Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on February 27, 2008, 04:33:20 AM
-
The Suicide of Emma Beck and Silence No More
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
townhall.com (http://townhall.com)
She didn't have to die. And neither did her unborn children. Over the weekend, London newspapers reported on the 2007 suicide of 30-year-old Emma Beck, a young British artist who hung herself after the abortion of her twin babies. Perhaps the retelling of her suffering can prevent more needless deaths.
The agony and loneliness in Emma Beck's suicide note resonate across the pond, across racial and class lines, across generations. She was distraught over a breakup with her boyfriend, who didn't want the children. She was suffering intense grief from her decision to end the lives inside her. And so she ended her own.
"I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum," Beck wrote. "I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies -- they need me, no one else does."
Beck's family blames the medical establishment. The judicial system, as is so often the case, has become a coping mechanism. A British court recently held a hearing on Beck's suicide. Beck's mother revealed that her daughter "was not given the opportunity to see a counselor."
When a professional "counselor" can't be found, isn't that what mothers are for?
But it's not just jaded abortion providers and medical assistants, AWOL counselors and MIA parents who need to look in the mirror. We have tolerated a culture of callousness and nurtured an entitlement to convenience for decades. Feminists shush women with post-abortion regrets. Population control zealots and Planned Parenthood drum it into the heads of young women around the world: "The fewer, the merrier" and "Why carry more burdens?" their T-shirts and bumper stickers proclaim.
Last fall, in Emma Beck's homeland, the British press went gaga over an environmental nitwit who had an abortion and got her tubes tied to "protect the planet." She told the London Daily Mail: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
That came on the heels of a British think tank report on how children are bad for the environment. Said John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning at University College London: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."
And who gets premium op-ed space in America's newspaper of record to talk about abortion? Idiots like University of Iowa adjunct assistant writing professor Brian Goedde, who shared his festive thoughts surrounding the New Year's Eve before his girlfriend's abortion in an essay a few months ago in The New York Times. "The abortion is scheduled for two days from now, and we're holing up," he reminisced. "We do the dishes brush our teeth, climb into bed and have unprotected sex. 'I'm not going to get more pregnant,' Emily says. I've never felt pleasure more guiltily."
What you rarely hear are the voices telling you that such self-indulgence is wrong. What you rarely read are the stories of untold women (and men) around the world who know the vaunted choice they made was wrong and need help. What you rarely see are the studies showing that with abortion come lifelong costs and consequences -- high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, grief, ostracism, guilt and, in at least one study in Finland, higher suicide rates.
Delivering that message here in the United States are preventive groups like the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (nifla.org), which donates ultrasound equipment and training to open up a "window to the womb" for women in crisis pregnancies, and post-abortion healing organizations like Silent No More (silentnomoreawareness.or g). To combat abortion glorifiers, the Silent No More Awareness campaign makes the public aware that abortion is emotionally, physically and spiritually harmful to women and others; reaches out to women who are hurting from an abortion and lets them know help is available; and invites women to join us in speaking the truth about abortion's negative consequences.
What Emma Beck most needed to hear is the message abortion pushers most desperately want to drown out: You are not alone.
-
The Suicide of Emma Beck and Silence No More
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
townhall.com (http://townhall.com)
She didn't have to die. And neither did her unborn children. Over the weekend, London newspapers reported on the 2007 suicide of 30-year-old Emma Beck, a young British artist who hung herself after the abortion of her twin babies. Perhaps the retelling of her suffering can prevent more needless deaths.
The agony and loneliness in Emma Beck's suicide note resonate across the pond, across racial and class lines, across generations. She was distraught over a breakup with her boyfriend, who didn't want the children. She was suffering intense grief from her decision to end the lives inside her. And so she ended her own.
"I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum," Beck wrote. "I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies -- they need me, no one else does."
Beck's family blames the medical establishment. The judicial system, as is so often the case, has become a coping mechanism. A British court recently held a hearing on Beck's suicide. Beck's mother revealed that her daughter "was not given the opportunity to see a counselor."
When a professional "counselor" can't be found, isn't that what mothers are for?
But it's not just jaded abortion providers and medical assistants, AWOL counselors and MIA parents who need to look in the mirror. We have tolerated a culture of callousness and nurtured an entitlement to convenience for decades. Feminists shush women with post-abortion regrets. Population control zealots and Planned Parenthood drum it into the heads of young women around the world: "The fewer, the merrier" and "Why carry more burdens?" their T-shirts and bumper stickers proclaim.
Last fall, in Emma Beck's homeland, the British press went gaga over an environmental nitwit who had an abortion and got her tubes tied to "protect the planet." She told the London Daily Mail: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
That came on the heels of a British think tank report on how children are bad for the environment. Said John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning at University College London: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."
And who gets premium op-ed space in America's newspaper of record to talk about abortion? Idiots like University of Iowa adjunct assistant writing professor Brian Goedde, who shared his festive thoughts surrounding the New Year's Eve before his girlfriend's abortion in an essay a few months ago in The New York Times. "The abortion is scheduled for two days from now, and we're holing up," he reminisced. "We do the dishes brush our teeth, climb into bed and have unprotected sex. 'I'm not going to get more pregnant,' Emily says. I've never felt pleasure more guiltily."
What you rarely hear are the voices telling you that such self-indulgence is wrong. What you rarely read are the stories of untold women (and men) around the world who know the vaunted choice they made was wrong and need help. What you rarely see are the studies showing that with abortion come lifelong costs and consequences -- high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, grief, ostracism, guilt and, in at least one study in Finland, higher suicide rates.
Delivering that message here in the United States are preventive groups like the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (nifla.org), which donates ultrasound equipment and training to open up a "window to the womb" for women in crisis pregnancies, and post-abortion healing organizations like Silent No More (silentnomoreawareness.or g). To combat abortion glorifiers, the Silent No More Awareness campaign makes the public aware that abortion is emotionally, physically and spiritually harmful to women and others; reaches out to women who are hurting from an abortion and lets them know help is available; and invites women to join us in speaking the truth about abortion's negative consequences.
What Emma Beck most needed to hear is the message abortion pushers most desperately want to drown out: You are not alone.
That is a sad story. The ignorance and callousness of some of those abortion proponents is astounding.
-
sad story but this girl was an adult and made her own choices.
Then again lot's of sad and tragic stories happen every day. As I'm typing this there is probably some infant somewhere dying a horrible death - most likely from starvation or dysentary.
-
She's an idiot. Whatever one's stance on abortion, she should have known that abortion (like diamonds) is forever.
Hope this helps.
-
Gods watching ,and we will answer for our decisions one day. There are so many people wanting to adopt....I dont see the reason.
My wife had a miscarriage at 3 months along. Sometimes i imagine that little soul in nothingness, and my heart stops beating......
-
Gods watching ,and we will answer for our decisions one day. There are so many people wanting to adopt....I dont see the reason.
My wife had a miscarriage at 3 months along. Sometimes i imagine that little soul in nothingness, and my heart stops beating......
why don't you just imagine your god sending the soul to heaven instead
-
why don't you just imagine your god sending the soul to heaven instead
I guess I'll find out when I exit stage left....
-
I wasn't trying to be glib. I was serious in that you might as well imagine a positive outcome rather than a negative one.
If you're Catholic then this might help:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2028721620070420
-
To the OP: let's make political hay out of someone else's pain.
It's too late now, but this matter should have been left to the states.... or the court should have deferred until it was clear that there was a national consensus....like they did in the 1930s.
-
It's a very sad story :-[
is it that hard to show empathy ???
-
This is a sad story.
I'm very familiar with people who have attempted suicide including friends and family. It's always a horror.
But since the author decided to air her political laundry, I will do likewise.
If a person supports the Iraq War or capital punishment, then he or she has absolutely no business being an anti-abortionist.
Stop it.
Your blatant hypocrisy is showing.....Sanctity of life my ass.
-
I wasn't trying to be glib. I was serious in that you might as well imagine a positive outcome rather than a negative one.
If you're Catholic then this might help:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2028721620070420
Oh, I knew you meant no ill will, Straw. I took as it was meant. I know Ill see him/her once again....just lost in a moment is all... ;)
-
This is a sad story.
I'm very familiar with people who have attempted suicide including friends and family. It's always a horror.
But since the author decided to air her political laundry, I will do likewise.
If a person supports the Iraq War or capital punishment, then he or she has absolutely no business being an anti-abortionist.
Stop it.
Your blatant hypocrisy is showing.....Sanctity of life my ass.
Abortion one hand and the war or capital punishment on the other have nothing to do with each other, particularly capital punishment.
-
Abortion one hand and the war or capital punishment on the other have nothing to do with each other, particularly capital punishment.
Someone should give you a medal for your amazing ability to reconcile irreconcilable positions.
-
Someone should give you a medal for your amazing ability to reconcile irreconcilable positions.
Someone should tell you you're not as smart as you think you are.
Never mind. I just said it. :)
-
Abortion one hand and the war or capital punishment on the other have nothing to do with each other, particularly capital punishment.
That's a classic non-sequitur.
Dead is dead. No chance of life or redemption or such b/c the person is dead.
Also, I hope you are not saying this as a christian. All can be forgiven through your religion once Christ is accepted....unless of course one is dead and cannot accept Jesus as his personal savior. Look out hell here I come.
Or are you saying that the reasons for killing make abortion different from executions or military deaths?
-
Someone should tell you you're not as smart as you think you are.
Never mind. I just said it. :)
It doesn't take a smart person to recognize a hypocrite. Hope this helps.
-
It doesn't take a smart person to recognize a hypocrite. Hope this helps.
Do you not have the light of Christ shining in your heart? ??? Well, Beach Bum does... Therefore, his arguments don't need to need to make sense. Faith always supplants reason, and Beach has a direct hotline to Jesus to find out what his opinions ought to be.
Hope this helps.
-
That's a classic non-sequitur.
Dead is dead. No chance of life or redemption or such b/c the person is dead.
Also, I hope you are not saying this as a christian. All can be forgiven through your religion once Christ is accepted....unless of course one is dead and cannot accept Jesus as his personal savior. Look out hell here I come.
Or are you saying that the reasons for killing make abortion different from executions or military deaths?
The pro-war/pro-life/pro-death penalty crowd are like Winston Churchill's prostitute (Ma'am, we've established that you are a prostitute, we're just haggling about the price").
They're willing to put a price on lives, but God forbid that anybody disagree with their calculus.
-
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
...........looks like God (and Jesus and the Holy Ghost) are the biggest abortionists of all
-
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
...........looks like God (and Jesus and the Holy Ghost) are the biggest abortionists of all
"Letter to a Christian Nation" ?
-
"Letter to a Christian Nation" ?
Harris made the same point but I got the stat from here:
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html
-
Harris made the same point but I got the stat from here:
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/miscarriage.html
Nice. I almost had you there ;)
-
Miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.
...........looks like God (and Jesus and the Holy Ghost) are the biggest abortionists of all
To be fair, such a perspective ignores the role "choice" plays in abortion.
-
To be fair, such a perspective ignores the role "choice" plays in abortion.
fair point but the larger issue is that Christians seem to think they know exactly what life is and when life starts and from that perspective the cause of the terminated pregnancy doesn't really matter that much.
-
It doesn't take a smart person to recognize a hypocrite. Hope this helps.
Obviously not.
And how exactly am I not practicing what I preach?
-
I gotta say I really get a kick out of Christians who are pro-capital punishment and pro-war.
As Bill Hicks used to say - "It's a hoot"
-
I don't want to do the dance of the seven veils with this topic so I'll make my point. If anti-abortionists claim that killing the fetus is wrong, then they must have a qualitative point as to why it is wrong...as to why it differs from killing convicts or innocent Iraqis.
That's got to be a heck of a point. We kill convicts as punishment for crimes. Seems plausible.
I mean what crime has a fetus committed?
By that same token of thought, what crime have the Iraqi people committed to deserve death at the hands of the american military?
There's the word! Deserve.
Some people deserve to die and others do not. hmmmm. I'd like to continue this but it's about time for me to go home. It's after 6:30 here in Milwaukee and I hope my wife has dinner on the table.
I deserve that.
-
If the co-founder of the lobbyist group NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who took part in some 75,000 abortions spends his time denouncing abortion, then I'd be more inclined to listen to him than the weak arguments that I've read here. Look him up, read his story.
