To The Anonymous "Peter" Defending Bush's Argument

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

To The Anonymous "Peter" Defending Bush's Argument

Postby Moderator » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:37 pm

Peter, I sincerely hope you approach this with an open mind, buyt your arguments are ill founded.

Peter
- Wednesday, June 21 2006 12:28:41
"Name me another country that has invaded another sovereign nation under false grounds"

What false grounds?? Saddam did in fact violate numerous treaties and UN Resolutions and every single Intelligence Agency on the planet assumed that Saddam still possessed WMDs. Go ahead and read any of the statements of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Jay Rockefeller about the dangers of Saddam Hussein leading up to the war and in many cases their statements were even more alarmist than what Bush stated.


Actually, their remarks were based upon intelligence given them by the Bush Administration. Many of the original points and foci of the Admisnitration's arguments have been proven false by history. (No WMDs -- the original argument, BTW -- etc, etc, etc.) "Freeing" the Iraqi people" was a very late addition to the party line. We have, as a nation, never launched a proactive war to "free" any people from their own government.

And, as a matter of historical record, the CIA and British Intelligence were pretty much alone in the WMDs -- and we were relying on their documents.

"Who kidnaps foreign nationals and places them in black sites hidden from all outside contact"

Every war ever conducted involves the taking of POWs who are always held until the war is over - at least, unlike FDR and Japanese-American citizens, Muslims weren't rounded up by the tens of thousands and incarcerated for the duration of the war and their property confiscated.


Yes. The taking of POWs is permitted. POW treatment is a very specific set of circumstances, and is under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention. The Bush Administration has very specifically avoided labeling our prisoners as POWs to avoid having to treat them according to international convention. Again, look it up, it's a matter of historical record.

"Who torture in order to obtain information"

"Allegedly" torture is more accurate. Perhaps if you consider sleep deprivation and loud music to be torture. Abu Ghraib resulted in severe punishment for those responsible whereas the terrorists whom the US is fighting would consider the Abu Ghraib treatment to be punishable for being too kind.


Again, you're quoting party line and ignoring the facts. To date only a few lower level soldiers have been tried and/or convicted. The International Red Cross would differ with you on the definition of tortue, as would those nations we have "allowed" to have prisoners so that they can extract information. Abu Graib is a single example, and with only a little effort you can find recent documentation of many other examples.

"Who spy on their own citizens"

Canada did exactly that when investigating the alleged 17 Islamic terrorists who planned on blowing up Toronto and beheading the Prime Minister. I guarantee every other Western country (including Britain, France and Germany) is conducting similar surveillance operations that have not been reported because the Press is far less free there than in the U.S.


First of all, we ain't Canada or anyone else. Nor are the wiretaps and other methods being employed by the government legal means. Circumventing the law, even if you're the President, doesn't make it legal.

"Intimidate their supposedly free press"

Examples?? Other than unsubstantiated and frequently refuted claims by shameless reporters like Christiane Amanpour this assertion is pure nonsense. Perhaps Mark is referring to the Jayson Blair members of the media?


Please, please, please check the records before writing something like this. Less than two weeks ago Congress approved a Bush Administration item that increased fines for "indecency" by tenfold. There is no definition for what constitutes an infringement, only a vague "to be determined by the FCC". Not only is the fine excessive (it can be per incident multiplied by the number of stations running the "offensive" material),but also creates a dampening affect on the Constitutional rights of the station. Since stations are beholden to shareholders, it becomes the parent companies' fiduciary responsibility to avoid all potential fines, effectively censoring the media.

"Do not provide national assistance to its own citizens during national emergencies"

Based on such illogic I suppose State and Local government is exempt from providing such assistance as they were supposed to.


Having recently returned from New Orleans and spoken to people there, I'm stunned that there are still people who assume that the State and Loal governments are the only ones responsible for a response. It isn't that they didn't react, it's that FEMA and the Bush Administration committed serious errors in responding, the vast majority of which were and are inexcusable. Again, check the public record, including FEMA's own report.

