Americans do pre-emptive strikes well

[I think not]

It’s the same old guitar playing a different tune…

All the points made in this thread are well put, the US should not have invaded Iraq, or at least it is my position, not in the manner in which it was done, no UN approval (as much as I don’t think it functions properly, that’s all the world has for now) and alienating allies. I do believe he had to be removed, which I will ask why on earth would some of you support Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror? I ask you why? Is it because Iraq is “sovereign”? How much legitimacy can you attach to a country that was ruled by a dictator? And I don’t by the comment of non support, if you are not glad and ecstatic to see him go, you support him. It is possible to support one of the consequences of the Iraq war (deposing of Hussein) and still be against the war. Does your hatred for the US blind your moral compass? Why aren’t you guys out on the streets protesting for the Chinese, Vietnamese, North Korean governments to step down and establish democracy? Is it because you cannot see the murder taking place? Or is it because the murder is confined within their borders? Yawn you say?

I have never heard a single one of you hard core leftists condemn any “socialist” state, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam (yes Vietnam is a “socialist” state). I take your silence as a ringing endorsement of their policies. Which makes me believe, for those who aren’t part of the fringe left, are very well dam close to it, if they have nothing to say about what is going on behind the asphyxiating closed doors of “socialism”. They are part of the same camp as far as I am concerned. Sure, once in a blue moon, I will hear you say, “well they can do better with [insert nonsense reference here while ignoring atrocities], but hey, look at the US.


The policies of these “socialist” states are, the denial of basic human rights, poverty (not Western poverty), real no food and water for days living under a tree or leaking straw hut poverty, murder of their citizens by the tens of thousands because they dare defy the status quo, state controlled oppressive media, summary trials and executions and imprisonment, if they’re lucky, of opposing political parties. Why are you apathetic to this evil? And more importantly, why are you endorsing it with your silence?

And you’re new found South American hero, none other than the anti-American Hugo Chavez, the same Chavez that attempted a failed coup, that was imprisoned and later released. The same Chavez that has a bad human rights record and condemned multiple times by Amnesty International. The same Chavez that aligns himself with oppressive regimes, like North Korea and Cuba. The same Chavez that has changed the constitution in order for him to retain and increase his Presidential powers. Why do you praise such a man? Because he throws a bone to his people? I can respect that he does this, but you cheer when he sells cheap oil to Boston, while ignoring his own people. Can you not see it is all politics? Why do you search to find the “good” when he is slowly but surely on his way to dictatorship? I ask you why?

The answers I have come to find on my own is this, so long as leaders and countries defy America, that is enough reason to support, either vocally, or through silence, any oppressive, humiliating, murdering regime.

 

[Kreskin]

ITN, the core issue is Bush, not Saddam. If Saddam was an actual threat there would still be talk, not war. It is well documented, and patently obvious, that the admin went on a fearmongering misinformation campaign to start a war. Even the CIA staffers were surprised to hear the wardrum speeches by Cheney and the likes. There was no effort in any way to find a solution other than shock and awe.

The war was not to liberate Iraqis from an oppressive regime. It was about disarming Iraq of WMD's. That was the sale. It's wasn't about how Saddam's son would whip the National Team Ping Pong players (like that wasn't propoganda at it's finest).

The issue is the integrity of what is/was supposed to be the benchmark for governments worldwide. The US government was the flagship of integrity. American men and women have died for the principles the present regime has thrown out the window. The benchmark/bar for all governments has been significantly lowered by the Bush administration.

The Iraq war is not about Saddam.

 

[I think not]

Yes Kreskin, and I agree with your statements, none of which negates my rant.

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: Americans do pre-emptive strikes well

For goodness sakes !!!
The United States itself owns the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction,of chemical weapons,of "mini" nuclear weapons.
Just which nation provided chemical weapons and the like to Iraq when Iraq and the U.S. had "friendly" relations?
Just which nation provided weapons to the Taleban,during their fight against the Russian invasion?
And just who has given the United States the power to make decisions that affect the whole world,without any collaboration,discussion or thought as to future impacts?
Iraq continues to be an ill-thought out campaign...it is on the verge of civil war(yet another oxymoron),and its' people are worse off(in terms of their daily lives,their lack of infrastructure,their inability to walk their streets safely)than they were under the "evil" Saddam.