-
If the co-founder of the lobbyist group NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who took part in some 75,000 abortions spends his time denouncing abortion, then I'd be more inclined to listen to him than the weak arguments that I've read here. Look him up, read his story.
No one in their right mind thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. ::)
we're just pointing out that it's hypocritical to decide that the price you and your ilk put on human life is the right one.
-
I don't want to do the dance of the seven veils with this topic so I'll make my point. If anti-abortionists claim that killing the fetus is wrong, then they must have a qualitative point as to why it is wrong...as to why it differs from killing convicts or innocent Iraqis.
That's got to be a heck of a point. We kill convicts as punishment for crimes. Seems plausible.
I mean what crime has a fetus committed?
By that same token of thought, what crime have the Iraqi people committed to deserve death at the hands of the american military?
There's the word! Deserve.
Some people deserve to die and others do not. hmmmm. I'd like to continue this but it's about time for me to go home. It's after 6:30 here in Milwaukee and I hope my wife has dinner on the table.
I deserve that.
Regarding capital punishment, the obvious distinction is due process. Babies get none. Convicted killers get plenty.
-
Regarding capital punishment, the obvious distinction is due process. Babies get none. Convicted killers get plenty.
So you are saying that the reason for killing a person is important in your moral code?
Convicted killers should die for the reason that they are convicted killers. Right?
How does that square with your support of the Iraqi killings?
They are innocent. They had no 'due process' of law. Oh wait, they did--the UN inspections that all interested countries agreed to. The inspections that Pres. Bush single-handedly stopped by ordering the invasion.
How can you oppose the killing of an innocent baby yet support the killing of innocents in Iraq?
-
If she said in the hospital that she didn't want to do it, they should not have done it and sent her home to think about it.
I think in the US they wouldn't of done the procedure if anyone said they were unsure, let alone that they didn't want to.
-
If she said in the hospital that she didn't want to do it, they should not have done it and sent her home to think about it.
I think in the US they wouldn't of done the procedure if anyone said they were unsure, let alone that they didn't want to.
From the spoken word, to the written one on screen, this construct seems to have totally infected American English in my absence. It is very sad.
-
So you are saying that the reason for killing a person is important in your moral code?
Convicted killers should die for the reason that they are convicted killers. Right?
How does that square with your support of the Iraqi killings?
They are innocent. They had no 'due process' of law. Oh wait, they did--the UN inspections that all interested countries agreed to. The inspections that Pres. Bush single-handedly stopped by ordering the invasion.
How can you oppose the killing of an innocent baby yet support the killing of innocents in Iraq?
Arguing with fundies is a bit like arguing with a solid brick wall, save that the wall provides greater variation in its opposition.
-
So you are saying that the reason for killing a person is important in your moral code?
Convicted killers should die for the reason that they are convicted killers. Right?
How does that square with your support of the Iraqi killings?
They are innocent. They had no 'due process' of law. Oh wait, they did--the UN inspections that all interested countries agreed to. The inspections that Pres. Bush single-handedly stopped by ordering the invasion.
How can you oppose the killing of an innocent baby yet support the killing of innocents in Iraq?
I'm saying according to the U.S. Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of life without due process of law . . . except when the person is still in the mother's womb.
Convicted killers should die if they have committed a capital crime, are properly charged, tried, and convicted, and sentenced to death. That's what the Constitution permits.
War is a necessary evil. When it is necessary to go to war, people die. Has nothing to do with abortion. I don't think most people support the intentional killing of innocent people in war. Good thing that's not what we do.
-
I'm saying according to the U.S. Constitution, a person cannot be deprived of life without due process of law . . . except when the person is still in the mother's womb.
Convicted killers should die if they have committed a capital crime, are properly charged, tried, and convicted, and sentenced to death. That's what the Constitution permits.
War is a necessary evil. When it is necessary to go to war, people die. Has nothing to do with abortion. I don't think most people support the intentional killing of innocent people in war. Good thing that's not what we do.
The binding tie here is killing.
We've established that you hate one kind of killing but support other kinds of killing. These are apt comparisons--abortion to war to execution--they are all forms of killing.
Due process applies to 'people' under the constitution. A Fetus does not have standing as a 'person'. In other parts of the constitution, children are not 'people' as well.
You still haven't addressed my question.
If the taking of fetal life is wrongful killing, since there is no due process, why is the killing in Iraq ok? The Iraqi's had a sort of due process and were/are killed anyways.
I see an important inconsistency in your thinking.
-
Decker - good luck on this one.
A dog chasing it's own tail has a greater capacity for critical reasoning than certain lazy beach dwellers who post on this site.
-
The binding tie here is killing.
We've established that you hate one kind of killing but support other kinds of killing. These are apt comparisons--abortion to war to execution--they are all forms of killing.
Due process applies to 'people' under the constitution. A Fetus does not have standing as a 'person'. In other parts of the constitution, children are not 'people' as well.
You still haven't addressed my question.
If the taking of fetal life is wrongful killing, since there is no due process, why is the killing in Iraq ok? The Iraqi's had a sort of due process and were/are killed anyways.
I see an important inconsistency in your thinking.
The distinctions here are due process and intentional killing.
An unborn child is a person, whether it is defined as such under the law or not. Just like you and I are persons, whether the law defines us as persons or not (and yes I know the law makes a distinction). That's the difference between abortion and capital punishment. A person who commits a heinous crime gets the benefit of a public trial at taxpayer expense, a lawyer at taxpayer expense, a judge and jury, countless appeals at taxpayer expense, access to taxpayer funded law libraries (you should visit a prison sometimes; they might have a better law library than you), and in the end they may lose their life based on their crime after this due process is completed. Unborn babies don't have this benefit. Really no comparison at all.
War is self defense. We have rules of engagement. No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war. If they are, the person doing the killing is treated like any other criminal. For example:
"HONOLULU -- A Schofield Barracks soldier accused of shooting and killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian to death was convicted of assault on Wednesday."
http://www.kitv.com/news/15362837/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
You take the position that all killing is wrong. I don't. I think murder is wrong.
-
The ironic and hilarious part of devout Chrisians who are pro-capital punishment is the contrast of all the historical figures in their religion who were tried and killed by the government of their own times for crimes against the state.
Let's see, there was Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul and no doubt countless thousands of others who we know nothing about. All tried, convicted and executed in courts that were the standards of their own time.
Then there are those pesky and inconvenient teachings of Jesus about loving your enemy that keep getting in the way or those supposed words directly from God about not killing.
You'd think the safe bet would be to just not kill anything
-
An unborn child is a person, whether it is defined as such under the law or not.
Hahaha, first this douche brings up due process, then he's like, let's ignore the law.
-
The distinctions here are due process and intentional killing.
An unborn child is a person, whether it is defined as such under the law or not. Just like you and I are persons, whether the law defines us as persons or not (and yes I know the law makes a distinction). That's the difference between abortion and capital punishment. .... Really no comparison at all.
I understand this. But there is a comparison basis--the dead bodies. Your rationalizations are sound though.
War is self defense. We have rules of engagement. No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war. If they are, the person doing the killing is treated like any other criminal. For example:
"HONOLULU -- A Schofield Barracks soldier accused of shooting and killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian to death was convicted of assault on Wednesday."
http://www.kitv.com/news/15362837/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news
You take the position that all killing is wrong. I don't. I think murder is wrong.
At the moment, I believe in self-defense so I would contend your statement that I am against all killings is wrong.
Here's where we run into a problem. You talk about Iraq as if it is a normal, justified use of military force.
War has never been declared on Iraq by the US. The use of force (The Invasion) ordered by President Bush was contrary to international law--it flew in the face of UN Resolutioni 1441. And the US was not defending itself from an Iraqi attack on us, an ally or on our property interests.
Now you say that the reasons for killing make a difference, right?
If we are killing Iraqis for the wrong reason(s), how can you support those killings in IRaq?
The reasons for killing make a difference. Right?
-
I understand this. But there is a comparison basis--the dead bodies. Your rationalizations are sound though.
there's nothing sound about Bum's rationalization (can rationalization ever be sound?)
He's a devout Christian who doesn't have any problem with killing - provided the circumstances suit his needs
You take the position that all killing is wrong. I don't. I think murder is wrong.
-
I understand this. But there is a comparison basis--the dead bodies. Your rationalizations are sound though.
At the moment, I believe in self-defense so I would contend your statement that I am against all killings is wrong.
Here's where we run into a problem. You talk about Iraq as if it is a normal, justified use of military force.
War has never been declared on Iraq by the US. The use of force (The Invasion) ordered by President Bush was contrary to international law--it flew in the face of UN Resolutioni 1441. And the US was not defending itself from an Iraqi attack on us, an ally or on our property interests.
Now you say that the reasons for killing make a difference, right?
If we are killing Iraqis for the wrong reason(s), how can you support those killings in IRaq?
The reasons for killing make a difference. Right?
We agree that killing in self defense isn't "wrong."
I disagree about the war. We've already gone back and forth on whether the war was justified. I think it was. I don't think it was managed properly, but I supported the decision to remove Saddam. The people we intentionally killed in war were combatants, based on our rules of engagement. I think most of the non-combatants have been killed by insurgents. To the extent we unintentionally killed noncombatants, that isn't murder. Happens in every war. If the unintentional killing of noncombatants were the standard, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves.
Yes, the reason for killing makes a difference. Depending on the "reasons," a killing can be murder, an accident, etc.
-
Yes, the reason for killing makes a difference. Depending on the "reasons," a killing can be murder, an accident, etc.
It's a good thing that your old buddy, God, sanctifies whatever rationalization your ilk comes up with for killing.
-
From the spoken word, to the written one on screen, this construct seems to have totally infected American English in my absence. It is very sad.
great, another goatboy ::)
-
We agree that killing in self defense isn't "wrong."
I disagree about the war. We've already gone back and forth on whether the war was justified. I think it was. I don't think it was managed properly, but I supported the decision to remove Saddam. The people we intentionally killed in war were combatants, based on our rules of engagement. I think most of the non-combatants have been killed by insurgents. To the extent we unintentionally killed noncombatants, that isn't murder. Happens in every war. If the unintentional killing of noncombatants were the standard, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves.
Yes, the reason for killing makes a difference. Depending on the "reasons," a killing can be murder, an accident, etc.
You say that you think the war was justified. But you don't say why? Why do the Iraqis deserve to die...like why does a fetus deserve to die in an abortion?
MisManaging the war and starting the war in the first place are two entirely different things.
You thought that Hussein should be removed from power. That's terrific. It's wholly illegal, i.e., a poor justification. So innocent lives should end b/c you want a certain leader removed from his position?
And that's fine with you?
How do you justify the continued occupation and killing of Iraqis? The same way you justified the removal of Hussein. You've constructed "insurgents" that must die.
The insurgents are Iraqi.
So I'll ask you again, why do you support killing Iraqis?
They didn't attack us and they defend themselves from the US's attack, occupation and plunder of their country.
Killing is happening in Iraq and you support it. Why?
You should be consistent with your stance on abortion in this matter of killing. Life is life.
-
You say that you think the war was justified. But you don't say why? Why do the Iraqis deserve to die...like why does a fetus deserve to die in an abortion?
MisManaging the war and starting the war in the first place are two entirely different things.
You thought that Hussein should be removed from power. That's terrific. It's wholly illegal, i.e., a poor justification. So innocent lives should end b/c you want a certain leader removed from his position?
And that's fine with you?
How do you justify the continued occupation and killing of Iraqis? The same way you justified the removal of Hussein. You've constructed "insurgents" that must die.
The insurgents are Iraqi.
So I'll ask you again, why do you support killing Iraqis?
They didn't attack us and they defend themselves from the US's attack, occupation and plunder of their country.
Killing is happening in Iraq and you support it. Why?
You should be consistent with your stance on abortion in this matter of killing. Life is life.
Dude, we have discussed the justification, or lack thereof, for the war numerous times. You believe it is "illegal." I don't.
We aren't intentionally killing innocent Iraqis, so your question is based on a false premise. And who said innocent Iraqis deserve to die?
There is nothing inconsistent about being opposed to murder. Killing combatants in war is not murder. The unintentional killing of noncombatants in war is not murder. No comparison to abortion at all.
-
Dude, we have discussed the justification, or lack thereof, for the war numerous times. You believe it is "illegal." I don't.