"Whose economy is teetering on the brink of ruin with a soaring debt and overwhelming trade imbalance"

As a percentage of GDP the debt is actually no greater historically than in the past, especially considering that Bush inherited a massive recession (the Internet bubble burst) from Clinton followed by 9/11 which resulted in a TRILLION dollars being lost in the economy within a week of the attacks.


Party line response. The national debt has increased by the highest percentage in history. The stock market bubble actually had a very minor effect on the common person's finances. The 911 attacks jolted the economy, yes, but not by a trillion dollars within a few weeks.

To compare Guantanamo with the Soviet Gulag is sheer idiocy. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Soviets incarcerated a minimum of 25 million political prisoners with roughly 2 to 3 million deaths. Guantanamo has less than 500 prisoners and so far only 3 have died (at their own hands). Comparing the U.S. administration to the Nazis is as revolting and reprehensible a comment as was ever made. Those who make such comments prove one thing and one thing only: their absolute ignorance of history.


You may find the anology offensive, but the record shows that our personal rights have been seriously eroded under this presidency. Many of their arguments and issues demonize minorities or minority groups. The lower and middle classes have seen an erosion of their financial clout, and we have seen a substantial surge in the wealth of corporations and the richest individuals. You'll note that corporation involvement in government is a fundamental aspect of fascism, and the fact (historical) that so many of our current administration's policies were written by corporate officers should give you pause.

I'm not attacking you personally, but you've got to do more research that parroting party line and Fox News statistics. The above information is substantiated by public record, and I'd encourage you to see if what you quote on the Pavilion is indeed born out by the facts.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

rich

Postby rich » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:08 pm

Darryl doesn't show up here too often 'cause he's got more sense than the rest of us, but I think what he posted on the Pavilion bears repeating here:

To quote Andrew Sullivan's comment on torture:

"What was once a difference IN KIND between us and our enemy is now a difference IN DEGREE. That fact profoundly weakens our moral standing in the world, the power of our cause, and impedes the long-run success in the war of ideas that the war on terror involves. That this change was made secretly by an executive violating the express laws he is constitutionally bound to enforce makes the betrayal all the more enraging."

Emphasis Darryl's, and I couldn't agree more. (And apologies to Darryl if I've overreached my bounds.)

By the way, it doesn't just involve torture. That quote above pretty much sums up the policies that the Bush administration has enacted. All for our "protection".

Also...

I generally agree with what Eric stated on the Pavilion, though with the caveat that I try to do what I can in my own backyard, so to speak. Yeah, I'll bitch and moan like the rest of you ladies on the porch, but voting, writing to my representative, and trying to influence the few people that I know is my way of trying to right the ship.

I think Goldberg made some heady leaps of logic based on Eric's post, and Peter was just out to lunch, but there can be some argument about Eric's general cynicism regards to the political process.

And the argument is: I'm trying here in my backyard.

Eric_Martin
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:29 pm

Postby Eric_Martin » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:08 pm

There's no question that my comments could be read as cynical. I suppose that lancing the often wooly-headed idealism that passes for political analysis on Webderland will rub some fur the wrong way.

What tends to irritate, or at least bore, me is the constant kvetching about the minor injustices that are inherent in empire. Yeah, 100 people have died in terrorist custody, or whatever. So, we are thus a morally-bereft nation? What kind of Bible are people chained to around here, if they think that statistic is repellent? Has anyone any sense of history? Do you know what Caesar, Napoleon, Elizabeth I, Washington, or FDR would have done in response to 9/11? I can assure you it would make Guantanamo look like a girl scout jamboree.

Oh, but now I'm being "relativist." Or I'm dumping on ideals, or something. I forget that in this forum at least, trying to bring a balanced, realistic view of world politics causes one to be labeled an apologist, a cynic, or just someone not on the let's-all-march-to-another-Selma page. Not that any Webderlander does much marching. I doubt very much if 1 in 50 Webderlanders have ever done ANYTHING political, including going to a demonstration or writing a letter to something other than a skiffy forum. Certainly no-one is giving us reports from the resistance front...all we hear about is Grandmaster ceremonies and comic book conventions.

My sense of the average Webderlander political position is one of self-righteous soap-boxing, with a moral expectation that has absolutely no grounding in any kind of reality. It's so easy to bash elected officials, most of whom have responsibilities beyond anyone's experience, and many of whom wrestle with their own demons and consciences.

