sources and facts to base our opinions on. --when you start doing the same I'll be happy to oblige. You've offered no facts here and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes, vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 23 Feb 03 - 01:24 AM Peg: Valiant efforts, and I salute you, but it's like wrestling smoke isn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Troll Date: 23 Feb 03 - 10:41 PM Peg, just what diplomatic solution would you suggest. Remember, it needs to be one that Saddam will not only accept but will keep. His record for keeping his word is not too good to date. Regarding the Florida vote, there were several newspapers that did re-counts. Some said Gore won and some gave it to Bush. I don't think we'll ever know the real truth. I do, however, agree that their election decision was not the Supreme Courts finest hour. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:02 PM Oldguy-the problem is that, no matter how much more technically accurate our missiles are than they were 12 years ago, human error will still produce mass civilian casualties. If you don't believe me, as the families of the Afghanistanis killed when a wedding was bombed, or of the Canadian soldiers killed by American "smart" weapons. Further, recall that action in Afganistan was mostly fought in open country, where all the experts predict that Iraq will include a great deal of street-to-street combat. No one thinks that the Iraqi people should suffer (Saddam excepted), but there is good reason to believe that a war will not be the most effective option to reduce the suffering of the Iraqis. Peg-the founding fathers did create the Electoral College. It was, however, intended that the electors actually make up their own minds, guided by the votes of their constituents. It was only later that the Electoral became nothing but a confusing complication of the democratic system, and one which relies on a much greater concept of state's rights than is now possessed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:22 PM Peg: Your summation of my last post: "You've offered no facts here and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes, vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions." "--I think the estimate is somewhere around 85,000. But as I said, sources vary on the exact count." So 85,000 out of 65,000 to 120,000 is not a vague statement? Sources vary is not a vague statement? No Named sources is not a vague statement? "--well, seeing as the military has plans to unleash firepower amounting to ALL of what was used in the Gulf War during the first THREE DAYS of any future attack on Iraq, I would guess millions is a pretty safe estimate." First you have to stop being so vague on how many civilians died in '91 to make an estimate. "--at least you admit you're being foolish." I am not being foolish unless I say no civilians will be killed. "And why should Saddam blame "us" for inflicting civilian casualties on his own people?" Has Saddam proven to be a man of honor? Why does he place military hardware in the middle of civilian areas? Do you think it is to thwart an attack on those civilians? Civilians can't fight us. There is no reason to attack them. Please don't call me blind and gullible. "Why does the United States need to solve Iraq's problems? " To promote peace and stability in the world. "There are plenty of countries where tyrannical dictators are making life hell for their people. Venezuela, for example." Venezuela is a democracy. After that democracy matures the problems will diminish. Any WMDs in Venezuela? You know that people actually vacation in Venezuela? Do they vacation in Iraq or NK? "Cuba is another." The US acted to get the missiles (WMDs) out of Cuba. A democratic president was the commander in chief. Khrushchev was made to stand down. It could have escalated in a war but we stood our ground. By rights the protestors should have tried to block that action. There probably were some but the end result was good. The people in Cuba are literally dying to come to the US but I hear nothing of torture of children to force the parents to do what their dictator wants. I do not see Cuba is a threat in need of any action. The US is constantly trying to persuade Castro to restore human rights to the people of Cuba diplomatically. That was the mission of Jimmy Carter recently. Do you think we should do something different? By they way, Jimmy carter recently went to Venezuela on a diplomatic mission to try to restore peace there. Do you think an attack would be better? "And many areas of Africa are in horribel shape." There are no WMDs in Africa that I have heard of. The conflicts there as I understand them are on a tribal level. Which tribe should we attack? Is there a dictatorial regime we could "attack"? "Your logic in the statement above sems to be saying we need to attack Iraq to protect the Iraqi people." For the 1000th time, we are proposing to attack Iraq's regime not the people of Iraq "This is not the job of the US government." Whose job is it? If it is the job of the UN are they doing the job? We are saying? If the UN does not do the job, The US will form a coalition and do the job because we feel that The Iraqi regime is a threat to the security in the US. "--what war are you talking about? This is what I mean about you being vague." The