You haven't answered the question. The legality of the war is not open to your belief. Either you can point to governing law or you cannot. I point out Bush violated UN RES 1441. You tell me that "I don't believe he has broken the law..."
Can you see why your answer is no answer at all?
We aren't intentionally killing innocent Iraqis, so your question is based on a false premise. And who said innocent Iraqis deserve to die?
The Iraq population isn't dying by accident my friend.
You said "War is self defense. We have rules of engagement. No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war."
The Iraq war is not about Self Defense--if it is, then show me.
And the Pentagon anticipates collateral damage, loss of innocent life, when a city is bombed and shot up.
There is nothing inconsistent about being opposed to murder. Killing combatants in war is not murder. The unintentional killing of noncombatants in war is not murder. No comparison to abortion at all.
By your own criterion of " lack of due process", the killing of a fetus is wrong. The Iraqi people had some due process in the form of UN monitoring, mediating and investigating their situation. Bush ordered the attack of Iraq in the face of the UN law and the UN WMD findings. So I guess I'm saying, there is no and never was a justified, legal war in Iraq.
If the war is not justified--THE REASON FOR KILLING--is not justified. That my friend is murder. Whether intentional, with mitigating circumstances or by extreme negligence.
This is where killing is murder...because the reason for the killing makes it so.
-
You haven't answered the question. The legality of the war is not open to your belief. Either you can point to governing law or you cannot. I point out Bush violated UN RES 1441. You tell me that "I don't believe he has broken the law..."
Can you see why your answer is no answer at all?
The Iraq population isn't dying by accident my friend.
You said "War is self defense. We have rules of engagement. No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war."
The Iraq war is not about Self Defense--if it is, then show me.
And the Pentagon anticipates collateral damage, loss of innocent life, when a city is bombed and shot up.
By your own criterion of " lack of due process", the killing of a fetus is wrong. The Iraqi people had some due process in the form of UN monitoring, mediating and investigating their situation. Bush ordered the attack of Iraq in the face of the UN law and the UN WMD findings. So I guess I'm saying, there is no and never was a justified, legal war in Iraq.
If the war is not justified--THE REASON FOR KILLING--is not justified. That my friend is murder. Whether intentional, with mitigating circumstances or by extreme negligence.
This is where killing is murder...because the reason for the killing makes it so.
Well put, using that logic.
Although i don't completely agree, In my mind, even though Abortion is legal, it's still murder and even if the Iraq war was "authorized" by the UN or War was "officially declared by congress", invading a country unprovoked is wrong.
-
Dude, we have discussed the justification, or lack thereof, for the war numerous times. You believe it is "illegal." I don't.
We aren't intentionally killing innocent Iraqis, so your question is based on a false premise. And who said innocent Iraqis deserve to die?
There is nothing inconsistent about being opposed to murder. Killing combatants in war is not murder. The unintentional killing of noncombatants in war is not murder. No comparison to abortion at all.
10 years of sanctions and non-stop bombings el fundo, which led to 500,000 deaths...but of course that was done mostly by the clinto administration...as long as Bush and Cheney do it, it's ok... ::)
-
great, another goatboy ::)
No, but come on...that was pretty brutal, thinkest thou not?
-
Well put, using that logic.
Although i don't completely agree, In my mind, even though Abortion is legal, it's still murder and even if the Iraq war was "authorized" by the UN or War was "officially declared by congress", invading a country unprovoked is wrong.
That's an interesting point. You are thoughtful in your morality.
-
You haven't answered the question. The legality of the war is not open to your belief. Either you can point to governing law or you cannot. I point out Bush violated UN RES 1441. You tell me that "I don't believe he has broken the law..."
Can you see why your answer is no answer at all?
The Iraq population isn't dying by accident my friend.
You said "War is self defense. We have rules of engagement. No innocent persons are intentionally killed in war."
The Iraq war is not about Self Defense--if it is, then show me.
And the Pentagon anticipates collateral damage, loss of innocent life, when a city is bombed and shot up.
By your own criterion of " lack of due process", the killing of a fetus is wrong. The Iraqi people had some due process in the form of UN monitoring, mediating and investigating their situation. Bush ordered the attack of Iraq in the face of the UN law and the UN WMD findings. So I guess I'm saying, there is no and never was a justified, legal war in Iraq.
If the war is not justified--THE REASON FOR KILLING--is not justified. That my friend is murder. Whether intentional, with mitigating circumstances or by extreme negligence.
This is where killing is murder...because the reason for the killing makes it so.
Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, including the resolution that ended Desert Storm. The entire world, including numerous members of Congress, both before and after Bush took office, both Democrat and Republican, believed Saddam was a threat to our national security and needed to be disarmed. There was plenty of precedent for Saddam engaging in acts of unprovoked aggression, including his invasion of a sovereign country (Kuwait) and attempt to invade another (Saudi Arabia) before we stopped him. He dropped missiles on another country (Israel) unprovoked. He tortured and murdered his own people. He used WMDs on his own people. He pillaged his country's resources. He repeatedly threatened the United States. He sponsored terrorism. He had unlimited resources. He repeatedly obstructed UN inspectors. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in his discretion. Bush is the Commander in Chief and can order military action without a declaration of war, just like we did in Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and Korea. Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started and has continued to fund the war. Numerous other countries have contributed both armed forces and money to assist with the war. The UN has never said the war is illegal.
No one factor stands alone. I think all of these factors have to be considered when determining whether we should have invaded.
So, there it is, again. That has to be about the umpteenth time I've stated on this board why I believe the war was justified. :) You know we're not going to agree on this issue.
We made a preemptive strike to defend our country, which I consider self-defense. Or to quote John Kerry: "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." Plus, I've already mentioned our ROE. We only intentionally kill combatants who are a threat. We don't intentionally kill civilians in war. The ones who do and who violate the ROE are prosecuted (like the link I provided earlier shows).
And I have to apologize to Colossus for hijacking his thread. Sorry mang.
-
A quick note on the reasons you listed BB,
All the ones you listed that can be argued as justifiable occurred before or during the first war. And as that war ended so did those items as a reason to start another war.
If Japan, does something we don't like will you sight pearl harbor as a reason for our invasion?
-
Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, including the resolution that ended Desert Storm. The entire world, including numerous members of Congress, both before and after Bush took office, both Democrat and Republican, believed Saddam was a threat to our national security and needed to be disarmed. There was plenty of precedent for Saddam engaging in acts of unprovoked aggression, including his invasion of a sovereign country (Kuwait) and attempt to invade another (Saudi Arabia) before we stopped him. He dropped missiles on another country (Israel) unprovoked. He tortured and murdered his own people. He used WMDs on his own people. He pillaged his country's resources. He repeatedly threatened the United States. He sponsored terrorism. He had unlimited resources. He repeatedly obstructed UN inspectors. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in his discretion. Bush is the Commander in Chief and can order military action without a declaration of war, just like we did in Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and Korea. Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started and has continued to fund the war. Numerous other countries have contributed both armed forces and money to assist with the war. The UN has never said the war is illegal.
That's quite a list, in passing, I would note that Israel and the US are guilty of many of those same violations.
All of those things are entirely irrelevant to the fact that UN RES. 1441 requires that the UN Security Council authorize the use of force against IRaq by any member nation. Bush blew off the UN and attacked Iraq anyways. Iraq was complying with US requests for WMD inspections and information and he attacked anyways--what a dick!
Beach Bum, do you realize the death and suffering the US inflicted on those people? We didn't have to do that. And to maintain the suffering we are inflicting just b/c it is politically expedient to do so is a damn abomination.
No one factor stands alone. I think all of these factors have to be considered when determining whether we should have invaded.
See the one factor about the lack of the Security Council's permission to attack Iraq
-
...And I have to apologize to Colossus for hijacking his thread. Sorry mang.
As I pointed out the politicized abortion article Colossus posted is tied to a certain perspective where abortion--the killing of innocents--is wrong but the killing of innocent Iraqis is A-ok.
That's cognitive dissonance of the first degree.
-
A quick note on the reasons you listed BB,
All the ones you listed that can be argued as justifiable occurred before or during the first war. And as that war ended so did those items as a reason to start another war.
If Japan, does something we don't like will you sight pearl harbor as a reason for our invasion?
Nope.
-
That's quite a list, in passing, I would note that Israel and the US are guilty of many of those same violations.
All of those things are entirely irrelevant to the fact that UN RES. 1441 requires that the UN Security Council authorize the use of force against IRaq by any member nation. Bush blew off the UN and attacked Iraq anyways. Iraq was complying with US requests for WMD inspections and information and he attacked anyways--what a dick!
Beach Bum, do you realize the death and suffering the US inflicted on those people? We didn't have to do that. And to maintain the suffering we are inflicting just b/c it is politically expedient to do so is a damn abomination.
See the one factor about the lack of the Security Council's permission to attack Iraq
If we violated a UN resolution when starting the war, then why hasn't the UN condemned the war?
Keep in mind we're not in this alone. Other countries have been involved and participating the war.
-
If we violated a UN resolution when starting the war, then why hasn't the UN condemned the war?
Keep in mind we're not in this alone. Other countries have been involved and participating the war.
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated for the record that the US military attack of Iraq was illegal and a violation of the UN Charter.
What does that have to do with whether Bush violated UN Resolution 1441 and attacked a prone vulnerable country?
Why should one profound injustice be changed by another injustice?
-
Dumb bitch.
-
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan stated for the record that the US military attack of Iraq was illegal and a violation of the UN Charter.
What does that have to do with whether Bush violated UN Resolution 1441 and attacked a prone vulnerable country?
Why should one profound injustice be changed by another injustice?
He did? Why didn't he do anything about it?
You're asking what the UN has to do with whether a UN resolution was violated? C'mon Decker.
-
Nope.
of course not, and if you take out those things, you don't have much to justify a preemptive invasion unless of course you really take political banter seriously thinking those politicians said what they said for anything other than avoiding ridicule when in reality Saddam was no more of a threat then a AQ member on a deserted island.
-
of course not, and if you take out those things, you don't have much to justify a preemptive invasion unless of course you really take political banter seriously thinking those politicians said what they said for anything other than avoiding ridicule when in reality Saddam was no more of a threat then a AQ member on a deserted island.
Not a good comparison.
I agree that if you take away all the reasons that support the war there is no reason to go war, but that would be revisionist history.
-
This very much is a very sad story, but when you compare such a story to a innocent person losing their life fatally at the hands of another individual who doesn't want that person to live (which would mean a naive person who still believes in abortion) then I would say that the abortion of any infant isn't and should be equated with all the hateful homicide that occurs everyday in a way that is so much a part of society's grand scale genocide just like abortion is.
-
Not a good comparison.
I agree that if you take away all the reasons that support the war there is no reason to go war, but that would be revisionist history.
Not what i'm saying at all. You sited reasons we already when to war for, a war that was finished. Take those out you don't have much other then political blabber that you are so fond of siting as support.
Those reasons you sited (before and during the first gulf war) are as legitimate as us saying our justification for invading Japan is that failed to follow and agreement AND they attacked us at pearl harbor in '41.
-
Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, including the resolution that ended Desert Storm. The entire world, including numerous members of Congress, both before and after Bush took office, both Democrat and Republican, believed Saddam was a threat to our national security and needed to be disarmed. There was plenty of precedent for Saddam engaging in acts of unprovoked aggression, including his invasion of a sovereign country (Kuwait) and attempt to invade another (Saudi Arabia) before we stopped him. He dropped missiles on another country (Israel) unprovoked. He tortured and murdered his own people. He used WMDs on his own people. He pillaged his country's resources. He repeatedly threatened the United States. He sponsored terrorism. He had unlimited resources. He repeatedly obstructed UN inspectors. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in his discretion. Bush is the Commander in Chief and can order military action without a declaration of war, just like we did in Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and Korea. Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started and has continued to fund the war. Numerous other countries have contributed both armed forces and money to assist with the war. The UN has never said the war is illegal.
No one factor stands alone. I think all of these factors have to be considered when determining whether we should have invaded.
So, there it is, again. That has to be about the umpteenth time I've stated on this board why I believe the war was justified. :) You know we're not going to agree on this issue.