When it comes to politics, this board is like a gaggle of Ann Coulters, another fount of idealized, baiting blather. She likes to bitch and moan and call people names, and gods, so do we.

User avatar
robochrist
Posts: 3426
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Postby robochrist » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:22 pm

Eric,

"I forget that in this forum at least, trying to bring a balanced, realistic view of world politics causes one to be labeled an apologist, a cynic, or just someone not on the let's-all-march-to-another-Selma page."

Is THAT what you're doing, Eric? You're giving us a...whataya calls it?...a BALANCED, "realistic" view of woild politics?

Wow. Do I feel set straight!

Balanced. Yeah. That's what I am. Balanced.

....Balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced. I'm balanced.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:40 pm

Just as a point of note, why is it everyone immediately begins bemoaning that legitimate debate "crushes" fair comment?

If you offer an opinion and people differ, you should expect that they will post those differences. I don't view disagreements with my post as a personal attack -- unless, of course, it's phrased that way.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
markabaddon
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:24 pm

Postby markabaddon » Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:52 am

Eric, in response:

"wooly-headed idealism that passes for political analysis on Webderland will rub some fur the wrong way" Let me be clear, I am not an idealist, I just would like my government to stop treating the law of the land as a suggestion. The funny thing is, I am not even that liberal in my beliefs, and see a great deal of merit in many traditional conservative values. Where I cannot see any value is in embracing practices that isolate us a nation, create more enemies around the world, and make Americans less safe.

"What tends to irritate, or at least bore, me is the constant kvetching about the minor injustices that are inherent in empire." First of all, when did we become an empire. Does this mean Bush is an Emperor? (For some reason a quote from Octavious Ceasar comes to mind, when the Senate wanted to name him Emperor and he refused, saying the people would never follow an Emperor). Second, I think our definition of minor injustices is slightly different. I would classify a President ignoring 750 laws an impeachable offense, igniting an offensive war for no clear cut reason an impeachable offense, spying on millions of phone calls and (as we now find out) email messages within the bounds of the US impeachable, but perhaps I am overreacting because no oral sex was involved.

"Yeah, 100 people have died in terrorist custody, or whatever. So, we are thus a morally-bereft nation? What kind of Bible are people chained to around here, if they think that statistic is repellent? Has anyone any sense of history? Do you know what Caesar, Napoleon, Elizabeth I, Washington, or FDR would have done in response to 9/11? I can assure you it would make Guantanamo look like a girl scout jamboree. "

We are aware of 100 or so deaths, but there could be many more in those black sites that were killed. No one is allowed to communicate with prisoners in those sites, not even the Red Cross or Amnesty International. Dana Milbank may also be facing federal charges for breaking that story (which won her the Pulitzer), which was one of the items I was referring to when I mentioned intimidation of the Press.

2 of the leaders you cited were dictators so I am sure they would have reacted very similar to Bush. By the way, the "Bible" I follow is called the Torah.

I doubt very much if 1 in 50 Webderlanders have ever done ANYTHING political, including going to a demonstration or writing a letter to something other than a skiffy forum.

Not that it really matters, but I have written letters and emails to Congressmen, participated in anti-war rallies and contributed to various pro-democratic causes, including the ACLU.

Eric, if you would like to have an actual debate on the policies of this administration, I would certainly be open to that.
Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristrocratic forms. No gov't in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, gov't tends more and mroe to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class

PWKR
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:26 pm

Postby PWKR » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:04 am

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real...He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and others Oct. 9, 1998

“The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons…And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal…One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- EX-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power... We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country "
- EX-Vice-President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?"
- Sen. Tom Daschle (D, ND), Feb. 11, 1998

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
- Sen. Teddy Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


I could go on forever but the point is that although Bush is clearly a severely flawed President he was not alone in believing Saddam was a serious threat. I hope my response to Mark over at the Pavilion was not construed by anyone to be offensive. If it was, I sincerely apologize.

Peter

Cary Bleasdale
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:50 am

Postby Cary Bleasdale » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:15 am

"wooly-headed idealism" eh?