war I am referring to in the future is when Saddam builds up his military and his arsenal of WMDs to the point that he can attack neighboring countries, as he has done before. The neighboring countries will fight back and then the prophecy of "thousands of bombs dropped on innocent people" and "millions dying" will come true. The major point being debated here is will the UN inspections and sanctions keep him from building up his arsenal so that he will never be able to attack a neighbor or does he need to be removed because he is too sneaky for the UN inspections and sanctions to be effective. That is the crux of the matter. Your point as I understand it is that the risk of civilian casualties outweighs the benefits of attacking the Iraqi regime so we should stick to the diplomatic sanctions and inspections method. My point is that even if the inspections and sanctions were working, the civilians will be suffering and dying. That needs to end ASAP. My second point is that if things continue as they are for 5 or 10 years "thousands of bombs will be dropped on innocent people" and "millions die" In a war between Iraq and a neighbor. "--no one wants the people in Iraq to suffer" Well, say we should act to relieve their suffering or say it is OK for them to suffer. Quit skipping over the consequences of not acting. "it will be US inflicting the suffering. OUR bombs". This is another iteration of the "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine with out careful consideration of the actual strategy of the military to avoid civilian casualties, "If you care so much about the people in Iraq suffering, then why aren't you supporting a diplomatic solution?" As far as I can see the diplomatic process has been underway for 12 years, it has not worked, Saddam has gained military power and further developed his WMDs during that time. It seems to me that the diplomatic method is not working on this particular dictator and that is why I do not support it. "you've bought the war-mongering media hype, just like the government wanted you to." I think that due to the freedom of press written into the Constitution that the media in America are completely free from government control. I see things that the government wants to keep secret being leaked to the media constantly. The only thing I see affecting the media is that sometimes there is either a left wing or right wing bias in the news. I think the two different biases balance each other if you read both sides and combine them to form your own ideas. "--oh for pete's sake are you really this out of touch???? The electoral college had NOTHING to do with Bush getting "elected." Yes, I am in touch and it was the Electoral College that decided who won the election and every election for that matter. "It was a highly irregular and clearly illegal decision by the Supreme Court that did that." I did not hear a judge bang his gavel and say "Governor Bush is now the President Elect" Mr. Gore ceded the 2000 election to Mr. Bush and he can run for president again in 2004. "And since you're askig, yes, I think it would be a fine idea to undo a fair amount of what our "founding fathers" did. They were rich white men who were really only looking out for rich white men like themselves." I see shades of anarchy here. Does the Constitution need to be rewritten or done away with completely and have "government by demonstrations"? "But the main thing you need to know is that the "founding fathers" (I suppose it depends who you mean here) did not implement the electoral college...your grasp of history is shaky." Help me with my history." I think my grasp of history is firm: "In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. The first design of the Electoral College is described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. The first design of the Electoral College lasted through four presidential elections. Congress and the States adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution revising the Electoral College in 1804." "--actually, they were all accounted for but in the wake of 9-11 the media did not put a whole lot of focus on the story...funny, that." Call up the media and demand that they restore coverage on the ballot counting. Right now I think the aftermath of happened on 9/11 is more worthy of news coverage than rehashing the election over and over. "--when you start doing the same I'll be happy to oblige" You can start with some not vague numbers and sources on the casualties form the war in '91. "You've offered no facts here" I think I did offer facts. Tell me a fact you want to know and I will try to track it down. "and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes" Point out the mistakes. "vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions" Where? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Troll Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:24 PM Lurker, war is not pretty. People get killed. Sometimes non-combatants die. No one wants it to happen but it does. It has always happened, from the beginning of wars probably. The problem is that now we can see the bodies flying through the air as we sit in our easy chairs and it doesn't sit well with us. If I live to be a thousand, I will never forget watching those people jumping from the WTC to escape the flames. One pair seemed to be holding hands. It is one more haunting memors for me to live with. So yes, civilians will die. But if the problem is not addressed now, how many more will die whem Saddam obtains delivery systems for the anthrax or VX gas that he is known to have had since the close of the Gulf War. How many will die when he attains nuclear capability and can blackmail the entire Middle East and possibly eastern Europe? I have seen war. First Hand, If there was a diplomatic solution to be had, I would support it. But I have seen nothing workable put forth and the only other alternative -to do nothing- is too grim to contemplate. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:27 PM Normally, I find that point-by-points improve the clarity and rationality of arguments, but Oldguy and Peg, I think you've taken it to the point of pettiness. Try just responding to a handful of points, and I think people will listen to you more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Peg Date: 23 Feb 03 - 11:39 PM Old Guy; You're really not worth any more of my energy to debate with because I am starting to think you really are just selectively blind and deaf. Your comments about Africa in particular are stunningly wrong-headed. But one thing I will respond to: "Why does the United States need to solve Iraq's problems? " To promote peace and stability in the world. If we should be promoting peace and stability in the world, then why are our energies focusedonly on Iraq? What about Zimbabwe? The Congo? What about Chechnya? What about (as mentioned before) Cuba and Venezuela? What about North Korea? What about the escalating situation between India and Pakistan? They DO have nuclear weapons. What about Syria, Jordan, and Israel? The United States does nothing to "promote peace and stability" in any of these placesand yet people in favor of an attack on Iraq (like yourself) claim that Iraq is somehow in need of our policing, that they are somehow more of a "threat" to us than countries whose nuclear arsenals are already known and whose political situations are volatile. So why are we so desperate to "protect" Iraq but nowhere else? The answer: oil. All that an attack upon Iraq will do will be to further anger and galvanize the "real" terrorist forces in the Muslim world to further vent their hatred of us. I think this is precisely what the current US government wants; then, under the guise of protecting US citizens, they can invoke martial law and create the police state and "bunkered paradise" they seem to want so dreadfully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Old Guy Date: 24 Feb 03 - 07:34 AM What about Zimbabwe? The Congo? What about Chechnya? What about (as mentioned before) Cuba and Venezuela? What about North Korea? What about the escalating situation between India and Pakistan? They DO have nuclear weapons. What about Syria, Jordan, and Israel? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:48 AM Peg: Are you saying we should attack all of these countries simultaneously? "What about Zimbabwe? The Congo?" I answered your question about African Nations once. Do you have something specific to ad execpt to say I am wrong? "What about Chechnya?" That is a case where Islamic extremists want to take over that country and Russia is fighting back. It is an internal affair. Do you think we should attack Russia or try to help them attack the extremists? Shouldn't the UN "What about (as mentioned before) Cuba and Venezuela?" As I mentioned before what was being done. I asked you if we should attack or what. All I get is the same question. I think we should use diplomacy in cases where human rights need to be restored and force (such as the force we used in the Cuban missle crisis) in cases where the security of the US and peace in the world is in danger. "What about North Korea?" Just as Afghanistan was our main center of focus before Iraq, the next will probably be NK. NK is like a snapshot of what Iraq could be in the future if no action was taken in Iraq. We are also finding out that they are supplying weapons to others that should not have them. NK used the situation of The US being so heavily involved with what needs to be done in Iraq to start using nuclear blackmail on the US and SK. All of the people opposed to action in Iraq yelled "why is Bush ignoring NK" and "can we fight two wars at once?" (This, in itself, indicates somebody is in favor of a war with NK). Then when he moved some more military hardware in that direction they yelled "Bush is playing his war games again". With Japan being in the nuclear club, they should be a strong deterrent for NK. I think the main objective there should be to keep them from developing more nuclear weapons than they already have. If that means an attack, so be it, at least an attack on their nuclear facilities. In the meantime we should offer to continue aid only after they discontinue nuclear development and destruction of their existing weapons and verification that they have done so. This is something that the UN needs to get more active in and do its job. If this country does not comply with the UN it should be Isolated economically and aid should be gotten in somehow to keep the people from starving. Chins would be the last one to cease trade with them but they should be made to realize who their biggest trading partners are. "What about