We made a preemptive strike to defend our country, which I consider self-defense. Or to quote John Kerry: "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." Plus, I've already mentioned our ROE. We only intentionally kill combatants who are a threat. We don't intentionally kill civilians in war. The ones who do and who violate the ROE are prosecuted (like the link I provided earlier shows).
And I have to apologize to Colossus for hijacking his thread. Sorry mang.
Meh, the US does what it wants to do and that's the bottom line; we needed to protect dollar hegemony and take Iraq's oil so we did. Why can't you just stand by that fact?
-
Not what i'm saying at all. You sited reasons we already when to war for, a war that was finished. Take those out you don't have much other then political blabber that you are so fond of siting as support.
Those reasons you sited (before and during the first gulf war) are as legitimate as us saying our justification for invading Japan is that failed to follow and agreement AND they attacked us at pearl harbor in '41.
That's exactly what you're saying: rewrite history.
My belief that the war was justified is my opinion, but everything I stated in support of my opinion is fact.
Get real. Does Japan even have a military anymore?
-
Meh, the US does what it wants to do and that's the bottom line; we needed to protect dollar hegemony and take Iraq's oil so we did. Why can't you just stand by that fact?
We took Iraq's oil huh? And exactly how did we do that?
-
He did? Why didn't he do anything about it?
You're asking what the UN has to do with whether a UN resolution was violated? C'mon Decker.
No, I'm pointing out what ostensibly looks like a capricious attempt to avoid the question at hand. The practical side of the matter is that, at the moment, international law is as credible as the US makes it.
Thanks to Bush and people like you who lend him your support by supporting the overthrow of Iraq, the rule of law has been damaged.
The UN can object and it did. The only 3 countries to not support Annan's statement that Bush broke the law were the USA, the UK, and Australia. The entire world knew what was afoot, but when the superpower acts unilaterally and illegally, there's not a lot of options at hand.
Check the UN website. Israel has broken more UN resolutions than almost anybody...even the US. What's happened to either of those countries? Nothing. What happened to countries with brown people? They get sanctioned and/or bombed regularly.
I won't even go into how ridiculous the idea that Iraq was "threat" to the largest super power in history to begin with. I let you think about that one for a bit.
-
We took Iraq's oil huh? And exactly how did we do that?
Are you willing to go on the record as officically saying we DID NOT go into Iraq for oil and the the protection of the dollar?
-
We took Iraq's oil huh? And exactly how did we do that?
By forcing them into decades long revenue sharing agreements to the detriment of the Iraqi people and to the benefit of foreign oil companies.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/03/iraqi_oil_agreement.html
-
By forcing them into decades long revenue sharing agreements to the detriment of the Iraqi people and to the benefit of foreign oil companies.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/03/iraqi_oil_agreement.html
Decker, need I remind you that you are addressing a man who believes in talking snakes and magic apples, as well as rib women....
-
No, I'm pointing out what ostensibly looks like a capricious attempt to avoid the question at hand. The practical side of the matter is that, at the moment, international law is as credible as the US makes it.
Thanks to Bush and people like you who lend him your support by supporting the overthrow of Iraq, the rule of law has been damaged.
The UN can object and it did. The only 3 countries to not support Annan's statement that Bush broke the law were the USA, the UK, and Australia. The entire world knew what was afoot, but when the superpower acts unilaterally and illegally, there's not a lot of options at hand.
Check the UN website. Israel has broken more UN resolutions than almost anybody...even the US. What's happened to either of those countries? Nothing. What happened to countries with brown people? They get sanctioned and/or bombed regularly.
I won't even go into how ridiculous the idea that Iraq was "threat" to the largest super power in history to begin with. I let you think about that one for a bit.
Seems to me that if it was so clear that the U.S. violated a UN resolution by invading Iraq that the UN would have taken some action, and many other countries wouldn't have supported the war.
I'm in good company in believing that Iraq was a threat: John Kerry, Al Gore, Durbin, many other Democrats in Congress . . . . What was that quote by Kerry? Saddam was "a real and grave threat to our security." Argue with him all you want. :)
-
Beach Bum still believes it's not about the oil.
Even as Bush admitted 15 months ago - it was about the oil.
-
Are you willing to go on the record as officically saying we DID NOT go into Iraq for oil and the the protection of the dollar?
I'm willing to go on record as asking you exactly how we "took" Iraq's oil, as you claimed.
-
By forcing them into decades long revenue sharing agreements to the detriment of the Iraqi people and to the benefit of foreign oil companies.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/03/iraqi_oil_agreement.html
From your link:
"The proposed law not only opens the door to the big international oil companies, but offers them lucrative contract deals, and even a place on the national oil board that will run the industry."
So this law, assuming it passed (the article is a year old), would offer contracts to multinational oil companies and this gives the United States government control of Iraq's oil?
-
Beach Bum still believes it's not about the oil.
Even as Bush admitted 15 months ago - it was about the oil.
And the dollar, don't forget the dollar...
Yeah, I was talking to an American coworker of mine the other night and I told him how surprised I was that people actually believe that we are in Iraq for 'democracy'...STILL....but he put it right when he said that when some has an untarnished view that the USA can do no wrong as is the 'good guy' of the earth...well you end up with a Beach Bum...
-
I believe there was about 100 reasons we went.
oil, pipeline, bases, surround Iraq, religious, the dollar, keep military spending up, make cheney's company rich, revenge for saddam's actions the last 20 years, and probably many more that we cannot comprehend- advanced longterm geopolitical stuff that I sure as hell wouldn't understand.
Beach bum is stupid. Decker and deicide, you guys are eloquent writers and make good points. I'll be blunt. he's stupid and refuses to face facts or ever accept that he's wrong. 2 years ago, i was on here yelling about 911 inside job and iraq being a stall war for oil and bases. I think maybe 2 ppl here DIDN'T call me crazy. 2 years later, it's the opposite. joelocal and BB are the only ones who still believe official stories. Worse yet, when Bush admits somthing, they still can't face it. bush said in Dec of 2006 that the war was partially about controlling their oil. BB can't accept that.
-
No, I'm pointing out what ostensibly looks like a capricious attempt to avoid the question at hand.
Decker - that's classic BB strategy - avoid the question, start parsing words and arguing semantics, skew off on a tangent until you eventually just get tired or too bored to continue.
-
That's exactly what you're saying: rewrite history.
My belief that the war was justified is my opinion, but everything I stated in support of my opinion is fact.
Get real. Does Japan even have a military anymore?
Yeah, they do. And they are growing. Whether have a military capable is not the point and you know that.
When did i say rewrite history? I simply said your reasoning is insignificant. I can draw comparisons all day long.... You have regressed to using something that already happened and was already dealt with as a reason for an invasion. An invasion that without those "reasons" isn't poorly supported. how is that rewriting history? where have i changed anything? explain it to me.
Did we not already fight a war in response to Saddam and what he did in the first gulf war?
It is a very weak position (combined with using political blabber) that you have to resort to that to justify invading.
That's why i ask, are you going to use Pearl harbor as a reason if Japan does something wrong? Or Germany and Ardennes? Or Mexico 1840's? Or American Indians 1870's?
It's crap and you know it or maybe you don't, i donno, maybe you really believe it.
If you want to make yourself feel better about invading iraq by bringing up the first gulf war good for you. And if you want to just say "it's your opinion and that's how you support it" then fine, but don't for a second think anyone doesn't see that as a bunch of BS and you know it is too. You might as well say "Saddam's Beard" is a something that supports you opinion becuase it's just as relevant to your way of thinking.
We were in a fear based war frenzy in 2003. Many joined in and it was a mistake and it was unjustified.
-
Yeah, they do. And they are growing. Whether have a military capable is not the point and you know that.
When did i say rewrite history? I simply said your reasoning is insignificant. I can draw comparisons all day long.... You have regressed to using something that already happened and was already dealt with as a reason for an invasion. An invasion that without those "reasons" isn't poorly supported. how is that rewriting history? where have i changed anything? explain it to me.
Did we not already fight a war in response to Saddam and what he did in the first gulf war?
It is a very weak position (combined with using political blabber) that you have to resort to that to justify invading.
That's why i ask, are you going to use Pearl harbor as a reason if Japan does something wrong? Or Germany and Ardennes? Or Mexico 1840's? Or American Indians 1870's?
It's crap and you know it or maybe you don't, i donno, maybe you really believe it.
If you want to make yourself feel better about invading iraq by bringing up the first gulf war good for you. And if you want to just say "it's your opinion and that's how you support it" then fine, but don't for a second think anyone doesn't see that as a bunch of BS and you know it is too. You might as well say "Saddam's Beard" is a something that supports you opinion becuase it's just as relevant to your way of thinking.
We were in a fear based war frenzy in 2003. Many joined in and it was a mistake and it was unjustified.
Not everything I mentioned was remote in time. You figure out which ones were either close in time or ongoing at the time of the invasion:
Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, including the resolution that ended Desert Storm. The entire world, including numerous members of Congress, both before and after Bush took office, both Democrat and Republican, believed Saddam was a threat to our national security and needed to be disarmed. There was plenty of precedent for Saddam engaging in acts of unprovoked aggression, including his invasion of a sovereign country (Kuwait) and attempt to invade another (Saudi Arabia) before we stopped him. He dropped missiles on another country (Israel) unprovoked. He tortured and murdered his own people. He used WMDs on his own people. He pillaged his country's resources. He repeatedly threatened the United States. He sponsored terrorism. He had unlimited resources. He repeatedly obstructed UN inspectors. Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in his discretion. Bush is the Commander in Chief and can order military action without a declaration of war, just like we did in Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and Korea. Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started and has continued to fund the war. Numerous other countries have contributed both armed forces and money to assist with the war. The UN has never said the war is illegal.
And regarding whether or not he was a threat, you can ridicule it all you want, but you are in fact just attempting to rewrite history. Unbroken chain of warnings, concern, and fear that Saddam was a threat both before and after Bush took office. Here is what our legislators had to say about Saddam from about 98 into 2003:
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry — all Democrats
“We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US 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.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
“It is Hussein’s vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.”
Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
John Kerry > January 23, 2003“Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
“He’ll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983.”
John Kerry > October 9, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
Senator Carl Levin > September 19, 2002
“We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002 “There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999
“Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
“[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there’s been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn’t mean he won’t. This is a bad guy.”
Robert Byrd > October 3, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of ‘98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons.”
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002
Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face — and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002
“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.”
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002“I certainly think (Hussein’s) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain.”
Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999“One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons.”
Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq…. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.”
Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002“[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously.”
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002“In the four years since the inspections, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program.”
Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002“Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002“(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you’ll get a debate about whether it’s one year away or five years away.”
Evan Bayh > August 4, 2002“I’m inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case
needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others.”
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002“With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues.”
Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998“We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century…. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.”
Johnny Edwards > January 7, 2003“Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It’s just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.”
Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003“I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States.”
John Kerry > January 31, 2003
“If you don’t believe…Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn’t vote for me.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability.”
Bill Nelson > September 14, 2002“I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he’s trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us.”
Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003“The question is whether we’re going to allow this man who’s been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where — if we’re going to stop him if he invades a country around him — it’ll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives.”
Al Gore > September 23, 2002“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Joe Biden > August 4, 2002“First of all, we don’t know exactly what he has. It’s been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one.”
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998“The (Clinton) administration has said, ‘Look, we have exhausted virtually 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?’ That’s what they’re saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
Senator Bob Graham > December 8, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has had for a number of years a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998“The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq.”
John Kerry > February 23, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”
Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002“It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
Al Gore > December 16, 1998“f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons…”
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=196736.0
-
thus you feel justified that thousandd of innocent children (and adults) have been killed?
-
BB,
can you find some quotes that were made AFTER the UN inspectors found no WMD in iraq - late Feb 03?
I notice all your quotes stop right about the time the UN inspectors found nada.
-
I believe there was about 100 reasons we went.
oil, pipeline, bases, surround Iraq, religious, the dollar, keep military spending up, make cheney's company rich, revenge for saddam's actions the last 20 years, and probably many more that we cannot comprehend- advanced longterm geopolitical stuff that I sure as hell wouldn't understand.
Beach bum is stupid. Decker and deicide, you guys are eloquent writers and make good points. I'll be blunt. he's stupid and refuses to face facts or ever accept that he's wrong. 2 years ago, i was on here yelling about 911 inside job and iraq being a stall war for oil and bases. I think maybe 2 ppl here DIDN'T call me crazy. 2 years later, it's the opposite. joelocal and BB are the only ones who still believe official stories. Worse yet, when Bush admits somthing, they still can't face it. bush said in Dec of 2006 that the war was partially about controlling their oil. BB can't accept that.