I must admit that I need a haircut, but wooly headed is a bit farfetched. Of course, someone who is PROUD of being "an empire" might not see it that way.

What do I have against "the minor injustices that are inherent in empire?" Well, first of all; by very definition, they are unjust. Second, minor offenses get bigger, and the next thing you know, our storm troopers are cracking Ghandi over the head while he’s making salt. When the worst of their "minor" injustices were taking place, the British were not under the rule of a monarch. They were about as free a society as the US. Actually a bit more progressive.

Also, why would you WANT to be an empire? Empire has a crappy historical record. What with the genocide...the murder...the rape...the conquest....the humanity....

Oh, and my credentials are just as good, if not better than anyone’s. I have marched in rallies, am a contributing member in good standing of the ACLU, MoveOn, and am a founding member of my campus' chapter of the ACLU. My liberal street cred is good. AND I suspect that most of the people here have done just as much, if not more.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:36 am

Peter -
Welcome to the boards. Excellent quotes, and yes they make the point that it was both Dems and Reublicans who led the charge, but they all center on the fact that Kerry and company were relying upon the evidence presented to them by the Executive Branch.

On October 8, 2004 Dick Cheney said: "The headlines all say, 'No weapons of mass destruction stockpiled in Baghdad.' We already knew that."

Bush, Sept 18, 2003: ""We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th," Bush said in an impromptu session with reporters. He contended, however, that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had Al Qaeda ties."
(This last part has now also been discredited.)

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly…..All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
- White House spokesman Ari Fleisher, press briefing, March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And….as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
- Gen. Tommy Franks, press conference, March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
- Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, The Washington Post, March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clark, press briefing, March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.
- Donald Rumsfeld, ABC interview, March 30, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find - and there will be plenty.
- Robert Kagan, The Washington Post, April 9, 2003




We can go on matching quotes, but if I, as a Senator (D or R), was given this sort of information repeatedly and forcefully I would likely vote for action as well. The second item is that the above demonstrate that the freedom of the Iraqi people was never on the agenda in a big way until after the WMDs evaporated.

Looking back at the events of 2003 and the quotes (including the ones you cite above), it was clear that the given rationale of the war was to remove Saddam Hussein, with or without anyone's approval or help (the UN, our allies), and nothing was likely to dissuade us from that goal.

"Spin" is something Washington is very good at, and it's up to the masses (yes, that's all of us) to question what we're being told -- which is only now beginning to happen (and those who spoke out in 2003 were labeled "traitors" and "treasonous".

If enough people had spoken out three years ago (Democrats and Republicans alike, citizens and politicians) we'd have 2500 more American soldiers, tens of thousands more would not be injured, and potentially a hundred thousand Iraqis would still be alive, albeit with electricity, medical support and a dictatorial control over dissent (and terrorists).
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

Darryl
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:38 pm
Location: SF Bay Area

Kerry, Clinton, Democrats and the "Use of Force"

Postby Darryl » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:32 am

I find that people who quote Democrats who were in favor of the use of force resolution regarding Saddam Hussein are missing one critical point. PERMISSION to use force is not the same as the OBLIGATION to use force.

Rich, anything I post here can be quoted. Thanks for your kind words.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Postby Steve Evil » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:59 pm

Peter makes a valid point. Bush was not alone in his assesment of Sadam, and certanly had the support of the majority of Democrats.

And I don't think anyone in the world really doubted the vileness of the Hussain regime. What most of the world doubted was his ability to harm anyone outside his borders, and the desirability of invading the country.

Though it is not very fashionable in socialist circles, I was not against the removal of Saddam Hussain. But I do believe that no one who actually cared about the plight of the Iraqis, as Bush claimed to, would have utilized the shock and awe tactics which involve lobbing hundreds of cruise missiles into a densly populated urban area where nearly half the population are children. Clearly they were not his prime concern.

Now, getting back to Eric's sobering comments.

Most of us are guilty as charged. Most of us talk but don't walk. I for one have been to my share of protests and inhaled my share of tear gas. but I haven't done nearly enough. This is admitted.