the escalating situation between India and Pakistan? They DO have nuclear weapons." I think you will find that we send diplomats to these countries when the threat of war escalates. It seems their hostilities arise from which one owns Kashmir. This is another case where the UN needs to get involved and do its job. "What about Syria, Jordan, and Israel?" I haven't heard a lot about Syria but again we are diplomatically involved in trying to get a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Clinton made great progress and a deal was worked out but Arafat walked away from it. Later he admitted that he regrets not having signed the deal. My opinion of what to do about the Palestinian conflict is to force Israel to abandon the settlements in Palestinian territory by cutting off aid until they do so. I don't think they should have been started in the first place and I don't think there will ever be a lasting peace as long as they exist. They are an insult to the Palestinians that constantly reminds them that they are not really in their own country but just occupying part if Israel. Should we attack the Palestinian regime? I don't think so. Is that specific enough or do you want me to start writing battle plans and diplomatic proposals for each of these countries? Old Guy PS I have another question. How many anti-war demonstrators marched in Russia? They are free to do so now thanks to the efforts of "warmongers" like Ronald Regan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:22 PM Oldguy-the existence of a semblance of democracy has nothing to do with Reagan. The collapse of the Soviet Union was due to its own political and economic overreaching. The only thing Reagan did to help it along was get into a contest to see who could get a bigger deficit on weapons that were already superfluous many times over. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:45 PM Peg; Stop banging your head against the wall. Spend your energies and talents where they will have an effect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Mimsey Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:56 PM At the risk of diverting the thread back to its original topic, here is a scary, thought-provoking article a friend sent me: http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm Deeper, perhaps, than anyone expects? Mimsey |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 24 Feb 03 - 08:16 PM Forum Lurker: So his efforts did or did not help? by the way, Regan was often called a cowboy. Tia: Do you have anything to say that is not vague, and nebulous? Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:40 PM Yes, plenty. Please don't try to pick a fight with me, I'm not biting. Peace and Music Old Guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 24 Feb 03 - 10:49 PM No, Oldguy, he didn't help. He drove our national debt skyhigh, and set a legacy of disastrous foreign and economic policy which continues to hurt us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: toadfrog Date: 24 Feb 03 - 11:16 PM With all due respect, I don't like Bush any more than you don't, but this is the first time I ever heard Mudcat could impeach presidents. Normally the House of Representatives does that, I thought. Am I missing something? Anybody expect the House is actually going to do that? Does this Thread have a Point? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Troll Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:31 AM No. Not really. Lurker, Reagan took steps which caused the breakup of the Soviet empire. He lured them onto a spending contest that they couldn't win.. It was expensive, but that's the price of freedom and believe me, the Russians with whom I lived and worked last year are grateful. As artists (dancers, musicians, etc.) their opportunities for genuine self-expression were severely limited under the Soviet Govt. It is sometimes difficult financially now, sure, but they are free to go where they want and perform as they like. Maybe you don't like Reagan, but they seemed grateful to him and to the US. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:34 AM I don't give Reagan credit for it. First, there were considerable elements of internal politics, which Reagan did not meaningfully contribute to. Secondly, much of the money had already been spent, or would have been spent anyway. Third, if he was going to spend madly, couldn't he have come up with an actual source of funds, instead of just skyrocketing the national debt? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 25 Feb 03 - 10:42 AM My opinion is that the Regan tax cut was followed by a significant upturn in the economy and income tax revenues grew. The American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 25 Feb 03 - 12:43 PM Interesting article, Old Guy. Thanks for posting. I doubt it will change any minds that are convinced Reagan was a bad guy though. They hate to be confused by facts. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Oldguy Date: 25 Feb 03 - 05:13 PM It is true that the Soviet Union sort of imploded because it could not keep up. It was too spread out trying to support communism, which is economically unfeasible, in other countries. The US kept up the pressure by being prepared for an attack with out attacking and provoking a nuclear holocaust. Reagan was a major source of pressure because he ramped it up. When I say some people in America take things for granted, I am talking about things like the fact that the right to free speech was won in a war and the fact that the threat of a war and massive firepower prevented a nuclear holocaust and brought down the Soviet Union. It was not done with peaceful demonstrations that try to counteract the actions of the government. It may happen that NK will implode if we can isolate it but the people will starve in the process. The NK regime is in effect holding them as hostages. Old Guy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: toadfrog Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:12 AM It seems to me that Afghanistan did the Soviet Union in. It was sort of their Vietnam. And Reagan did his part, by building up Osama bin Laden and Mr. Hekmatyr and the like. Give him credit for that. There is a certain mentality that says, the only thing that makes life worth living is having enemies to conquer. And Troll may draw whatever lessons he wants. One lesson I draw is that a nation that goes around looking for fights will suffer for it. Another is, there is a law of unintended consequences. There is no end of potential enemies in this world, and one is likely to create new ones in the process of beating the old ones. Finding enemies to beat is not one of my priorities. I'm not a pacifist, I just think there is a lot to be said for just adjusting to the fact not everyone agrees with us. Fine with me that the Soviet Union is gone, but was it really necessary to strain every nerve to make them go away? Seems to me they were not all that threatening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Forum Lurker Date: 26 Feb 03 - 08:48 AM Oldguy, note that the economy of the country did much more poorly immediately following Reagan, during Bush I's similarly fiscally conservative administration, than it had been doing before Reagan. Is it possible that the effects of Reagan's policies just took a while to materialize? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 26 Feb 03 - 01:32 PM Just like it took some time to realize that the slight recession the U. S. experienced a couple of years ago began BEFORE the end of the Clinton administration? Is that what you mean FL? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 16 May 03 - 12:50 PM An update from Vote to impeach Bush: Nearly two hundred thousand people have already voted to impeach online. We need your help now to press on. We need a million votes and more. Impeachment is the nonviolent means the American people have to take back the Constitution in time to restore honor to our government and find peace with the rest of the world. Get out to vote. Executive privilege to obfuscate the 9-11 investigation; Homeland Security forces tracking a state legislator's plane; Senate Majority Leader's blatantly stated desire to use the FBI to interfere with state politics and have opposite party legislators arrested; power and cronyism run rampant with world domination as their stated goal. Time to take action and vote to impeach!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Ebbie Date: 16 May 03 - 03:14 PM If anyone still doubts the legalities of the impeachment movement, try these grounds on for size (Bush, et al, will understand and approve): Pre-emptive Impeachment Whole studies are done on projection. All they need do is see what has already been done by the Bush administration, already on record as to what they intend to do and the rationale for it, and project from there to likely outcomes. Makes sense to me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: TIA Date: 16 May 03 - 04:49 PM Ebbie - was that s'posed to be a link? If so, try again please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 16 May 03 - 07:18 PM Dream on! Bush filed papers today officially announcing that he will be a candidate in 2004, and a re-elect the president team is being organized. Just for the record, congress impeaches, not the Ramsey Clark Impeachment Committee. Those of you who want to follow the likes of Ramsey Clark, have at it though. That guy is nuttier than a fruitcake IMO. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: CarolC Date: 16 May 03 - 10:29 PM If I were of a mind to vote in that site, I think I would be afraid to in case someone's using it to keep track of people who want Bush impeached. If they can use Homeland Security legislation to track down state legislators, seems to me they could use information from that site for further abuses of power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,amergin Date: 16 May 03 - 10:43 PM well doug, your opinion has all the worth of a hairy pimple...but anyways...if junior wants to be "re-e;ected" doesn't he have to be ELECTED first? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: DougR Date: 17 May 03 - 01:25 AM amergin: yep, you're right. And he will be. Carol C: perhaps!! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Little Hawk Date: 17 May 03 - 01:51 AM Ah... Well, I would put in my vote for impeaching Mr Bush, but I'm not an American citizen, so I can't...I suppose. Way, way back there Giddyupgo asked a familiar question: "If you had your choice of countries to live in, which would you choose and why?" Oh, well, any number of places, for any number of reasons. Canada (where I do live), France, the UK, Denmark, Holland, Trinidad, Norway, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, Bermuda...really, it just goes on forever... I might consider the USA too, but with some reservations...it just keeps getting weirder there. It kind of depends where you are and what you're doing. This holding up of any one country (usually one's own) as the automatically "best" place in the World to live is naive and silly, but American self-styled "patriots" have been doing it for as long as I can remember...possibly because they just don't know any better...or maybe they're feeling a little insecure and defensive. Gosh...I wonder why that would be? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,pdc Date: 17 May 03 - 01:52 AM I've been reading this thread -- many people asked about civilian and other casualties during the first Gulf War. A Google search produced many sites: the one below (quoted in part) seems to be comprehensive. In Iraq, the civilian death toll in 1991 - after the massive bombing campaign was stopped - rose to 111,000 people. Shortages of medicine and damaged health facilities contributed to this high rate of "delayed mortality." Of these 111,000 deaths, 70,000 were children under 15 years of age. UNICEF has documented that the combined effects of the Gulf War and over a decade of economic sanctions resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children due to malnutrition, diarrhea, and other preventable diseases. Link:(sorry it's pdf)GulfWarFacts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: CarolC Date: 17 May 03 - 12:13 PM Carol C: perhaps!! So, DougR, how far does the US have to go toward being a fascist dictatorship before you decide it's gone far enough? All those "freedom and democracy" loving people are just a bunch of Communists anyway, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: Ebbie Date: 17 May 03 - 12:28 PM Nope. Wasn't trying for a link. That was my ineffective way of trying to suggest a (somewhat) facetious impeachment policy. I should have said something like 'impeccable process for impeachment: Pre-emptive Impeachment.' In other words, if we as a nation can attack another nation pre-emptively, surely that principle is a valid one for other activities? Looking at where this administration has already gone, it's easy - and essential- to become alarmed at where it is going. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST Date: 17 May 03 - 09:55 PM "My disagreement with the peace-at-any-price men, the ultrapacifists, is not in the least because they favor peace. I object to them, first, because they have proved themselves futile and impotent in working for peace, and second, because they commit what is not merely the capital error but the crime against morality of failing to uphold righteousness as the all-important end toward which we should strive ... I have as little sympathy for them as they have for the men who deify mere brutal force, who insist that power justifies wrongdoing, and who declare that there is no such thing as international morality. But the ultra- pacifists really play into the hands of these men. To condemn equally might which backs right and might which overthrows right is to render positive service to wrong-doers ... To denounce the nation that wages war in self-defense, or from a generous desire to relieve the oppressed, in the same terms in which we denounce war waged in a spirit of greed or wanton folly stands on a par with denouncing equally a murderer and the policeman who, at peril of his life and by force of arms, arrests the murderer. In each case the denunciation denotes not loftiness of soul but weakness both of mind and morals." Theodore Roosevelt |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 17 May 03 - 11:13 PM I'm not a pacifist and I believe anything that happens to Saddam is too good for him. Now that that's out of the way: What was wrong with the war with Iraq was that it was pre-emptive. Iraq was said to be a material threat to the US, and all this talk about liberating the Iraqis came late in the day. And the thing that's wrong with a pre-emptive war is the same thing that's wrong with a pre-emptive impeachment, as Ebbie tried to point out. Simple as that. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: katlaughing Date: 18 May 03 - 01:03 AM And GUEST of 9:55PM is being repetitive, posting the exact same quote in different threads. Perhaps having no original thoughts of their own? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,Johnny in OKC Date: 18 May 03 - 01:40 AM George Bush filed for re-election today. (I can't think of what to say next.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Vote to Impeach Bush From: GUEST,pdc Date: 18 May 03 - 01:45 AM The most telling part of this whole thread on voting to impeach Bush is this quote from Carole C: "If I were of a mind to vote in that site, I think I would be afraid to in case someone's using it to keep track of people who want Bush impeached. If they can use Homeland Security legislation to track down state legislators, seems to me they could use information from that site for further abuses of power." How sad that the country has come to this. How frightening. I believe that in a decade or so we all may look back and say, "why didn't we do something?" |