Interesting. Is there a youtube clip of Bush admitting that or a speech? Not that I doubt you but I would like to look at it.
-
Okay, Sadam met UN regulations and was obnoxious a few times on investigations. So we went in and bombed the hell out of his country, killed his sons, dragged him to the US, and hung him by the neck.........Well done, bravo, now get the hell out.
Its no wonder that there are more Terrorists now than then.
-
dec 14th 2006, rose garden speech. bush admitted it was about oil control. first time he ever said it. i respected him for the honestly, i really did. gave people the reality. we let them control it, they can mess with our standard of living. that moment was probably the moment i began to accept and understand the neocon agenda... oil and standard of living, which I hypocritically support.
-
I'm not rewriting history, I'm putting your assertions into perspective.
Let take a look at your reasoning:
Iraq violated numerous UN resolutions, including the resolution that ended Desert Storm.
Exactly which ones? Does this violation justify the deaths of tens of thousands of people? The billions spent? the permanently maimed and wounded? The invasion of a country?
Have other countries ever violated UN resolutions or directives? did the UN support our invasion?
The entire world.
Really? did you speak to the entire world? did the entire world state there opinion? Was there a poll on this? a vote? A world outcry? Was Bolivia petitioning the UN to do something about Saddam becuase he was a threat to their country?
And when it came to show this support how many countreis got behind us with military and finacial support in this invasion? was it the ENTIRE world?
including numerous members of Congress, both before and after Bush took office, both Democrat and Republican, believed Saddam was a threat to our national security and needed to be disarmed.
Would they say the same about N. Korea? Of course, it would stupid both politically and practically to say otherwise. But was it needed? Was Saddam a real threat in terms of him having the ability to gain from acts of violence against the USA? NO. One wrong move and the US is all over him like hair on a gorilla and he's smart enough, and been int he game long enough to realize that, hence, he wasn't about to jepordize his nice little cozy power base and multiple palaces.
So what was all the "quotes" you just posted? nothing but political blabber,the same political blabber Hilary Clinton uses when she goes to Ohio and speaks about the evils of NFTA when it was partially her husband's admin who put it there causing some of the economic fall out we see today. But she's wise to it, and speaks out against it and People eat it up, just like you eating up those quotes as if they legitimize our mistake.
There was plenty of precedent for Saddam engaging in acts of unprovoked aggression, including his invasion of a sovereign country (Kuwait) and attempt to invade another (Saudi Arabia) before we stopped him. He dropped missiles on another country (Israel) unprovoked.
All of which was dealt with and in the past and maintained with sanctions. As i said before would be justified invading Germany again for what they did in ww2? That line of reasoning is just as ridiculous.
He tortured and murdered his own people. He used WMDs on his own people.
And when he did it, we sat by and did nothing about it until 12 years later and it wasn't even the reason we invaded. Becuase the fact of the matter was, when he gassed the kurds our government and our people didn't a crap.
He pillaged his country's resources.
what, he profited from the oil? so what. I don't hear about the average Iraqi getting oil kick backs since we came. so nothing has changed, except the faces of who gets the profits which isn't the Iraqi people.
He repeatedly threatened the United States.
Shame shame. I would think we'd be wise enough to know a real threat from a blew hard. But tell that to those have sacrifice for it.
He sponsored terrorism.
He gave families of suicides bombers 25K that's pretty weak really to invade a country for even considering everything else. Find evidence of him supplying AQ with money and arms then we might have something. Even then, there would have been better ways to deal with it.
He had unlimited resources.
yeah ok. what do mean by that? He had unlimited resources to build a army that was second to none?
did he have tungsten? did he have unlimited resources of tungsten?
Congress gave Bush the authority to use force in his discretion. Bush is the Commander in Chief and can order military action without a declaration of war, just like we did in Desert Storm, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam, and Korea. Congress endorsed the war AFTER it started and has continued to fund the war. Numerous other countries have contributed both armed forces and money to assist with the war. The UN has never said the war is illegal.
None of this, NONE! makes it right. just becuase it was voted, doesn't make it right. It's still wrong, just like Japanese internment. WRONG.
And don't forget the support from other countries in the first war was totally different than support fo this one. like night and day. So very weak argument.
-
dec 14th 2006, rose garden speech. bush admitted it was about oil control. first time he ever said it. i respected him for the honestly, i really did. gave people the reality. we let them control it, they can mess with our standard of living. that moment was probably the moment i began to accept and understand the neocon agenda... oil and standard of living, which I hypocritically support.
I don't and I am proud of it. :)
-
He had unlimited resources.
beach bum, you are fucking ignorant.
we crippled iraq with sanctions from 94 til 2003. millions of people starved. their military was in shambled.
i'm embarassed for you. oz spent a lot of time owning the shit out of you above, and instead of conceding points and actually learning something, you'll roll your eyes. Dumbfvck.
-
The entire world.
God, you are so stupid. You really are. I suppose that's why our coalition of the willing was waaaay smaller than it was in Gulf War I.
-
The entire world.
God, you are so stupid. You really are. I suppose that's why our coalition of the willing was waaaay smaller than it was in Gulf War I.
You don't get it 240. Beach Bum is a relgious nutcase who believes in the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark...literally! Is it any wonder he thinks the the things he does about Iraq and refuses to concede that he is wrong?! Once again, talking snakes and magic apples...
-
For someone so religious, he lie a lot.
he was a high school dropout when he started here and the conversation was about overcoming obstacles.
When I tried explaining statistical anomaly of 2004 Ohio election to him and he didn't understand stats of a 1 in 50,000 likelihood and the chance of it happening twice, I recommended he dig up a high school stats book. So he informed us he teaches at a university and knows advanced stats, but doesn't have time to break it down.
When we talked about polls showing 67% of america want 911 investigated, beach bum had magically had a class meeting on it, and all of his students mocked the idea. That very day.
He lies a lot.
-
For someone so religious, he lie a lot.
he was a high school dropout when he started here and the conversation was about overcoming obstacles.
When I tried explaining statistical anomaly of 2004 Ohio election to him and he didn't understand stats of a 1 in 50,000 likelihood and the chance of it happening twice, I recommended he dig up a high school stats book. So he informed us he teaches at a university and knows advanced stats, but doesn't have time to break it down.
When we talked about polls showing 67% of america want 911 investigated, beach bum had magically had a class meeting on it, and all of his students mocked the idea. That very day.
He lies a lot.
A highschool dropout eh? That's funny, he recently claimed I lacked education....the bitter irony...I usually just assume everyone has a B.A. or a B.S. but I guess I shouldn't do that...well, that would explain the Garden of Eden bit.
Didn't you know 240? Religious folk lie a lot: to themselves, to others and to the world.
-
yeah, i grew up catholic and spent a lot of time in denial.
you learn later that religion is useful but it's a business like everything else in life.
the religious zealots are the people in the world i trust least. most criminals will at least shoot ya straight.
-
I'm not rewriting history, I'm putting your assertions into perspective.
Let take a look at your reasoning:
Exactly which ones? Does this violation justify the deaths of tens of thousands of people? The billions spent? the permanently maimed and wounded? The invasion of a country?
Have other countries ever violated UN resolutions or directives? did the UN support our invasion?
Really? did you speak to the entire world? did the entire world state there opinion? Was there a poll on this? a vote? A world outcry? Was Bolivia petitioning the UN to do something about Saddam becuase he was a threat to their country?
And when it came to show this support how many countreis got behind us with military and finacial support in this invasion? was it the ENTIRE world?
Would they say the same about N. Korea? Of course, it would stupid both politically and practically to say otherwise. But was it needed? Was Saddam a real threat in terms of him having the ability to gain from acts of violence against the USA? NO. One wrong move and the US is all over him like hair on a gorilla and he's smart enough, and been int he game long enough to realize that, hence, he wasn't about to jepordize his nice little cozy power base and multiple palaces.
So what was all the "quotes" you just posted? nothing but political blabber,the same political blabber Hilary Clinton uses when she goes to Ohio and speaks about the evils of NFTA when it was partially her husband's admin who put it there causing some of the economic fall out we see today. But she's wise to it, and speaks out against it and People eat it up, just like you eating up those quotes as if they legitimize our mistake.
All of which was dealt with and in the past and maintained with sanctions. As i said before would be justified invading Germany again for what they did in ww2? That line of reasoning is just as ridiculous.
And when he did it, we sat by and did nothing about it until 12 years later and it wasn't even the reason we invaded. Becuase the fact of the matter was, when he gassed the kurds our government and our people didn't a crap.
what, he profited from the oil? so what. I don't hear about the average Iraqi getting oil kick backs since we came. so nothing has changed, except the faces of who gets the profits which isn't the Iraqi people.
Shame shame. I would think we'd be wise enough to know a real threat from a blew hard. But tell that to those have sacrifice for it.
He gave families of suicides bombers 25K that's pretty weak really to invade a country for even considering everything else. Find evidence of him supplying AQ with money and arms then we might have something. Even then, there would have been better ways to deal with it.
yeah ok. what do mean by that? He had unlimited resources to build a army that was second to none?
did he have tungsten? did he have unlimited resources of tungsten?
None of this, NONE! makes it right. just becuase it was voted, doesn't make it right. It's still wrong, just like Japanese internment. WRONG.
And don't forget the support from other countries in the first war was totally different than support fo this one. like night and day. So very weak argument.
So let me get this straight: you ridicule the contention that Saddam was a threat and when I give you numerous comments from members of Congress who considered him a threat you dismiss all of them as "political blabber"? That's just a pure copout Ozmo. Why were they calling him a threat? And why did Congress give Bush the authority to invade if they didn’t view him as a threat?
I could see arguably dismissing comments if they were partisan, but when they come from both sides of the aisle, spanning two presidential administrations, and they're all saying the same thing, you can only dismiss them as "political blabber" if you are wearing blinders.
Regarding the reasons I listed for my support for the war, I did say that I don’t view one factor alone. Viewing the totality of what I listed, I think he was clearly a threat, consistent with numerous quotes from members of Congress I posted (that you refuse to even read).
I can't do the quote thing, but regarding your specific points:
He never complied with the UN resolutions that ended Desert Storm.
The entire world did have an opinion, through the UN and a substantial part of the world expressed their opinion by supporting the war with troops and/or money.
North Korea isn't Iraq, for the all reasons I've already listed. Saddam was a unique dictator.
The fact he invaded a sovereign nation, bombed another in the recent past, had previously used WMDs, and was currently sponsoring terrorism only heightened the threat he posed.
Unlimited resources for a man like Saddam made him an enormous threat. Pretty much the entire Congress believed a man was in control of a country, an army, and unlimited resources and was trying to obtain WMDs. That obviously makes him even more dangerous. We found nearly a billion dollars in cash under the guy's mattress. That kind of money isn't used for legitimate purposes.
You can't simply ignore the fact that Congress authorized the use of force, endorsed the use of force after the war started, and has repeatedly funded the war.
And the fact a number of countries supported and continue to support the war means nothing? Oh come on. What that should tell you is this isn't some black and white issue. If it were, they wouldn't be by our side.
-
Give it a rest, 240, you're not going to get anywhere with the willfully blind.
Judging from the way he writes, BB definitely has a college degree of some sort. But it's probably from a school one step above a degree mill, UNLV or some place where critical thinking does n't exist (Ok, I'm being totally unfair to UNLV here, as I have no idea of what goes on there.... it's just one of those schools that I know is out there, somewhere in the backwoods of America :D
He might even be a teacher as he claims. Does not take much to teach at some schools. Probably got an MA in ed psych or an MBA from a degree mill.
He also probably watched a bunch of Court TV & Fox.... which leads him to come on here and drop terms like "Due Process" and then say, "doesn't matter what the law says." On the one hand, the law makes it ok to kill, and so he gives it porps, and on the other, the law doesn't know wtf it's doing.
Never mind that the "due process" accorded to most death row inmates has been shown by study after study to be little more than a joke. But hey, when you graduate from UNLV :D and when Jesus is your personal "blesser", you don't care about shit like that.
-
Give it a rest, 240, you're not going to get anywhere with the willfully blind.