And it is also true, that the sins of this administration pale before others commited elsewhere. But I have never been of the opinion that greater sins committed elsewhere negate sins committed here. Pointing somewhere else and saying "Look how bad THAT was!" does not solve the problem. It does not negate the fact that there ARE sins being comitted here, by democratic governments, in our name.

We can do something about it. We couldn't do anything about the gulags, but we can do something about THIS. And yes, one hundred deaths are too many. It doesn't matter if there were many many more elsewhere, these deaths are wrong, and we can do something about it. Even if it is wooly headed to think so, there are worse things to be.

Anthony Ravenscroft
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 4:04 am
Location: Crookston, MN
Contact:

Postby Anthony Ravenscroft » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:08 pm

wooly-headed idealism

That nicely defines the NeoCon Agenda.
that passes for political analysis

...and that neatly defines the Sock-Puppet Media.

No surprise. One of the key methods of NeoCon thought-reframing is to project. That is, take what's within you that, if you had any ability at all to be objective, you'd know instantly was twisted or hateful.

Hate children? Create a program called "No Child Left Behind." Think that the entire concept of "pollution" is a hippie conspiracy to halt Big Business? Start the "Clear Skies Initiative." Want to sell peoples' private records to the highest bidder? Write a "Data Protection Act."

Want to keep throwing more cannon-fodder into the fray, & make a few million more in your war-related stock options? Yammer endlessly about how "we" are "making sacrifices" in order to ensure that "those who have died are not dishonored."

(Sacrifice more, so that we have to sacrifice more to honor them, & on & on. Worked so well in Northern Ireland.)

(Volunteers are up so much for the military that, this week, the max age for volunteering was raised to 42. Talking to friends, there was a day when "Gramps" was 29...)

PWER: Welcome to the board. However, learn how to do more than cut&paste the usual Freeper nonsense, or I'm going to begin with "dupe" & work my way down from there. For instance, you can quote Kerry until the sun goes cold, but you're clearly unable to notice that he claims to have felt pressured into voting to remove Saddam Hussein. Last I checked, mission accomplished -- in fact, didn't some li'l guy (looks kinda like a constipated monkey) say something to that effect?

After the Allied troops took Berlin, how long did it take to restore stability? How many Allied troops were killed after occupation began? While we're at it, how long was the U.S. in WWII, going as we did from a state of utter unpreparedness

I hope my response to Mark over at the Pavilion was not construed by anyone to be offensive. If it was, I sincerely apologize.
Sorry; I for one cannot accept such an apology from any PseudoCon dupe of the NeoCons. They (perhaps not you) almost always confront opposition by direct personal assault. Since the bahaviour doesn't change & nor does the tactic, apology is pointless, & accepting such apologies simply says, "I'm weak, kick me again."

Thanks, Cary, for taking that one up. I wrote a brief article four years ago on "the problems of empire." The BushCo Group was making noises about taking Afghanistan, then Iraq, then moving along to maybe Libya or Syria or Yemen ir Iran or such blather. Unlike most Right Wingnuts (whom I separate distinctly in my mind from PaleoConservatives), I have some historical understanding of the limits of empire. I know that Imperial Rome imploded due to a lack of firewood. I know that the USSR imploded because of constraints to the logistics of internal policing.

The main problem with an expansionist model is that it is based upon a constant positive second order, though it may maintain with no acceleration; the reality is that growth almost always follows an S-curve. And those who are enchanted by visions of empire are almost always the type who are blind to imagining (much less seeing) that progress can & will reach a plateau, & they are certainly unable to manage any steady-state situation. When the dust clears, they raise more dust; if there's no battle, they start purging the ranks, maybe slaughter some citizens, because blood must flow in order to signify Progress.

Eric, you're clearly an intelligent man, but every time you trot out yet another careworn canard, or defend a defensible position by tossing out an ad hominem insult, I imagine you locked in a nut-house, polishing turds. Stop using the bullying fascistic "Shut up & take it, ya pussy! Be a man!" approach. Stop being a dupe, & instead join in the debate with some glimmers of forebrain activity.