The United States has opened a can of worms and now can't get it closed.

Another one who employs the use of revisionist history. The Taliban was not even around during the SOviet occupation of Afghanistan. The US supported the Afghan Mujahdeen which was made up of just about every tribe in Afghanistan. When the Soviets left Afghanistan the country was torn by civil war. The Taliban was a group that was formed after the Soviets left and was the main group that took control during this civil war. The US supported anyone who fought the Soviets. During the civil war two groups emerged and opposed each other... the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/05/cochran/

 

[Jersay]

It’s the same old guitar playing a different tune…

All the points made in this thread are well put, the US should not have invaded Iraq, or at least it is my position, not in the manner in which it was done, no UN approval (as much as I don’t think it functions properly, that’s all the world has for now) and alienating allies. I do believe he had to be removed, which I will ask why on earth would some of you support Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror? I ask you why? Is it because Iraq is “sovereign”? How much legitimacy can you attach to a country that was ruled by a dictator? And I don’t by the comment of non support, if you are not glad and ecstatic to see him go, you support him. It is possible to support one of the consequences of the Iraq war (deposing of Hussein) and still be against the war. Does your hatred for the US blind your moral compass? Why aren’t you guys out on the streets protesting for the Chinese, Vietnamese, North Korean governments to step down and establish democracy? Is it because you cannot see the murder taking place? Or is it because the murder is confined within their borders? Yawn you say?

I have never heard a single one of you hard core leftists condemn any “socialist” state, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam (yes Vietnam is a “socialist” state). I take your silence as a ringing endorsement of their policies. Which makes me believe, for those who aren’t part of the fringe left, are very well dam close to it, if they have nothing to say about what is going on behind the asphyxiating closed doors of “socialism”. They are part of the same camp as far as I am concerned. Sure, once in a blue moon, I will hear you say, “well they can do better with [insert nonsense reference here while ignoring atrocities], but hey, look at the US.


The policies of these “socialist” states are, the denial of basic human rights, poverty (not Western poverty), real no food and water for days living under a tree or leaking straw hut poverty, murder of their citizens by the tens of thousands because they dare defy the status quo, state controlled oppressive media, summary trials and executions and imprisonment, if they’re lucky, of opposing political parties. Why are you apathetic to this evil? And more importantly, why are you endorsing it with your silence?

And you’re new found South American hero, none other than the anti-American Hugo Chavez, the same Chavez that attempted a failed coup, that was imprisoned and later released. The same Chavez that has a bad human rights record and condemned multiple times by Amnesty International. The same Chavez that aligns himself with oppressive regimes, like North Korea and Cuba. The same Chavez that has changed the constitution in order for him to retain and increase his Presidential powers. Why do you praise such a man? Because he throws a bone to his people? I can respect that he does this, but you cheer when he sells cheap oil to Boston, while ignoring his own people. Can you not see it is all politics? Why do you search to find the “good” when he is slowly but surely on his way to dictatorship? I ask you why?

The answers I have come to find on my own is this, so long as leaders and countries defy America, that is enough reason to support, either vocally, or through silence, any oppressive, humiliating, murdering regime.

So you like guitars ITN?

North Korea is a Stalinist kind of government, it is poor and isolated ubt the kind of government it has dates back before the communists. The people who ruled Northern Korea were isolationists where faminies occured every several years.

Cuba is much better off than it was under the America right-wing Banana country that was in control before Castro and they have made attempts at universal health care. And it idn't helptheir biggest provider collapsed.

And Hugo Chavezis still way better than the right wing upper-class political elites that were in before him.

 

[EagleSmack]

Cuba is a basket case. The only reason it survived for so long was the Soviet Union. The reason it survives today is because anyone who is in opposition to Castro is jailed and jailed for a LONG TIME. What did those guys who spoke out for change in Cuba get... 20 years in prison?

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't N. Korea formed after WWII?

The Sopranos are on now so I will check later.

 

[cortezzz]

the tide is turning

 

[EagleSmack]

We have heard that before.

 

[I think not]

So you like guitars ITN?

North Korea is a Stalinist kind of government, it is poor and isolated ubt the kind of government it has dates back before the communists. The people who ruled Northern Korea were isolationists where faminies occured every several years.

You ever hear of the Korean War Jersay? That wasn't before the communists.

Cuba is much better off than it was under the America right-wing Banana country that was in control before Castro and they have made attempts at universal health care. And it idn't helptheir biggest provider collapsed.

I don't condone Batista, but you will have to prove to me the people are better under Catro, and don't bother going to the Health Care, good Health Care doesn't justify the murdering of tens of thousands. Show me how bad Batista was. Show me a link of the merciless evil ruler. You show me yours and I'll show you mine as they say.

And Hugo Chavezis still way better than the right wing upper-class political elites that were in before him.

While Chavez has done good things for his people (I do not deny this) he is slowly but surely becoming the ultimate authority in Venezuela. Hardly democratic.

I'm still for answers to the questions I raised.

 

[zoofer]

5th columnists. Saddam would be proud of his useful idiots.

 

[zoofer]

Anti-antis up the ante
By Clifford D. May
Apr 13, 2006

During the Cold War, there were Communists, anti-Communists and anti-anti-Communists. It would be unfair to call the anti-antis pro-Communist. But it was the anti-Communists – the Cold Warriors -- that the anti-antis most energetically opposed.

Today, there are terrorists, anti-terrorists and anti-anti-terrorists. It would be unfair to call the anti-antis pro-terrorist. But it is those fighting terrorists -- those waging war against Militant Islamist ideologies -- that anti-antis criticize most harshly.

Anti-antis are clearly dominant on America's campuses. University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill has taught his students that Americans incinerated and buried in New York City on 9/11/01 were “Little Eichmanns.” The language is extreme but the point Churchill intends -- that America is so oppressive that it both invites and deserves terrorism in retaliation – is shared by many in his academic cohort.

Last week, I received a call from a reporter at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The University of North Texas, he said, was planning to award an honorary degree to Adbel Al-Jubeir, a leading spokesman for Saudi Arabia. The university awards such degrees to individuals who “have made meritorious contributions to society that have enlarged human understanding and enriched human life.” The reporter wanted to know if I had any comment. I think I sputtered.

How could any intelligent and sane American find it a “meritorious contribution to society” to propagandize for a regime that deprives women and minorities of basic human rights, is so intolerant as to prohibit non-Muslims from worshipping on its soil, provides the death sentence for Muslims who convert, and promotes an ideology from which Militant Islamist terrorism springs?

The media, too, has more than its share of anti-antis and I'm not talking here only about the left-wing blogs that compare President Bush unfavorably to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Recently, the top story on the Washington Post's front page was headlined: “Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi: Jordanian Painted as Foreign Threat to Iraq's Stability.”

Is there anyone – even Ward Churchill -- who would argue that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the commander of al-Qaeda in Iraq, is not a “foreign threat to Iraq's stability”?

A seemingly more cogent reason for the Post to object to what it blasts as a U.S. military “propaganda campaign”: An American colonel is quoted as saying that Zarqawi and other “foreign insurgents” are only “a very small part of the actual numbers” of those fighting Iraqi government forces and the American-led coalition.

This ignores the fact that al-Qaeda is responsible for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Indeed, the day after the Post story appeared, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch issued a statement saying that more than 90 percent of the suicide attacks in Iraq are “carried out by fighters recruited, trained and equipped by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq.”

He might have added that suicide bombings -- along with roadside bombings and occasional hostage decapitations -- are the primary tactic utilized by the forces fighting to prevent the emergence of a free Iraq. It's not as though the “foreign insurgents” are waging air-and-ground assaults and staging naval battles.

And, ironically, what helps make suicide bombings effective is the press coverage they attract. The mainstream media do not depict even the most vicious attacks on civilians as atrocities that should inspire outrage and fortify resistance. Instead, the media suggest the attacks be seen as evidence that the “insurgents” are succeeding and the U.S. failing in its obligation to “stabilize the security situation.”

The terrorists “play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently. “Every act [of] carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it."

Linda Chavez, who heads a think tank and writes commentary, observed not long ago that anti-anti-terrorists “assume nefarious intentions of the U.S. government, while clamoring to protect the rights” of America's enemies. But the anti-antis have upped the ante beyond even that: Now anti-antis at an American university are heaping honors upon a Saudi propagandist while anti-antis at a great newspaper are complaining that American “propaganda” seeks to defame an al-Qaeda terrorist master.

George Orwell couldn't make this stuff up.

Clifford D. May is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and a Townhall.com partner organization.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/cliffordmay/2006/04/13/193600.html

 

[zoofer]

The terrorists “play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair said recently. “Every act [of] carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it."

I wonder if our home grown useful idiots recognize themselves here. Never blame the terrorist for suicide bombings. Blame the coalition.
Normal people would be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Kreskin]

 

[cortezzz]

Re: RE: Americans do pre-emptive strikes well

We have heard that before.

as--- the current latin american direction indicates ----
north americas vicious war agianst the left in south america --

has failed

you will hear it

and

you will hear it

and eventually

you will feel it

too

 

[Jersay]

North Korea ITN, or Korea was long before it was created by the Russians and the Americans. It's not like they appeared one day. And in the area of North Korea they were isolationists just like they are today so it doesn't really have to effect communism or socialism since they are reverting back to isolationism before this time period, socialist or other.

 

[aeon]

Re: RE: Americans do pre-emptive strikes well

Oh, what BULLSHIT!

The Americans supplied spare parts and munitions to Saddan during the Iran-Iraq war to the tune of less than $20 million total. No chemicals or WMD components.

Wrong.

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a “witch's brew” of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.
The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html

France Germany and China sold arms to Iraq during the same time worth around $15 BILLION. Most of the chemical weapons stuff came from GERMANY.

Most of the chemicals came from us, not germany , nice try.

The Mujaha'den in Afghanistan were supplied with cash and small arms by the CIA when they were fighting off the Russians. The Russians were so nasty in Afghanistan almost 1/4 of the population fled. The american contribution to the resistance was greatly significant only when they supplied light SAMS (Stingers) to the Afghans, who were being slaughtered by Soviet air. The story here, and the shocker, is how little thanks they got from those they helped.

little thankx from who exactly??

when russians were fighting the freedom fighters(alquada-taliban) in the 80's, guess who were the russian allied ?? The Northen alliance, which is today the allied of the coalition.

So you would expect thankx from the taliban/alquada.

 

[aeon]

thankx for the laugh . very funny.

 

[EagleSmack]

Aeon it amazes me that you just fling your own fantasies in replace of fact.

Al Queda and the Taliban were not in existence during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Taliban was created in the mid 90's after the Soviets left. The Norther Alliance was created in response to the Taliban seizing control of power in Afghanistan and was made up of tribes in the north who banned to fight the Taliban.

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/05/cochran/

Here is another...

http://www.islamfortoday.com/taleban11.htm

Here is a TIMELINE

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html

In 1996 the Taliban captured the capital city of Kabul, and had forced most of the remaining warlords into a small pocket in the far north of the country. These warlords subsequently formed a defensive alliance termed the Northern Alliance. By the time of the start of the current war, Taliban offensives had reduced their enclave to a mere 10% of the country.

It was a nice try though aeon :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

Re: RE: Americans do pre-emptive strikes well

We have heard that before.

as--- the current latin american direction indicates ----
north americas vicious war agianst the left in south america --

has failed

you will hear it

and

you will hear it

and eventually

you will feel it

too

Yawn... like we heard and felt when Daniel Ortega was voted out by his own people in Nicarauga?

Boy was that a shock to the Left. So much for his revolution. And Cuba still remains a basket case begging the US to lift sanctions. When Castro goes... so will his glorious revolution.

Yes the tide is changing to our favor.

 

[cortezzz]

your denial
is part of your weakness