Judging from the way he writes, BB definitely has a college degree of some sort. But it's probably from a school one step above a degree mill, UNLV or some place where critical thinking does n't exist (Ok, I'm being totally unfair to UNLV here, as I have no idea of what goes on there.... it's just one of those schools that I know is out there, somewhere in the backwoods of America :D
He might even be a teacher as he claims. Does not take much to teach at some schools. Probably got an MA in ed psych or an MBA from a degree mill.
He also probably watched a bunch of Court TV & Fox.... which leads him to come on here and drop terms like "Due Process" and then say, "doesn't matter what the law says." On the one hand, the law makes it ok to kill, and so he gives it porps, and on the other, the law doesn't know wtf it's doing.
Never mind that the "due process" accorded to most death row inmates has been shown by study after study to be little more than a joke. But hey, when you graduate from UNLV :D and when Jesus is your personal "blesser", you don't care about shit like that.
It's all about Jebus.
-
So let me get this straight: you ridicule the contention that Saddam was a threat and when I give you numerous comments from members of Congress who considered him a threat you dismiss all of them as "political blabber"? That's just a pure copout Ozmo. Why were they calling him a threat? And why did Congress give Bush the authority to invade if they didn’t view him as a threat?
BB, it's a pure cop-out to think most anything politicians say is a good reason for something. Politician say things for one reason and one reason only...to get votes.
Aside from that idea about politicians which is arguable, granted, however, the "chess pieces" show he wasn't a threat. And I've already explain why to you.
Tactically he's a threat becuase he had the ability to enact violence against the USA. So does every other country in the world. They have the same ability. But they are not threats until they can strategically threaten us. Strategically meaning they can strike the US and not receive grave repercussions which would include invasion and removal from power. So strategically if he moves against us it means he is done with. Saddam was a thug, he'd do what ever he needed to stay in power and striking the USA would mean a sure end to his power.
Hence he is not a threat anymore then anyone else is.
Now if Russia tried that, it might be a different story so, skipping all the Political blabber, becuase that's exactly what it is, Russia in reality is a far greater threat.
I could see arguably dismissing comments if they were partisan, but when they come from both sides of the aisle, spanning two presidential administrations, and they're all saying the same thing, you can only dismiss them as "political blabber" if you are wearing blinders.
If someone takes the idea that 2 sides agree and inturn that makes what they think right then that person is the one with blinders. It wouldn't matter how many voted or who or who did not. wrong is wrong, it doesn't just make it right because our congress said so. Hell, how long did it take us to figure out slavery was wrong?
Regarding the reasons I listed for my support for the war, I did say that I don’t view one factor alone. Viewing the totality of what I listed, I think he was clearly a threat, consistent with numerous quotes from members of Congress I posted (that you refuse to even read).
You play chess bb?
Play it out BB. what does Saddam do that threatens the USA? What does do that doesn't lead invasion and a quick removal from power?
What those politicians were saying was is what people wanted to hear and to say anything other than that would have been a political masochism.
The entire world did have an opinion, through the UN and a substantial part of the world expressed their opinion by supporting the war with troops and/or money.
Substantial as compared to what? the total countries involve in financial backing and troop backing versus the total amount of countries in the world or compared to the amount in the first war? In the case of the 2003 invasion, world opinion was against us, Many governments didn't support us. .
So i don't know what world you are living in when you say a substantial. Did the UN support it like in 1991?
North Korea isn't Iraq, for the all reasons I've already listed. Saddam was a unique dictator.
Maybe so, but the situation is exactly the same. attacking anyone for both would me losing power and both those leaders don't want that. So they are not different form each other.
The fact he invaded a sovereign nation, bombed another in the recent past, had previously used WMDs, and was currently sponsoring terrorism only heightened the threat he posed.
Again he knew very well, especially after 9/11 anything of the sort would mean his death. He knew it, our leaders knew it, anyone with sense pass one move knew it.
Unlimited resources for a man like Saddam made him an enormous threat. Pretty much the entire Congress believed a man was in control of a country, an army, and unlimited resources and was trying to obtain WMDs. That obviously makes him even more dangerous. We found nearly a billion dollars in cash under the guy's mattress. That kind of money isn't used for legitimate purposes.
Unlimited. wow, still on that...... Being previously in the Army, you should at least know that he barely could defend his country with the resources he had and that proven in 3 weeks of fighting. Further more, a billion isn't much BB, all it gets you is a football stadium these days, it runs out fast. Heck we've thrown 500 billion at iraq and we still have problems.
You can't simply ignore the fact that Congress authorized the use of force, endorsed the use of force after the war started, and has repeatedly funded the war.
I'm not ignoring it at all, i haven't denied it, i haven't disputed it..etc...'
Acts of congress don't make things right. And they certainly don't make things justified.
And the fact a number of countries supported and continue to support the war means nothing? Oh come on. What that should tell you is this isn't some black and white issue. If it were, they wouldn't be by our side.
Nothing about countries is black and white, at least capitalistic countries, they are all related to green in the end.
I'm really surprised in all of this, you are swayed this much by political rhetoric and don't see it for what it is.
BTW. it kind of funny to me how some people can criticize democrats for saying anything to get votes, then on the other hand use what they say to justify something else.
-
BB, it's a pure cop-out to think most anything politicians say is a good reason for something. Politician say things for one reason and one reason only...to get votes.
Aside from that idea about politicians which is arguable, granted, however, the "chess pieces" show he wasn't a threat. And I've already explain why to you.
Tactically he's a threat becuase he had the ability to enact violence against the USA. So does every other country in the world. They have the same ability. But they are not threats until they can strategically threaten us. Strategically meaning they can strike the US and not receive grave repercussions which would include invasion and removal from power. So strategically if he moves against us it means he is done with. Saddam was a thug, he'd do what ever he needed to stay in power and striking the USA would mean a sure end to his power.
Hence he is not a threat anymore then anyone else is.
Now if Russia tried that, it might be a different story so, skipping all the Political blabber, becuase that's exactly what it is, Russia in reality is a far greater threat.
If someone takes the idea that 2 sides agree and inturn that makes what they think right then that person is the one with blinders. It wouldn't matter how many voted or who or who did not. wrong is wrong, it doesn't just make it right because our congress said so. Hell, how long did it take us to figure out slavery was wrong?
You play chess bb?
Play it out BB. what does Saddam do that threatens the USA? What does do that doesn't lead invasion and a quick removal from power?
What those politicians were saying was is what people wanted to hear and to say anything other than that would have been a political masochism.
Substantial as compared to what? the total countries involve in financial backing and troop backing versus the total amount of countries in the world or compared to the amount in the first war? In the case of the 2003 invasion, world opinion was against us, Many governments didn't support us. .
So i don't know what world you are living in when you say a substantial. Did the UN support it like in 1991?
Maybe so, but the situation is exactly the same. attacking anyone for both would me losing power and both those leaders don't want that. So they are not different form each other.
Again he knew very well, especially after 9/11 anything of the sort would mean his death. He knew it, our leaders knew it, anyone with sense pass one move knew it.
Unlimited. wow, still on that...... Being previously in the Army, you should at least know that he barely could defend his country with the resources he had and that proven in 3 weeks of fighting. Further more, a billion isn't much BB, all it gets you is a football stadium these days, it runs out fast. Heck we've thrown 500 billion at iraq and we still have problems.
I'm not ignoring it at all, i haven't denied it, i haven't disputed it..etc...'
Acts of congress don't make things right. And they certainly don't make things justified.
Nothing about countries is black and white, at least capitalistic countries, they are all related to green in the end.
I'm really surprised in all of this, you are swayed this much by political rhetoric and don't see it for what it is.
BTW. it kind of funny to me how some people can criticize democrats for saying anything to get votes, then on the other hand use what they say to justify something else.
I'm cynical of what politicians say too and I agree they pander to voters all the time. They're often disingenuous.
This is a little different though. They're all making some very strong statements, like this one from Nancy Pelosi on 10 Oct. 02: "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons." If it were only Pelosi, only Democrats, or only Republicans, I'd be more inclined to believe that they were pandering. I guess it is possible that all of them were putting on act and really didn't believe Saddam was a threat, but I doubt that's the case.
Regarding the (approximately) billion in cash, no it's not enough to move mountains, but the point was you don't keep that kind of cash hanging around for legitimate reasons. He was probably using that to fund terrorism in Israel. I doubt he had beneficent designs for money. And he had access to/control of billions more.
-
Seems to me that if it was so clear that the U.S. violated a UN resolution by invading Iraq that the UN would have taken some action, and many other countries wouldn't have supported the war.
I'm in good company in believing that Iraq was a threat: John Kerry, Al Gore, Durbin, many other Democrats in Congress . . . . What was that quote by Kerry? Saddam was "a real and grave threat to our security." Argue with him all you want. :)
Your beliefs, Kerry's beliefs and Bush's beliefs are starting points for investigating and verifying the so-called 'threat' posed by Iraq.
Your beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Do you understand that?
-
From your link:
"The proposed law not only opens the door to the big international oil companies, but offers them lucrative contract deals, and even a place on the national oil board that will run the industry."
So this law, assuming it passed (the article is a year old), would offer contracts to multinational oil companies and this gives the United States government control of Iraq's oil?
Who cares about control of the oil? The contract gives foreigners a huge taste of the oil profits that those companies would not have enjoyed unless we put the figurative gun to the head of the Iraq people by making this contract.
The US is angling to take Iraqi oil profits and that's ok with you? I suppose that view was clear from Bush's nonsense about the Iraqi oil revenues paying for the war.
What a crock that was.
-
BB,
can you find some quotes that were made AFTER the UN inspectors found no WMD in iraq - late Feb 03?
I notice all your quotes stop right about the time the UN inspectors found nada.
That's a great observation.
-
I'm cynical of what politicians say too and I agree they pander to voters all the time. They're often disingenuous.
This is a little different though. They're all making some very strong statements, like this one from Nancy Pelosi on 10 Oct. 02: "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons." If it were only Pelosi, only Democrats, or only Republicans, I'd be more inclined to believe that they were pandering. I guess it is possible that all of them were putting on act and really didn't believe Saddam was a threat, but I doubt that's the case.
Let's take this one a little further becuase i think you brought up a good point indirectly with Pelosi. How does she or any other politician really know? From what standpoint or expertise does their opinion carry any weight? So yes, in a sense they were pandering but not directly to get votes and not putting on an act, but becuase to say otherwise wouldn't be prudent and becuase they simply don't know any better just like the average American.
In what setting do these people make these statements? A reporter or interviewer asks them what they think, and as politicians they think politically. It's not about dem or rep here, it's just about being politically competent. and think about what was asked? Was he a threat? Well he was. But did they ask if they thought Saddam would attack the USA? and even if they said yes, what bases of knowledge or expertise would they make that statement that couldn't have paraded to the American public that we could have all seen?
So using this as a bases or part of a reasoning to justify a preemptive invasion is a bit niave if you think about it. If the CIA and the NSA and the JC came to the American public and said Saddam is a threat and could show how he intended to attack the USA and get away with it and not allow us remove him, then he is a real threat.
Otherwise all that happened here was that we were in a fear hysteria and on the war path and Saddam was the next logical target and our country fell for it. America got shanghi-ed.
How dangerous was Saddam? He was like a wasp in a sealed furnace with our fingers on the switch.
Regarding the (approximately) billion in cash, no it's not enough to move mountains, but the point was you don't keep that kind of cash hanging around for legitimate reasons. He was probably using that to fund terrorism in Israel. I doubt he had beneficent designs for money. And he had access to/control of billions more.
Saddam was a street thug at heart. All mobsters keep plenty of cash on hand.
-
That's a great observation.
He won't address it.
Yes, everyone in congress parroted the intel reports.
They got what they wanted - inspections. And they found nada. After 10 years of staring at the place and being lalowed to search everything but saddam's crapper, they didn't pick up one iota of anything.
BB won't address this fact.
-
He won't address it.
Yes, everyone in congress parroted the intel reports.
They got what they wanted - inspections. And they found nada. After 10 years of staring at the place and being lalowed to search everything but saddam's crapper, they didn't pick up one iota of anything.
BB won't address this fact.
BB believes in talking snakes and magical self-resurrecting zombie god men with whom he has a personal relationship...makes sense he wouldn't question the Cheney regime...
-
the bottom line
BB seems to believe that mass murder of tens of thousands of people is justifiable
and poses no moral dilemma whatsoever
On the other had, abortion, even in the first few weeks when there is nothing more than a cluster of cells that can't be seen with the human eye, is murder.
In the first case there are fully formed human beings suffering horrible deaths and in the second case there is a cluster of cells with no nervous system or any capacity to feel pain or suffer in any way at all.
It all makes perfect sense - if you're a fundie nutjob
-
the bottom line
BB seems to believe that mass murder of tens of thousands of people is justifiable
and poses no moral dilemma whatsoever
On the other had, abortion, even in the first few weeks when there is nothing more than a cluster of cells that can't be seen with the human eye, is murder.
In the first case there are fully formed human beings suffering horrible deaths and in the second case there is a cluster of cells with no nervous system or any capacity to feel pain or suffer in any way at all.
It all makes perfect sense - if you're a fundie nutjob
Finally people are beginning to see how fundamentalist Christianity fucks up politics... :-\
-
He won't address it.
Yes, everyone in congress parroted the intel reports.
They got what they wanted - inspections. And they found nada. After 10 years of staring at the place and being lalowed to search everything but saddam's crapper, they didn't pick up one iota of anything.
BB won't address this fact.
Beach Bum is doing what President Bush did in authoring the request for use of force against Iraq--throw up 1000 different bits of information and see what sticks. Unfortunately that approach does not speak to the legality of Bush's illegal call to attack Iraq.
It's a subterfuge from pro-war apologists.
-
Finally people are beginning to see how fundamentalist Christianity fucks up politics... :-\
how about just life in general
it would be much more consistent to be a devout Christian and also be a pacifist and against capital punishment....
....and plenty of Christians and other religious people understand this and don't need to have it explained to them (ad naseum) on a bodybuilding message board
-
the bottom line
BB seems to believe that mass murder of tens of thousands of people is justifiable
and poses no moral dilemma whatsoever
On the other had, abortion, even in the first few weeks when there is nothing more than a cluster of cells that can't be seen with the human eye, is murder.
In the first case there are fully formed human beings suffering horrible deaths and in the second case there is a cluster of cells with no nervous system or any capacity to feel pain or suffer in any way at all.
It all makes perfect sense - if you're a fundie nutjob
Good post!
-
Your beliefs, Kerry's beliefs and Bush's beliefs are starting points for investigating and verifying the so-called 'threat' posed by Iraq.
Your beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Do you understand that?
There were categorical statements made by numerous members of Congress. They had apparently done enough investigation to reach a conclusion and to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Including this one from John Kerry on 23 Jan. 03:
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Does that sound like Kerry needed further investigation to you?
-
Who cares about control of the oil? The contract gives foreigners a huge taste of the oil profits that those companies would not have enjoyed unless we put the figurative gun to the head of the Iraq people by making this contract.
The US is angling to take Iraqi oil profits and that's ok with you? I suppose that view was clear from Bush's nonsense about the Iraqi oil revenues paying for the war.
What a crock that was.
lol. You provided the link in response to the Troll's contention that we went to war to control Iraq's oil and that we now in fact control Iraq's oil. So when I show you how your own link doesn't prove any such thing you say "Who cares about control of the oil"?? In the words of the great philosopher, ESPN's Chris Berman, "Whaaaat."
-
There were categorical statements made by numerous members of Congress. They had apparently done enough investigation to reach a conclusion and to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Including this one from John Kerry on 23 Jan. 03:
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Does that sound like Kerry needed further investigation to you?
It does to me. Because it's nothing more than opinion from a non-experts view point and not at at all looking at the full scope of the situation. It goes straight back to what i was saying before: political blabber.
-
Let's take this one a little further becuase i think you brought up a good point indirectly with Pelosi. How does she or any other politician really know? From what standpoint or expertise does their opinion carry any weight? So yes, in a sense they were pandering but not directly to get votes and not putting on an act, but becuase to say otherwise wouldn't be prudent and becuase they simply don't know any better just like the average American.
In what setting do these people make these statements? A reporter or interviewer asks them what they think, and as politicians they think politically. It's not about dem or rep here, it's just about being politically competent. and think about what was asked? Was he a threat? Well he was. But did they ask if they thought Saddam would attack the USA? and even if they said yes, what bases of knowledge or expertise would they make that statement that couldn't have paraded to the American public that we could have all seen?
So using this as a bases or part of a reasoning to justify a preemptive invasion is a bit niave if you think about it. If the CIA and the NSA and the JC came to the American public and said Saddam is a threat and could show how he intended to attack the USA and get away with it and not allow us remove him, then he is a real threat.
Otherwise all that happened here was that we were in a fear hysteria and on the war path and Saddam was the next logical target and our country fell for it. America got shanghi-ed.
How dangerous was Saddam? He was like a wasp in a sealed furnace with our fingers on the switch.
Saddam was a street thug at heart. All mobsters keep plenty of cash on hand.
What did they know? Enough to authorize the use of force. I pulled some information about what was contained in the Congressional resolution:
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
It passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and passed the Senate 77 to 23. In other words, an overwhelming, bipartisan vote.
-
What did they know? Enough to authorize the use of force. I pulled some information about what was contained in the Congressional resolution:
The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[citation needed]
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq."
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
It passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and passed the Senate 77 to 23. In other words, an overwhelming, bipartisan vote.
None of this makes any difference at all. We all knew this long before the war. We knew most of this before 9/11. The point is: was Saddam a real threat. None of this points to that.
Show me some scenario that Saddam attacks the USA and doesn't seal his own coffin as a quick result
And you keep on going back and back to congress authorizing it. How many times does do you need to hear that the fact congress authorizes something doesn't make it right.
-
There were categorical statements made by numerous members of Congress. They had apparently done enough investigation to reach a conclusion and to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Including this one from John Kerry on 23 Jan. 03:
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he’s miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
Does that sound like Kerry needed further investigation to you?
The concept "Disarm" applies only to one who is armed in the first place.
That is why we had the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq.
They found no WMDs. Yet we attacked Iraq anyways. For what reason? To disarm a disarmed country?
Does that sound like a reasonable tact to you?
-
None of this makes any difference at all. We all knew this long before the war. We knew most of this before 9/11. The point is: was Saddam a real threat. None of this points to that.
Show me some scenario that Saddam attacks the USA and doesn't seal his own coffin as a quick result
And you keep on going back and back to congress authorizing it. How many times does do you need to hear that the fact congress authorizes something doesn't make it right.
The Congressional vote makes a huge difference, because they believed Saddam was a threat and gave the president the authority to use force in his discretion. The fact they reached this conclusion means they believed Saddam was a threat.
We didn't need a scenario that showed Saddam would attack our borders. Other than 911 and Pearl Harbor, we've never faced a threat that I'm aware of on our borders, but we have used force all over the world, including Yugoslavia and Somalia. We are concerned about how elements overseas attack our allies, our military bases, and fund the animals who are trying to attack from within (like the 911 hijackers). Certainly, all of our troops in the region were in danger if Saddam was the threat that Congress believed he was.
Who said the fact Congress authorizes something makes it right? I don't agree with everything Congress authorizes. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. In this particular instance, I agree with their overwhelming vote. You obviously disagree. Big deal.
-
lol. You provided the link in response to the Troll's contention that we went to war to control Iraq's oil and that we now in fact control Iraq's oil. So when I show you how your own link doesn't prove any such thing you say "Who cares about control of the oil"?? In the words of the great philosopher, ESPN's Chris Berman, "Whaaaat."
The Iraqis own the oil. So what? They can control the oil. So what? They will not enjoy the full profit of their workproduct b/c those rights are to be held by foreign companies.
When the US robs a country, it doesn't rob it in the way some ham-handed crook sticks up a gas station. We make it look all pretty like.
B/c, after all, we are installing a democracy and freeing a people!
-
The concept "Disarm" applies only to one who is armed in the first place.
That is why we had the WMD inspectors on the ground in Iraq.
They found no WMDs. Yet we attacked Iraq anyways. For what reason? To disarm a disarmed country?
Does that sound like a reasonable tact to you?
Of course not. But that's not what we believed. Congress believed he was a threat. The Commander in Chief believed he was a threat. So did the UN. So did the other countries who supported us.
-
The Congressional vote makes a huge difference, because they believed Saddam was a threat and gave the president the authority to use force in his discretion. The fact they reached this conclusion means they believed Saddam was a threat.
Great point. And Bush misused that authority by ordering the attack in direct violation of the UN disarmament resolution which he was seeking to enforce!
We didn't need a scenario that showed Saddam would attack our borders. Other than 911 and Pearl Harbor, we've never faced a threat that I'm aware of on our borders, but we have used force all over the world, including Yugoslavia and Somalia. We are concerned about how elements overseas attack our allies, our military bases, and fund the animals who are trying to attack from within (like the 911 hijackers). Certainly, all of our troops in the region were in danger if Saddam was the threat that Congress believed he was.
Great point. And Bush misused that authority by ordering the attack in direct violation of the UN disarmament resolution which he was seeking to enforce!
Who said the fact Congress authorizes something makes it right? I don't agree with everything Congress authorizes. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. In this particular instance, I agree with their overwhelming vote. You obviously disagree. Big deal.
You are implying that notion. You think that the mere authorization to use force, as commander and chief, is carte blanche to do whatever the hell he pleases and attack whom he pleases. You can't deny that assertion.
You would be correct only if there is no such thing as International Law, but sadly for Bush, there is such a thing.
-
The Iraqis own the oil. So what? They can control the oil. So what? They will not enjoy the full profit of their workproduct b/c those rights are to be held by foreign companies.
When the US robs a country, it doesn't rob it in the way some ham-handed crook sticks up a gas station. We make it look all pretty like.
B/c, after all, we are installing a democracy and freeing a people!
I see. Moving the goal posts are we? So now you agree the United States doesn't own or control Iraq's oil and that foreign companies might profit from Iraq's oil. Two comments: first, Iraq will benefit from contracts they sign with foreign companies; the companies will obviously provide some kind of service. Second, precisely how is the United States government profiting from Iraq's oil?
-
Of course not. But that's not what we believed. Congress believed he was a threat. The Commander in Chief believed he was a threat. So did the UN. So did the other countries who supported us.
The WMD inspectors did not have to rely on some possibly erroneous belief of Iraq's alleged threat to the US.
As Reagan said, "Trust but verify."
Right in the middle of the WMD inspectors verification of whether the WMD claims were true, Bush attacked.
Do you deny that?
Do you now see why your belief of Iraq's WMD capacity was never verified?
-
I see. Moving the goal posts are we? So now you agree the United States doesn't own or control Iraq's oil and that foreign companies might profit from Iraq's oil. Two comments: first, Iraq will benefit from contracts they sign with foreign companies; the companies will obviously provide some kind of service. Second, precisely how is the United States government profiting from Iraq's oil?
I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm pointing out how the US and others profit from the Iraqi invasion without having to 'own or control' the oil.
The mafia profits from it's contracts too. I'm absolutely certain that the Iraqi people were in as good a bargaining position as the US and other foreign interests in carving up the profit agreements on the Iraqi oil. I mean here are the Iraq people with oil and oil extraction/development infrastructure and here comes the foreign oil companies with no oil. It's a win-win situation!.
Why are you moving the goal posts re the US Gov's profiting from the theft of Iraqi oil? I'll bite. The US Gov. profits from the increased revenues from the US companies doing business in Iraqi oil. But that's not a good answer. The Bush Administration uses government to enrich cronies and friends alike....even if that means killing Iraqi people that interfering in the theft.
-
Great point. And Bush misused that authority by ordering the attack in direct violation of the UN disarmament resolution which he was seeking to enforce!
Great point. And Bush misused that authority by ordering the attack in direct violation of the UN disarmament resolution which he was seeking to enforce!
You are implying that notion. You think that the mere authorization to use force, as commander and chief, is carte blanche to do whatever the hell he pleases and attack whom he pleases. You can't deny that assertion.
You would be correct only if there is no such thing as International Law, but sadly for Bush, there is such a thing.
Well geeze. Since I can't deny your distorted interpretation of an alleged implication arising from my comments, then I guess this discussion is over. . . .
Just so we're clear, I think the significance of Congressional comments and Congressional authorization regarding Iraq are as follows:
1. They help dispel the contention that Saddam was not a threat.
2. They show that Congress believed Saddam was a threat, which can't be ignored if you're trying to determine whether or not Saddam was a threat.
3. They help legitimize the action Bush took in Iraq. The Congressional vote explicitly stated he could use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
So no, I never said and don't believe that simply because Congress says something that is necessarily true. But I do believe these particular comments and votes are a very important part of the analysis.
Keep in mind Bush didn't need Congressional authority to take Saddam out.
-
The WMD inspectors did not have to rely on some possibly erroneous belief of Iraq's alleged threat to the US.
As Reagan said, "Trust but verify."
Right in the middle of the WMD inspectors verification of whether the WMD claims were true, Bush attacked.
Do you deny that?
Do you now see why your belief of Iraq's WMD capacity was never verified?
We may never know what happened to the man's weapons program. I think there was too much smoke to conclude he wasn't trying to obtain them. I share the belief of those (including those I've talked to who have been on the ground) that he probably moved what he had out of the country before we invaded. We really gave him too much time.
-
I'm not moving the goal posts. I'm pointing out how the US and others profit from the Iraqi invasion without having to 'own or control' the oil.
The mafia profits from it's contracts too. I'm absolutely certain that the Iraqi people were in as good a bargaining position as the US and other foreign interests in carving up the profit agreements on the Iraqi oil. I mean here are the Iraq people with oil and oil extraction/development infrastructure and here comes the foreign oil companies with no oil. It's a win-win situation!.
Why are you moving the goal posts re the US Gov's profiting from the theft of Iraqi oil? I'll bite. The US Gov. profits from the increased revenues from the US companies doing business in Iraqi oil. But that's not a good answer. The Bush Administration uses government to enrich cronies and friends alike....even if that means killing Iraqi people that interfering in the theft.
Well, I agree that's not a good answer. :D The amount of increased taxes that will be paid on increased revenues is a drop in the bucket. The whole "we control their oil" argument is full of holes. Glad you don't embrace that one. :)
-
We may never know what happened to the man's weapons program. I think there was too much smoke to conclude he wasn't trying to obtain them. I share the belief of those (including those I've talked to who have been on the ground) that he probably moved what he had out of the country before we invaded. We really gave him too much time.
I understand your sentiment but that is not a lawful reason to go to war.
We had the world class scientists find zilch re WMDs. And Bush attacked anyways.
Your speculation about the moving of WMDs might be true and it might not be true. (I have seen reports that the Inspectors could tell if any WMDs had been present and moved from Iraq)
There are a couple of certainties beyond contention:
1. The WMD inspectors were finding no WMDS
2. Bush ordered an attack irrespective of those findings.
That is unjustifiable and a war crime to boot. There is no gray area here.
-
The Suicide of Emma Beck and Silence No More
By Michelle Malkin
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
townhall.com (http://townhall.com)
She didn't have to die. And neither did her unborn children. Over the weekend, London newspapers reported on the 2007 suicide of 30-year-old Emma Beck, a young British artist who hung herself after the abortion of her twin babies. Perhaps the retelling of her suffering can prevent more needless deaths.
The agony and loneliness in Emma Beck's suicide note resonate across the pond, across racial and class lines, across generations. She was distraught over a breakup with her boyfriend, who didn't want the children. She was suffering intense grief from her decision to end the lives inside her. And so she ended her own.
"I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum," Beck wrote. "I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies -- they need me, no one else does."
Beck's family blames the medical establishment. The judicial system, as is so often the case, has become a coping mechanism. A British court recently held a hearing on Beck's suicide. Beck's mother revealed that her daughter "was not given the opportunity to see a counselor."
When a professional "counselor" can't be found, isn't that what mothers are for?
But it's not just jaded abortion providers and medical assistants, AWOL counselors and MIA parents who need to look in the mirror. We have tolerated a culture of callousness and nurtured an entitlement to convenience for decades. Feminists shush women with post-abortion regrets. Population control zealots and Planned Parenthood drum it into the heads of young women around the world: "The fewer, the merrier" and "Why carry more burdens?" their T-shirts and bumper stickers proclaim.
Last fall, in Emma Beck's homeland, the British press went gaga over an environmental nitwit who had an abortion and got her tubes tied to "protect the planet." She told the London Daily Mail: "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."
That came on the heels of a British think tank report on how children are bad for the environment. Said John Guillebaud, emeritus professor of family planning at University College London: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."
And who gets premium op-ed space in America's newspaper of record to talk about abortion? Idiots like University of Iowa adjunct assistant writing professor Brian Goedde, who shared his festive thoughts surrounding the New Year's Eve before his girlfriend's abortion in an essay a few months ago in The New York Times. "The abortion is scheduled for two days from now, and we're holing up," he reminisced. "We do the dishes brush our teeth, climb into bed and have unprotected sex. 'I'm not going to get more pregnant,' Emily says. I've never felt pleasure more guiltily."
What you rarely hear are the voices telling you that such self-indulgence is wrong. What you rarely read are the stories of untold women (and men) around the world who know the vaunted choice they made was wrong and need help. What you rarely see are the studies showing that with abortion come lifelong costs and consequences -- high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, grief, ostracism, guilt and, in at least one study in Finland, higher suicide rates.
Delivering that message here in the United States are preventive groups like the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (nifla.org), which donates ultrasound equipment and training to open up a "window to the womb" for women in crisis pregnancies, and post-abortion healing organizations like Silent No More (silentnomoreawareness.or g). To combat abortion glorifiers, the Silent No More Awareness campaign makes the public aware that abortion is emotionally, physically and spiritually harmful to women and others; reaches out to women who are hurting from an abortion and lets them know help is available; and invites women to join us in speaking the truth about abortion's negative consequences.
What Emma Beck most needed to hear is the message abortion pushers most desperately want to drown out: You are not alone.
MLK's niece: 'Abortion a racist, genocidal act'
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow -
2/29/2008 10:00:00 AM
The niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., has used an appearance at a Black History Month event in Washington, DC, to reject the claim that her famous uncle supported abortion rights for women.
Dr. Alveda King says although her uncle -- the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. -- accepted an award from Planned Parenthood in 1966, the abortion group had a "hidden agenda" at the time. "I don't want anybody to be confused by thinking that Dr. King could condone the violent death of the little babies, and the violent consequences that women suffer," King clarifies. "I'm post-abortive myself. I've suffered ... and it was a secret in my family for too long. And so now we’re here today to speak out on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. Abortion is a racist, genocidal act."
King was one of several black pro-life leaders who met in Washington yesterday to celebrate their ethnicity and decry abortion and its disproportionate effect on blacks. And during a news conference at the Family Research Council, Dr. Johnny Hunter, president of the Life Education and Resource Network, predicted that at some point in America abortion would be abolished, just like slavery and Jim Crow laws.
"The way of the wicked does not last forever, and that's why we get to celebrate Black History Month," says Hunter. "Because all throughout black history [there have] been blacks who have taken a stand no matter where the people were when they got here. By the time they left this earth, we were a little bit better off."
Hunter declared that in merely three days time in America, the abortion industry "kills more blacks than the KKK ever lynched."
-
Big difference
abortion is voluntary
lynching - usually not voluntary
-
MLK's niece: 'Abortion a racist, genocidal act'
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow -
2/29/2008 10:00:00 AM
The niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., has used an appearance at a Black History Month event in Washington, DC, to reject the claim that her famous uncle supported abortion rights for women.
Dr. Alveda King says although her uncle -- the late civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. -- accepted an award from Planned Parenthood in 1966, the abortion group had a "hidden agenda" at the time. "I don't want anybody to be confused by thinking that Dr. King could condone the violent death of the little babies, and the violent consequences that women suffer," King clarifies. "I'm post-abortive myself. I've suffered ... and it was a secret in my family for too long. And so now we’re here today to speak out on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. Abortion is a racist, genocidal act."
King was one of several black pro-life leaders who met in Washington yesterday to celebrate their ethnicity and decry abortion and its disproportionate effect on blacks. And during a news conference at the Family Research Council, Dr. Johnny Hunter, president of the Life Education and Resource Network, predicted that at some point in America abortion would be abolished, just like slavery and Jim Crow laws.
"The way of the wicked does not last forever, and that's why we get to celebrate Black History Month," says Hunter. "Because all throughout black history [there have] been blacks who have taken a stand no matter where the people were when they got here. By the time they left this earth, we were a little bit better off."
Hunter declared that in merely three days time in America, the abortion industry "kills more blacks than the KKK ever lynched."
I agree with her: I doubt MLK knew about Planned Parenthood's real agenda in 1966.
-
I agree with her: I doubt MLK knew about Planned Parenthood's real agenda in 1966.
hidden agenda = preventing unwanted pregnancies
-
hidden agenda = preventing unwanted pregnancies
If that's true then why does planned parenthood always apply for building permits under false pretenses?
-
If that's true then why does planned parenthood always apply for building permits under false pretenses?
Maybe they're concerned that right wingers will firebomb them? Just a thought....
-
First of all, she was an artist, soooo that means she was a wack. All artists are one way or another. It was a statement to kill herself on her birthday. ::)
Secondly, her boyfriend didn't accept his responsibility for his children and they broke up, which probably had more to do with her suicide than anything else. ::)
Thirdly, apparently the counselor who would have helped her, since she was referred, was on vacation and they didn't have anyone to cover. So, it was also partially the fault of all those who prefer lower taxes rather than providing the kind of social welfare care that could have helped a wack artist whose boyfriend didn't want his children. ::)
Fourthly, plenty of women killed themselves back in the day... when abortion was illegal and women couldn't deal with being ostracized, etc. That, or they gave up their children and hated themselves for it the rest of their lives. Either way, how was that social situation any better for women? ::)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/22/nartist122.xml
-
how about just life in general
it would be much more consistent to be a devout Christian and also be a pacifist and against capital punishment....
....and plenty of Christians and other religious people understand this and don't need to have it explained to them (ad naseum) on a bodybuilding message board
I disagree; have you ever read their Holy Book of Horrors? It's really no wonder where they get their ideas from...
-
Maybe they're concerned that right wingers will firebomb them? Just a thought....
Not so much the right wing, but people that know this is just wrong. Even Planned Parenthood admits it's a business.
-
Not so much the right wing, but people that know this is just wrong. Even Planned Parenthood admits it's a business.
You're so funny to argue from this point of view. :)
"She was only going ahead with the abortion because her boyfriend did not want the twins."
That's a quote from the mother. I've never seen you start threads asking men to take responsibility for their children. ;) It's been a problem since the beginning of time. No? And I suppose that's why women have access to abortion. It's sad of course for anyone to have to go through that sort of procedure, but practical, considering human history.
-
You're so funny to argue from this point of view. :)
"She was only going ahead with the abortion because her boyfriend did not want the twins."
That's a quote from the mother. I've never seen you start threads asking men to take responsibility for their children. ;) It's been a problem since the beginning of time. No? And I suppose that's why women have access to abortion. It's sad of course for anyone to have to go through that sort of procedure, but practical, considering human history.
You must not be reading all of my posts on abortion then. The fellas need to step it up. That's a good portion of the problem....to many "hit-and-run" situations, leaving the poor girl to believe this is her only option. You definitely haven't read all of my viewpoints. :-\
-
Yes, much as Mother Teresa said:
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion.
Fundy Wackjobs.
-
You must not be reading all of my posts on abortion then. The fellas need to step it up. That's a good portion of the problem....to many "hit-and-run" situations, leaving the poor girl to believe this is her only option. You definitely haven't read all of my viewpoints. :-\
Point me to your viewpoints. :)
-
Point me to your viewpoints. :)
Read my post on fundies and politics; it's applicable here too...
-
I disagree; have you ever read their Holy Book of Horrors? It's really no wonder where they get their ideas from...
what part do you disagree with?
-
what part do you disagree with?
Read Exodus and Leviticus....lots of god approved killing there, genocide and murder...good stuff....and very Christian as well.
-
Read Exodus and Leviticus....lots of god approved killing there, genocide and murder...good stuff....and very Christian as well.
No doubt the bible is full of contradictions and plenty of violence. Unless you're just going to randomly interpret the bible (which most obviously do) then there should be some sort of coherent pattern otherwise it's all nonsense.
My position of course being it's all nonsense