Eric_Martin
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:29 pm

Postby Eric_Martin » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:45 pm

>Of course, someone who is PROUD of being "an empire" might not see it that way. <

Another one who doesn't read. When you can pull the quote where I expressed pride in the fact that we are an empire, Mr. Bleasdale, then you will get a response.

Until you do, your just looking to scuffle, by attributing provocative statements to people that were never made.

PWKR
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:26 pm

Postby PWKR » Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:54 pm

After the Allied troops took Berlin, how long did it take to restore stability?


Not long at all considering the Allies practically leveled the entire city to the ground. Have you ever seen photos of Berlin in April 1945? It strongly resembled Richmond after the Civil War - a big pile of rubble. Bahgdad would almost certainly have been easier to pacify had it not been left mostly intact.

Thank you Mr. Ravenscroft for your kind welcome to the board but I apologized for my comments over at the Pavilion for my tone not the content. Which it seems you construe to believe I fully supported the war. I was actually very ambivalent about it at the time. I don't consider myself to be a Neo-Con or even a Psuedo-Neo-Con but an "independent" thinker who tries to carefully weigh both sides of an argument in order to avoid blindly or instinctively supporting either side.

My point, to clarify, is that although Bush may have committed numerous errors in the aftermath of the war, during the lead up there was near unanimous agreement between both Parties regarding the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. Individuals, regardless of Party affiliation, should be held accountable for their positions. It seems to be, in many cases, a purely partisan rewriting of history to allege or imply that Bush deliberately pursued his policies based on "intelligence" he knew to be false.

CIA Director Tenet was a Clinton appointee who, according to Bob Woodward (and never refuted), told a skeptical Bush that it was a "slam dunk" case that Iraq possessed large quantities of WMDs - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jun3.html . CIA briefings were apparently provided to all members of Congress prior to their vote. I'm well aware that Kerry now claims he felt pressured in his vote to authorize the use of force. Don't you concur that if Kerry was so easily duped by a "constipated monkey" then he hardly had the character to be a decent leader?

Mr. Barber makes a very valid argument that "spin" is a highly developed Washington trait. However, IMHO, it applies to both Parties in terms of their retrospective rationalization for their past positions.

PERMISSION to use force is not the same as the OBLIGATION to use force.


You're absolutely correct but I'm not trying to justify the decision to remove Saddam from power rather I'm trying (apparently not successfully) to argue that going back long before Bush became President there was general agreement on both sides of the aisle regarding the perceived threat posed by Saddam's WMDs (see: Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

Peter

"War is terrible but slavery is worse.”
Winston Churchill in 1938

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:01 pm

Jesus, Peter, the same talking points of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Lielly, Rush, Coulter and the cheer leaders of hell. Now, you can do better then that. At least have an original thought.

Yea, the democrats fucked up by going with a lying President, mainly because they knew they would be killed by the GOP as unpatriotic goobers. Kark Rove and his droog army play hardball and evil. You knew that.


Peter, understand how the CIA works. Bush is the comander and chief, the CIA doesn't do squat without his order; Bush as well as Cheney cherry picked stuff that they could sell to the gulled public and the bought out media, who genuflect on command. Bush was shown conflicting intelligence, but went with the flawed stuff, mainly as a boon for oil companies and an excuse to claw an imperial footprint into the center of the Muslim world. This was his messianic mission. He thinks Jesus whispers in his ear and commands him to do these things. He may want to evangelize the dumb towel heads, until they see the light and accept the hand of the bleeding Christ.

The international intelligence you keep hearing about was intelligence they had from--get this--1991!! Yea, 1991. How in the holy hell does one use the intelligence from more than ten fucking years ago? It's like this stupid story about the supposed serin gas that was found. The fucking shit was degraded, and was basically mush. Could not be used for any killing spree.

Then there's the privatization of Iraqi oil, that Bush planned, but was scuttled, because of the insurgency. Torture centers, illegal prisons, rendition, killings, napalm, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, blah, blah, blah...

Yea, Peter, read something other then the right wing crap. Stay off Fox news and CNN. Listen to Air America, read Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Howard Zinn, Chalmers Johnson, William Blum, Molly Ivins, Greg Palast, Bob McChesney, etc...

Peter, the world is your oyster. No need to dredge for kandy korn.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests