Bush Disrespects the Flag

[millhouse]

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003535.html#003535

Here is the president is signing an autograph. What disrespect!

:cantbeli:

[usa320]

IMHO its an edit.

The rear of the head is far too blurry, and the colors of the flesh in the neck area just dont look right.

[millhouse]

IMHO its an edit.

The rear of the head is far too blurry, and the colors of the flesh in the neck area just dont look right.


It would be a big deal if it was....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030725/168/4s8z4.html

Yahoo posted it. Photo by AP/Charles Dharapak.

[catalyst]

u respect the value the flag represents not the flag itself u dumb ass......so u would die cause someone was gonna drop the flag in some crap?????To save the flag?
No, u die fighting for the flags values, morals, ideologies and so on....
Is that not one of the reasons the USA became the USA to get rid of the stupid british type rulers that were pointless and not values in the colony of America????

Just a thought...get out of the waterloo type battles wif a guy waving a flag and everyone dieing for that!

[Argyll]

When is a Flag not a flag?
Thats not a flag,it just a little stars and stripes pennant used by kids and patroits to show support for whatever !
There's no disrespect shown there IMHO,I think if you look up somewhere you'll find the true definition of the From the USCode,that it'll have proper dimensions governing the 1st Question!
USA 320 it's not an edit,this is what happens when you focus on something that's NOT in the foreground of a picture,it's called depth of viw,go and have a look at some of your family snaps where the camera is focused on someone not in the foreground!
Millhouse,perhaps then you should join the Military and put some of that BS bravado to some good use!

[Mortimer]

you'd think Bush would have shat on the flag enough in his career history... :fork:

[a. enders]

A flag is a flag.(Note period)Just becuase its small and sold by vendors doesn't mean it has no meaning.By the guidelines above the photo,he is disrespecting the flag,but then we'd have to consider all those 4th of July Blowout Sales ads with thier company name emblazoned across the flag.

And perhaps its just paranoia,but I detect a bit of a double standard here.If it were Clinton,everybody and their brother would be up in arms.Just an impressions.And we all know how those are.

[Seraphim]

I also remember reading that the flag should never be ink screened on. That it all has to be embroidered.

[Saranof]

A flag is a pice of cloth, big deal. All **** about values and stuff are just bull**** really.

[Argyll]

Taken from your own USC!

Part I--Design of the Flag

Section 1. The flag of the United States shall have thirteen
horizontal stripes, alternate red and white, and a union consisting of
white stars on a field of blue.
Sec. 2. The positions of the stars in the union of the flag and in
the union jack shall be as indicated on the attachment to this order,
which is hereby made a part of this order.
Sec. 3. The dimensions of the constituent parts of the flag shall
conform to the proportions set forth in the attachment referred to in
section 2 of this order.

Part II--Regulations Governing Executive Agencies

Sec. 21. The following sizes of flags are authorized for executive
agencies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions of Flag
-----------------------
Size Hoist Fly
(width) (length)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feet Feet
(1)............................................. 20.00 38.00
(2)............................................. 10.00 19.00
(3)............................................. 8.95 17.00
(4)............................................. 7.00 11.00
(5)............................................. 5.00 9.50
(6)............................................. 4.33 5.50
(7)............................................. 3.50 6.65
(8)............................................. 3.00 4.00
(9)............................................. 3.00 5.70
(10)............................................ 2.37 4.50
(11)............................................ 1.32 2.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would hardly call what GWB is signing as a flag in the technical sense!
It falls under the USC in size to be declared a "Flag"

[Smintjes]

Bush is making a kid happy by signing his autograph on a tiny free "throwaway" flaggie. Get over it guys.

[budanski]

you'd think Bush would have shat on the flag enough in his career history... :fork:

Care to enlighten us with more of your tripe?

[Mortimer]

you'd think Bush would have shat on the flag enough in his career history... :fork:

Care to enlighten us with more of your tripe?

.....no













asshole

[budanski]

http://www.noisedesignlab.com/gag/moron.jpg


you'd think Bush would have shat on the flag enough in his career history... :fork:

Care to enlighten us with more of your tripe?

.....no













asshole

Typical of you. Making statements you can't back up. :roll:

[Haiw]

fire crews stand by

[budanski]

Forget the fire crew, get the dump truck cause Mortimers full of it. What can you expect from a troll.

[usa320]

"flag is a pice of cloth, big deal. All **** about values and stuff are just bull**** really."

Someone tell this guy to go screw himself.

Oh and mortimer, go screw yourself.

[P220ST]

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/APEC1999/photos/flag.jpg

As long as it's not a real flag, one that can be displayed on a pole, I don't think it's a problem.

[Mortimer]

Its not that i can't back it up, because i can, its just that i am not going to give a piece of **** like you the time of day.

:bash:

lol your obviously pretty arrogant about yourself if you think i'd post something without evidence and then admit that i didn't know what i was talking about....especially to you. rofl

i am not going to waste my time in a pointless argument

[Zach R.]

The chin looks too sharp from this angle, and he looks too tan, and all that hair. Looks more like John Kerry that good ole Dubya.

[Zach R.]

Typo, I meant to say "Than good ole dubya".

[OzMan]

I thought they made new forum rules about this kinda thing...

Saranof, a flag may not mean anything to you in Sweden, but in America, we have rules and conduct about our flag. We are proud of our flag. And however you translate "defend the flag", it still stands that that is a flag. It represents you, your countrymen, and your history. You humiliate the flag, you humiliate yourself. And if you don't care about your flag, then you have no respect for your country or your history. They make flags for a reason nowadays, and it ain't just to tell the difference between countries. Every stripe, every band, every color has meaning.

Take South Africa's new flag for instance. In the center, there is a green Y shape, with the open end on the left. The green stands for the land. In the upper right hand corner, there is a red shape. The red stands for the blood shed for the country's independence. In the lower right hand corner, there is a blue shape, the blue meaning the ocean, which the country is by. Seperating the green Y from the red and blue is a thin white line, standing for the country's vast diamond market. Filling the open end of the Y is a black triangle, with the point towards the stem of the Y. This stands for the country's black community moving forward. Seperating the Y from the black triangle is a thin gold line, signifying the county's gold market.

(Anyone from South Africa, please correct me if I'm wrong!!)

The point is, the flag either flies or dies for a reason. It's not just a cool ornament to put at the top of a pole. It has a purpose, and it is worth defending. If you say that your flag is BS, there is a problem.

[JohnJohn]

disrespecting the flag?!?!? RONAL REAGAN SIGNED MY FLAG!!! I am proud to have this flag of mines, never have I even thought it to be the least bit disrespectul, more like an honor ;)

[usa320]

hhhhmmmmm....im sure that 3 presidents wouldnt have signed flags if it wasnt allowed...perhaps this is an exception?

[budanski]

Its not that i can't back it up, because i can, its just that i am not going to give a piece of **** like you the time of day.
You've obviously found time to respond.


lol your obviously pretty arrogant about yourself if you think i'd post something without evidence and then admit that i didn't know what i was talking about....especially to you. rofl
I hardly call it being arrogant when it was you who made the statement you can't back up. Gimme an example of your claim. Gimme sources. otherwise you fit the description of a typical message board troll.


i am not going to waste my time in a pointless argumentThen stop making pointless statements.

[Mortimer]

so?
no
and no

[Seiyuuki]

[quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e][quote:e04685943e] :fork: [/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e][/quote:e04685943e]
................ :slap: :bash: :fork: :slap: :bash: :fork:

Hood, I think you started a trend.

[Knave]

If Mortimer doesn't want to enlighten the rest of us by backing his statements up with facts and sources, then that's his choice. Far be it from us to try and hold him accountable and have some semblance of credibility.

As for the flag... well, I doubt that the Prez was out there grabbing flags from people waving them and signing at random; doubtless the person who's holding it offered it to the President and asked him to sign it.

If the President didn't sign it, saying "No, I won't sign that, it's disrespectful to the flag," not only would the media be all over it, burning him in the press over how cold and heartless he is towards the common folk who just wanted an autograph.... he'd probably make mighty upset the guy who was asking for the autograph. If he does sign it, he makes someone's day. Which would you choose?

[Ichhabe]

A flag is a pice of cloth, big deal. All **** about values and stuff are just bull**** really.

Saranof, please enlighten us what the Swedish National Day is called?!? Please, please, oh please! rofl

[usa320]

http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative9.jpg[/img]

[Knave]

"The Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include any enforcement provisions, rather it functions simply as a guide for voluntary civilian compliance."

[atnadastra]

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003535.html#003535


I find it very interesting that admitted liberals like the guy who runs the dailykos.com website make a big deal out of being appalled that GWB "disrespected the flag", when they have a record of defending American protestors who burn the U.S. flag.

I'm surprised that that liberals even believe it's possible to "disrespect the flag".

Seems a tad disingenuous to me...

[Knave]

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003535.html#003535


I find it very interesting that admitted liberals like the guy who runs the dailykos.com website make a big deal out of being appalled that GWB "disrespected the flag", when they have a record of defending American protestors who burn the U.S. flag.

I'm surprised that that liberals even believe it's possible to "disrespect the flag".

Seems a tad disingenuous to me...

I think it's a little ironic, personnally. But, then, liberals have a tradition of selectively forgetting the past and facts when it suits their purposes.... that, and having a tenuous grasp of reality.

[budanski]

Speaking of Liberals...


WAR FOLKLORE

Don’t listen to the latest groupspeak.

Just as we migrate from Scott Peterson to Kobe Bryant and back to Jessica Lynch, so too did the snowy peaks of Afghanistan bow out to the sandstorm-induced pause in Iraq and that in turn to 16 words of the president's speech. But amid all these expressions of fleeting American madness, we need to carefully separate larger truths from the folklore that our elite mob for the moment is mouthing. Here are a random five examples of the current groupspeak that defy common sense.

1. Tens of thousands of troops deployed in Iraq represent an unacceptable escalating and open-ended commitment of American blood and treasure.

It was never so simple as staying or leaving — inasmuch as we already had been in Iraq for over a decade in a manner that had saved thousands of Kurds and Shiites. Against the present cost of pacifying Iraq must be set a half-generation and the $20-30 billion already spent to secure two-thirds of the airspace of Iraq. Then there was the costly naval enforcement of the U.N. embargo from the Gulf to the Indian Ocean — as well as years of prior shootings and bombings along the way.

Add another decade's outlay of keeping 10,000 troops in Saudi Arabia — with all the political risks of putting Americans in such a strange place. Consider further the thousands of Americans stationed elsewhere in the Gulf since 1991 to thwart Saddam Hussein. This three-week conflict, in other words, marked the start of the denouement — not the first act — of a long, costly engagement that began in 1991.

If, with the demise of Saddam Hussein — who was the original reason for our aid to his weak and vulnerable neighbors — we can withdraw or at least downsize from places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and the Gulf sheikdoms, then a great deal of the present investment will represent a transfer of expenses rather than an entirely new commitment. Unless we are activating entirely new National Guard units or creating ex nihilo divisions, some percentage of our costs for troops is static and previously budgeted anyway — whether American soldiers are to be fed and housed in Texas or in Baghdad.

The present task has a definable goal — leave with consensual government established in Iraq — whereas the last twelve years really were open-ended and led nowhere.

2. Iraq was a complete distraction from the war against terror.

This is a tired allegation made by a number of Democratic presidential hopefuls, especially Senator Graham.

First, none of the oft-repeated and dire predictions — increased terror, an inflamed Arab street, the fall of "moderate" governments in Jordan and Egypt, a ruined Turkish economy, millions of refugees, thousands dead, endless sectarian fighting, and other horsemen of the Apocalypse — have followed from Saddam's ouster. Indeed, the end of Saddam Hussein has already brought dividends in other areas.

Consider the following collateral developments in little over 100 days. There is some movement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Soon an American military presence in Saudi Arabia will end. We already see a cessation of cash rewards for suicide murderers; the death or arrests of terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and al Qaedists in Kurdistan; probable disruption of Iraqi cash flows to terrorist groups based in Lebanon; Hamas worried in Syria; democratic foment in Iran; and a growing sense that the United States is not something terrorists wish to arouse.

The Democratic leadership needs to cease its embarrassing rants before its last shred of credibility is lost. The pause was not a setback; the museum attack was not a 170,000-icon heist because Americans were off in the oilfields; Jessica Lynch really did go through hell and her comrades really did die shooting. Despite the recent rants from some out-of-touch Democratic congressmen, it is not wrong to kill mass murderers in a firefight. Indeed, those Democrats should be reminding Americans that they are proud that the Senate voted long ago to go into Iraq and to eliminate a fascist Baathist state that had murdered tens of thousands.

3. The lack of tangible evidence of weapons of mass destruction undermines the success of the war — and gives powerful ammunition to the Democrats' criticism of Mr. Bush.

This would be true if there had not been ample reasons presented for going to war — from Saddam's violation of the 1991 accords, his expulsion of U.N. inspectors, his past history of invading and attacking his neighbors, his connection with terrorists, and prior confirmation by the U.N. and the Clinton administration of a continued Iraq WMD program.

There are also political problems on the horizon. If senators — who had access to classified intelligence — voted to authorize the president to take measures against Iraq and now object to the circumstances of our (successful) intervention, then either their prior sanction or their present objection is wrong: and they need to tell us which it is and why.

If President Clinton once authorized a four-day war because of Saddam's non-compliance with past promises, and no subsequent evidence was adduced that those stockpiles of WMD were in fact recovered or destroyed, then were the Clinton administration and the U.N. wrong, or disingenuous, in their belief that such weapons ever really existed?

And — putting all put aside WMD, curbing terrorism, and concerns over our own security — is saving thousands of Iraqis any less humanitarian than intervening in Liberia?

It will also be difficult for Democrats to say much about proliferation elsewhere since they now allege that there was no real prewar evidence of WMD in Iraq. So their current harangues will have the pernicious effect of convincing us in the future to ignore accepted reports of enriched uranium in Iran or undiscovered reactors in Korea. Why hassle sifting through tricky intelligence reports when you will only be ankle-bitten later for acting on purportedly fabricated evidence? Most Americans will instead shrug and say, "No way: let the Europeans or the Japanese — not us — worry about Iranian or Korean nukes."

The current conundrum is also predicated on two other shaky premises: that evidence of WMD won't be found and that things in Iraq will get worse. Neither is likely. American aid and oil revenue will bring more, not less money, to the Iraq economy in the months ahead. Freedom grows sweeter, not more bitter, to its new beneficiaries.

A year from now it is also probable that millions of unsavory Baathist documents will have been cataloged and translated. The fate of the Hussein tribe is becoming clear. Consensual government will be stronger. Those in the know about Saddam's past crimes will become more talkative.

Finally, note that the purported communiqués from Saddam's guerrillas repeatedly insist that America's intervention was based on lies and falsehoods about WMD. In contrast, 25 million Iraqis are mostly silent on the issue. Are Saddam's murderers, or his victims, the better allies in the present debate?

The discovery of a single cache of weapons or the arrest or corpse of any Hussein will, of course, soon put an end the entire pseudo-controversy — as we are now just witnessing with late-breaking news of the dead epigones.

4. We have done lasting damage to international alliances and institutions.

Careful scrutiny reveals just the opposite: the U.N., NATO, the EU, South Korea, and other bodies and nations are reexamining their own, not our, behavior.

The U.N. is not debating leaving the United States or expelling us from the Security Council, but in fact is reviewing its entire constitution: from the exclusion of powerful nations like Japan, Germany, and India from the Security Council to the nature of odious regimes that participate on important commissions — such as that paragon of human rights, Libya.

The Belgians are worried about curtailing, not empowering their lunatic courts. They want NATO headquarters to remain, not be moved to Warsaw. Except for the temporary rise of the euro, the news from the EU is of confusion, not lockstep anger at the United States. North versus South, East versus West, Britain versus the Continent — all that reveals intrinsic European fault lines not of our own making.

For all the present calumny, Mr. Blair still enjoys far more prestige and admiration abroad than do Messrs. Chirac, Schroeder, Villepin, or Fischer. And among the English-speaking nations, it is just as likely that Canada will move closer to the Australian position vis-à-vis the United States than vice versa. South Korea is keeping silent about its "sunshine policy" — and suddenly quite worried about its anti-American demonstrations — as we ponder our evolving new relationship.

In short, a new honesty and maturity are the real dividends of American actions.

5. In a drive for global hegemony, America is crafting a new imperialism to rule the world.

The trendy notion of America as a "hyperpower" is largely an artifact of the aftermath of the Cold War. True, we enjoy unmatched military strength. Sure, we spend more on defense than do the next ten or so nations collectively. But that imbalance is not a reflection of a wish to dominate the globe, but mostly due to the abject collapse of an empire that failed to do precisely that — and the cleanup of the resulting detritus of Soviet interventions and clients, from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq.

In terms of percentages of GNP, we are spending no more on our military budget than we did through most years of the Cold War. Both at home and abroad, the real story is just as often the abandonment, not the construction, of military bases.

Our sin was mostly that we won the Cold War, kept active in NATO, and did not disarm after the fall of the Berlin Wall. When one of two superpowers is still standing, then ipso facto the survivor usually enjoys twice its former relative power.

The fact is that we have been consistent in a predictable 60-year commitment to national security, while our friends and former enemies — by intent or default — have followed different paths since 1989. We stayed mostly the same as they became hypopowers that, to take a small example, would and could do nothing should a madman in Korea wish to kill millions.

Without 9/11, remember, we would not now be in either Iraq or Afghanistan — the two points of departure for most of the recent critiques of America as the new Rome.


These are still perilous times. But if anyone on September 12, 2001, had predicted that 22 months later there would still be no repeat of 9/11; that bin Laden would be either quiet, dead, or in hiding; that al Qaeda would be dispersed, the Taliban gone, and the likes of a Mr. Karzai in Kabul; that Saddam Hussein would be out of power, his sons dead, and an Iraqi national council emerging in his place; that troops would be leaving Saudi Arabia, Arafat ostracized, and Sharon seeking negotiations; that new Middle East agreements under discussion — and all at a cost of fewer than 300 American lives — then he would surely have been written off as a madman.

All that and more were no mere accidents. They were the direct result of the work of thousands of brave and astute Americans who were as likely to be slurred during their risky ordeal as they were to be third-guessed in its successful aftermath — and predictably by the same opportunistic bystanders.

So far we have lost fewer lives in Afghanistan and Iraq than we did in a single day's butchery in the Marine barracks in Lebanon. But unlike that terrible sacrifice, this time Americans are fighting back, winning, and changing for the better the lives of millions in the most remarkable, ambitious, and risky endeavor since the end of World War II.

We need to remember all of that, and get a grip on ourselves amid the latest outbreak of what we can now diagnose as a chronic and embarrassing hysteria Americana.

[usa320]

Ont he tpoics of liberals, they suck.


http://members.cox.net/havacup/TOW1.jpg

[usa320]

But if anyone on September 12, 2001, had predicted that 22 months later there would still be no repeat of 9/11; that bin Laden would be either quiet, dead, or in hiding; that al Qaeda would be dispersed, the Taliban gone, and the likes of a Mr. Karzai in Kabul; that Saddam Hussein would be out of power, his sons dead, and an Iraqi national council emerging in his place; that troops would be leaving Saudi Arabia, Arafat ostracized, and Sharon seeking negotiations; that new Middle East agreements under discussion — and all at a cost of fewer than 300 American lives — then he would surely have been written off as a madman.

Indeed, things may be messy now, but int he long run we have come VERY far...CLinton and Bush I both wouldnt have imagined seeing saddam gone for at least 20 years... Overall, i think what weve done today will definately allow for imense progress in the middile east in the future.[/b]

[pinkeye]

Knave wrote:
I think it's a little ironic, personnally. But, then, liberals have a tradition of selectively forgetting the past and facts when it suits their purposes.... that, and having a tenuous grasp of reality.

Hmmm, as opposed to "Conservatives" who always tell the truth? Oh yeah, the Bush administration has not grossly distorted the truth regarding Iraq at all...

[budanski]

Hmmm, as opposed to "Conservatives" who always tell the truth? Oh yeah, the Bush administration has not grossly distorted the truth regarding Iraq at all...

Late to the game kashyyk. How was the truth distorted again? Are we going down this road again or did you come up with something new and credible thats worth debating?

[atnadastra]

Hmmm, as opposed to "Conservatives" who always tell the truth? Oh yeah, the Bush administration has not grossly distorted the truth regarding Iraq at all...

Thinking of any particular "distortion"?

[JTFazz]

http://pto4.com/stop_repost.jpg

[pinkeye]

regarding distortions of the truth, have any of you opened a newspaper or watched the nightly news? i cannot believe any of you would genuinely believe the bush administration has been absolutely honest regarding the perceived need to invade iraq. all we hear lately in newscasts are countless questions about the veracity of claims made by the bush administration regarding wmd's, etc., etc. and don't start blaming a "liberal" media for all the noise generated by congress, the media, etc., that you evidently are not aware of. watch cnn and fox news, who flew the american flag pretty damn high during the war, to get an idea of what's going on.
this is not a question of being "liberal" or "conservative". i'm very much a "lefty" yet i can also criticise the left and i routinely do. and for your information, i come from a long line of lefties, many of which are buried in europe, so "liberals" as you call us are willing to die for what is right.
your posts are not based on reason nor fact, they are just exercises in jingoism.

[usa320]

i love the way the democrats and liberals are riding on not the ideals of democrats or liberals, but the wave of anti-bush sentiment... I mean Dean is frowned upon for other dems simply because the ONLY thing his campaign is riding on is removing bush from office.

[Knave]

Hmmm, as opposed to "Conservatives" who always tell the truth? Oh yeah, the Bush administration has not grossly distorted the truth regarding Iraq at all...

I didn't say that Conservatives have a flawless track record when it comes to honesty in politics.... I was referring to the "grassroots" folks running the website which originally brought this all-for-naught topic of "disrespecting the flag," up. I apologize for not making that clear.

[budanski]

regarding distortions of the truth, have any of you opened a newspaper or watched the nightly news? i cannot believe any of you would genuinely believe the bush administration has been absolutely honest regarding the perceived need to invade iraq. all we hear lately in newscasts are countless questions about the veracity of claims made by the bush administration regarding wmd's, etc., etc. and don't start blaming a "liberal" media for all the noise generated by congress, the media, etc., that you evidently are not aware of. watch cnn and fox news, who flew the american flag pretty damn high during the war, to get an idea of what's going on.
this is not a question of being "liberal" or "conservative". i'm very much a "lefty" yet i can also criticise the left and i routinely do. and for your information, i come from a long line of lefties, many of which are buried in europe, so "liberals" as you call us are willing to die for what is right.
your posts are not based on reason nor fact, they are just exercises in jingoism.

What you see in the media is liberal bias being conveyed to you. Has any of them given proof what the Bush Admistration did that was deliberately misleading? Can you actually give proof to this? Pure conjectures which seems to be dying for something that was so damaging :roll:

[pinkeye]

you are correct in pointing out that many dems are criticising dean, but it's a little more complicated than the black and white picture you have posted. many dems are riding the anti-bush wave, as is the rest of the world. funny how that is, eh? the world vs. a few american right-wing conservatives. but i guess the latter win because the bush administration can wield the all-mighty american military to crush all that disagree, as long as they pose no genuine threat to the u.s.

[pinkeye]

budanski, so you are telling me that all major american media outlets, in addition to international media, are all under the liberal thumb, despite the fact that this is clearly not the case? do you read newspapers? do you own a television? have you heard of media concentration?
what about congress, including many prominent republicans, asking questions? you are as bad as those in the middle east who believe that 9-11 was a mossad-plot.
is it so difficult for you to criticise the bush administration? hell, even robert novak was against the invasion of war, and he's always blaming so-called socialists for everything.

[atnadastra]

regarding distortions of the truth, have any of you opened a newspaper or watched the nightly news? i cannot believe any of you would genuinely believe the bush administration has been absolutely honest regarding the perceived need to invade iraq. all we hear lately in newscasts are countless questions about the veracity of claims made by the bush administration regarding wmd's, etc., etc. and don't start blaming a "liberal" media for all the noise generated by congress, the media, etc., that you evidently are not aware of. watch cnn and fox news, who flew the american flag pretty damn high during the war, to get an idea of what's going on.
this is not a question of being "liberal" or "conservative". i'm very much a "lefty" yet i can also criticise the left and i routinely do. and for your information, i come from a long line of lefties, many of which are buried in europe, so "liberals" as you call us are willing to die for what is right.
your posts are not based on reason nor fact, they are just exercises in jingoism.

The "veracity of claims made by the Bush administration regarding WMDs"?

Are you referring to the "Uranium from Africa" claim? First of all, Bush never claimed in his State of the Union speech that we knew Iraq tried to buy uranium from the Republic of Niger. What he said was that British Intelligence sources claimed that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. Not quite the same thing as saying that the CIA could prove this was true.

Secondly, British Intelligence still maintains that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. They have not backed off from that claim to this day.

Thirdly, the person that the U.S. sent over to Niger to investigate the claim was (if I remember correctly) Bush-hater who 1)had no vested interest in finding evidence to support the claim and 2)spent very little time in Niger and conducted a very cursory "investigation" of the claim; after which that person returned home and ****ounced the allegation false.

Fourthly, the WMDs (and they will be found, BTW) were not the only reason we went into Iraq! But of course, you know this already.

Interestingly enough, there are no WMDs in Liberia, but liberals seem to be clamoring for GWB to send troops over there. If humanitarian reasons are good enough for Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti and Liberia, why aren't they good enough for Iraq?





BTW, I commend you on your erudite use of the word jingoism! :)

[Random Walker]

i'm very much a "lefty" yet i can also criticise the left and i routinely do.
So do you criticize them for abandoning their moral bearing for the sake of spilling anti-Bush drivel and appeasing a mass murdering psycho (or psychos for that matter)? Remember those “power to the people” slogans dear fellow traveler? Remember that empowering people and helping them to loose their chains was supposed to be the number one sacred objective of your side? What happened to those ideals? How deep have you buried them under tons of leftie pamphlets and senseless slogans that you seem to be mindlessly parroting?

Regards
Random

[pinkeye]

random,
as a matter of fact i think saddam should have been removed by the first bush, not because he posed a threat to american security but rather because he murdered millions of iraqis and iranians. i don't understand how one can view images of dead kurdish children and not want to intervene. however, this is an emotional response that must be tempered by reason. according to the logic espoused by the bush administration, iran and north korea should be dealt with harshly. but for obvious reasons this cannot be achieved militarily. so the u.s. can only intervene to protect its purported self-interest in cases such as as iraq where there will be little opposition from symmetrical forces (and evidently military planners underestimated the threat of asymmetrical warfare). intervention of this kind has generally been conducted through the u.n., and as a canadian, i can point to the fact that the canadian military has deployed all around the world despite its meager resources. canadians have not questioned their country's commitment to international peace and stability.
so, the american left has indeed become increasinly dovish, but that's in part because of the bush administration's policies vis-a-vis the international community. do not forget that the dems sent or maintained troops to haiti, somalia, and the balkans, with the task of securing peace and stability.
however, i would like to know what the right-wing "moral bearing" for intervention in iraq is? would the u.s. under the bush administration ever intervene if it did not perceive that it's "national security" were threatened? so far, conservatives do not have a very good record in this regard.

[pinkeye]

atnadastra, unless you feel personally targeted by my usage of the term jingoism to describe some people on this messageboard, then why bring it up? you cannot deny that some people are indeed jingoistic, with ridiculous posts that essentially say "we are americans, therefore will crush you". jingoism is defined as chauvinistic patriotism, which several members are absolutely guilty of, and belligerent foreign policy, which most of the international community is accusing the u.s. of promoting.
of course i am aware that u.s. has invaded iraq for multiple reasons, including easy access to oil, a point that the highly esteemed gen. schwarzkopf claimed was the determining factor behind military intervention. but the bush administration's case for military action centred on the perceived need to stave a security threat. you can point to powell's presentation to the security council as proof, but also as a symbolic exercise because the bush administration was reportedly leading a "coalition of the willing." in other words, the bush administration had to present a case it felt could be "acceptable" to the international community, hence its reliance on national security. so far, however, there is little direct evidence that iraq posed an imminent threat to the peace and security of the u.s. don't iran, syria, north korea, china (remember that national security interests include economic security) constitute more serious threats to american security than iraq under saddam? but for obvious reasons the u.s. cannot intervene militarily, unless it does, as it always has, through proxy mechanisms (i.e. latin america, afghanistan--isn't it comforting to know that bin laden benefitted from american funding?).
i have to cut this short because i have to run, but the essential point is i am criticising the policies, not the soldiers who carry out these policies. in addition, i find the tone that some members have adopted to be disturbing, hence my usage of the term jingoism.

[atnadastra]

atnadastra, unless you feel personally targeted by my usage of the term jingoism to describe some people on this messageboard, then why bring it up.
*snip*


Of course I don't feel personally targeted by your use of the term "jingoism". I brought it up because I'm a huge fan of words and their etymology. I honestly admired your use of the word. That's all.

[He219]

kashyyk wrote:
...the perceived need to invade iraq...

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/trailer/bw_trailer1_tn.jpg
'Helium Party Ballon' Filling Station (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Policywatch/policywatch1998/304.htm)

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/ops/styx_basrah_tn.jpg
Ceremonial Ship Greeting Rocket (http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh03021404.html)

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/images/misc/water_pipe_damage_tn.jpg
World Class Infrastructure

http://architecture.about.com/library/graphics/babylon-ch46-03.jpg
AIA Award Winning Palace Construction Program

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/03_launcher-s.jpg
Mobile Tennis Ball (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/unscom.htm) launcher

http://www.kdp.pp.se/halabjah_visnews.jpg
Humanitarian Aid for Kurds (http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html)

http://www.hrw.org/photos/2003/iraq/thumbnails/6.jpg
Social Welfare (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/05/iraq051103.htm)

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2003-06/08/images/pic09.JPG
Abu Ghraib After School (http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/dapril/22_massofgraves.html) program

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1060000/images/_1063141_saddamap150.jpg
UN Oil for Saddam (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/apr2003/nf2003043_4098_db069.htm)program

http://www.jsonline.com/graphics/news/img/apr03/baghdadfall9040903-125.jpg

http://mcsi.ods.org:2002/Yakhchal//collections/pics/miv/b/0001905.jpg

[Argyll]

Ah c'mon He 219 the mobile lab thing doesn't add up,think about it,he's hidden EVERYTHING,but leaves these 2 trucks to be found!!
Now you tell me would you be a happy Iraqi biologist sitting inside a "canvas" covered "lab" working in 35 degree heat..........on the move!!
or work in the underground fully a/c and ventilated,and environmentaly clean,and outside pathogen free,conditions........despite what we think,the Iraqis are and were not stupid!Cause they hid ALL the evidence so that the inspectors could not find it,and neither can the Military!!
Also,knowing that a ground war was imminent,don't you think they would've destroyed these if they were so critical to the program?,and please don't say they had no time........they had 12 years!!They were left out in the Open for goodness sake,not under cammo netting,just sitting there..........for all the world to see........a little bit convenient don't you think?

But I do love the rest of your montage!!

[He219]

Argyll, interpret the trailer only as one tiny part in a sea of tyranical abuse and authoritarian terror.


Now you tell me would you be a happy Iraqi biologist sitting inside a "canvas" covered "lab" working in 35 degree heat..........on the move!!
Chances are they would have worked at night while set up at some temporary location....


ventilated,and environmentaly clean,and outside pathogen free,conditions
If the samples are ****e to outside pathogens, the scientists ought to worry about the hazzards posed by the sample...


please don't say they had no time........they had 12 years
If they had destroyed them, there would be no clandestine mobile lab in deceipt of the UN weapon's inspection program.....


knowing that a ground war was imminent,don't you think they would've destroyed these

I heard something similar about all those bridges wired with explosives along with the dam ready to be demolished. Perhaps a Blitzkrieg ground offensive without an anticipated 30 day air saturation along with the destruction of Command and Control had something to do with not destroying those 'Balloon Filling Stations'?

Thanks for the compliment!

[Random Walker]

as a matter of fact i think saddam should have been removed by the first bush,
Except that he was constrained by UN at that time – the very same UN that would want to see Saddam in power to this day.

not because he posed a threat to american security but rather because he murdered millions of iraqis and iranians. i don't understand how one can view images of dead kurdish children and not want to intervene. however, this is an emotional response that must be tempered by reason. according to the logic espoused by the bush administration, iran and north korea should be dealt with harshly. but for obvious reasons this cannot be achieved militarily.
Not necessarily both should be dealt with harshly and I’ll gladly jump on a bandwagon supporting a plan that just like in case of Iraq will result in toppling of the regime with minimal losses.

so the u.s. can only intervene to protect its purported self-interest in cases such as as iraq where there will be little opposition from symmetrical forces
It is not just self interest, toppling Saddam was in everyone’s interest and especially the left had no moral right to object to it. Few lefties notably Christopher Hitchens had no problem realizing it, most however decided that the “blame America first” principle was overriding and as such betrayed their ideals.

(and evidently military planners underestimated the threat of asymmetrical warfare).
Evidently not. Compared to Gulf War it cost only few soldiers more to liberate a much larger country this time. The losses while certainly painful are negligible form the strategic point of view.

intervention of this kind has generally been conducted through the u.n.,
You mean the very same UN where the three members of permanent security council (France, Russia and China) were Saddam’s chief’s weapon suppliers? Don’t make me laugh. Or did you expect that comrades Quadaffi, Castro and Mugabe from the UN Human Rights commission would finally raise their voice against Quadaffi’s old friend Saddam? Please, UN was gutless in the Balkans, Rwanda and countless other places. What in a world makes you think that despite all the evidence to the contrary, that despite them doing all they could to keep Saddam in power they would eventually move their ass. Get real.

and as a canadian, i can point to the fact that the canadian military has deployed all around the world despite its meager resources.
Yes our military have despite being constantly stripped down from means to conduct military ops by the Liberal gov’t have often performed admirably. Coincidently, if you recall it was the mighty UN that turned a blind eye on the genocide in Rwanda and it was our soldiers that despite being betrayed by the humanitarians from UN maintained what was at the time only at the time safe heaven there.

canadians have not questioned their country's commitment to international peace and stability.
Speak for yourself, when my prime minister has constant doubts about Hezbollah being a terrorist organization I question my country’s commitment to international peace and stability. When my countrymen are being murdered by the Turbaned Tyrants of Teheran and my country’s politicians claim that until then the relationships b/n Canada and their psychotic regime were going swimmingly I certainly have more doubts.

so, the american left has indeed become increasinly dovish, but that's in part because of the bush administration's policies vis-a-vis the international community.
Enough buzzwords, what international community? The French, the Germans, The peace loving Russians, the Chicoms? Since when is US president accountable to them?

do not forget that the dems sent or maintained troops to haiti, somalia, and the balkans, with the task of securing peace and stability.
If you recall the intervention in Somalia was a knee jerk move and the Wag the Dog Balkans story was triggered solely by Horny Bill’s attempt to divert attention (albeit it yield positive consequences and I fully support it despite loathing Clinton).

however, i would like to know what the right-wing "moral bearing" for intervention in iraq is? would the u.s. under the bush administration ever intervene if it did not perceive that it's "national security" were threatened? so far, conservatives do not have a very good record in this regard.
Two most important reasons were ties to terrorism (do you still have doubts about this one) and WMD that will soon be found. If you haven’t noticed both are pretty much world’s problems. Add to this the sweet benefit of toppling the tyrant and freeing the nation and none unless blinded by the hatred of Bush or love for Saddamites has an argument against going in.

In any case please answer my question from the previous post. Let me repeat it for you: Do you criticizes the left for being so blinded with their hatred of Bush that they have forgotten about their moral bearing?


including easy access to oil
Please grow up.

don't iran, syria, north korea, china (remember that national security interests include economic security) constitute more serious threats to american security
Each with exception of Chicoms is being dealt with in one way or another. It is not in US’ national security to wage a global war against nuclear powers on a number of fronts.

isn't it comforting to know that bin laden benefitted from american funding?
Again, please grow up.

Regards
Random

[budanski]

what about congress, including many prominent republicans, asking questions?

Was this before or after congress gave to OK for war on Iraq in October?


you are as bad as those in the middle east who believe that 9-11 was a mossad-plot

So you making claims of the Bush Administration misleading the public for war -- when evidence to rid Saddam was ongoing for past 12 years even within your beloved Clintonian Era. Unfinished business that even if we didnt go in now, we would eventually HAVE to go in down the road. -- just as hypicritical?


is it so difficult for you to criticise the bush administration?

Criticisms of Bush's policies are abound. But when I hear your blatant groupspeak-gospel handed down by Rev. Terry McCauliffe. I expect you to come up with proof to your accusations. You have yet to oblige.

[budanski]

Some 30 Iraqi planes found buried in sands
Arabic News (http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030802/2003080210.html), 8/2/2003

American officials announced that the occupation forces in Iraq found scores of planes dumped under the sand while searching for mass destruction weapons, alleged to be with the former Iraqi regime.

The officials explained that among the found planes are "Maig 25 fighters" and "Soa 25" planes found dumped in al-Taqadum ( progress) military base, to the west of Baghdad, where weapons experts team found the planes after they had noticed parts of the planes surfacing from under the sands.

Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at the US House of representatives, Porter Goss, said that this discovery indicates the extent of the efforts made by the Iraqi army to hide its activities.

However, estimates of the American intelligence for the Iraqi air force was limited to 300 jet fighters most of them are from the Soviet Union's era.


Saddam Bombshell: Iraqi Air Force Found Buried in the Sand
NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/8/4/91821)
U.S. weapons inspectors have discovered "dozens of Iraqi air force fighter jets" buried in the sand near an airfield west of Baghdad, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

Inspectors stumbled upon the startling find after noticing two tail fins poking up through the sand. Beneath the telltale stabilizer wings: a completely intact Soviet-built Cold War era MiG-25.

By the time the excavation was complete, inspectors had uncovered "30-plus" aircraft hidden underground, a fairly sizable contingent considering that Saddam's air force was supposedly all but destroyed after the first Gulf War.

Though major U.S. media outlets largely ignored the shocking find, the Journal noted:

"If it's possible to hide 30-plus aircraft for several months with 150,000 troops on the lookout, secreting vials of poison gas or anthrax has to be a cinch."

Not to mention a nuclear weapon or two, we might add.

As per its usual flatfooted performance, the Bush White House has done little to publicize the blockbuster discovery.

[He219]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030801/capt.1059752805.iraq_air_force_xws106.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030801/capt.1059752331.iraq_air_force_xws102.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030801/capt.1059752323.iraq_air_force_xws101.jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030801/capt.1059752467.iraq_air_force_xws103.jpg



Fri Aug 1,11:46 AM ET. An Iraqi Air Force SU 25 fighter jet's antennas protrude through the sand as the fuselage sits buried in the sands of the deserted Tamous air base Friday, Aug. 1, 2003, in Habaniya, 120 kilometers (75 miles) northeast of Baghdad, Iraq (news - web sites). American teams hunting for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction recently found dozens of fighter jets from Iraq's air force buried beneath the sands, U.S. officials say. (AP Photo/Wally Santana)


http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030801/capt.1059752583.iraq_air_force_xws107.jpg

An Iraqi Air Force MIG 21 fighter jet wrapped in plastic sits buried in the sands of the deserted Tamous air base Friday, Aug. 1, 2003, in Habaniya, 120 kilometers (75 miles) northeast of Baghdad, Iraq (news - web sites). American teams hunting for Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction recently found dozens of fighter jets from Iraq's air force buried beneath the sands, U.S. officials say. (AP Photo/Wally

http://www.af.mil/media/photodb/photos/0308063-F-9999C-909.jpg

[Argyll]

Scramble,Scramble..............incoming Yankee Imperialist warplanes.................where's my shovel abdul? rofl



He 219...........a quick one for you?How long do you think it took to "hide" these planes?...................think about the suspect labs when you ponder on this one ;)

[Knave]

..... How hard could it be to hide a clandestine program in a country as big as California?

People forget that Americans and Brits were finding German bunkers and weapons caches from the Second World War up into the 50s.

And that country is far more densely populated than Iraq.

[usa320]

kashyyk i think you meant to post in the counterstrike kid's forum...

Stop being an ignoramus dumbass. I dont think anyone likes you.

[atnadastra]

usa320, I'm not flaming you here, but just because we disagree w/Kashyyk doesn't mean we need to call him names.

It makes us look like we have no better arguments than name-calling. It makes us look we're afraid to address his points, and frankly, we're not: our point of view has absolutely nothing to fear from Kashyyk's POV. I believe the facts are in our favor.

[He219]

Argyll wrote:

He 219...........a quick one for you?How long do you think it took to "hide" these planes?...................think about the suspect labs when you ponder on this one
What's to 'ponder'?

The planes were carefully packed away using plastic to protect them from the elements within the earthen camouflage. This was obviously done to save them from being targeted. Randomly 'dumping' a large amount of earth over the aircraft would result in overstressing the airframe at the wing roots and rendering future use as improbable. They were probably not covered in haste and hidden well before the ground offensive.


11 cargo containers were filled with new laboratory equipment. Some of the containers, used to hold cargo on ships, were partially buried. The troops dug up the containers and Gonzalez's team was brought in to investigate.

The containers held equipment typically found in laboratories, including test tubes, water baths, sand baths, ph transmitters, explosive-proof lights, ethyl alcohol gauges, shakers, test tubes, test tube holders, and temperature and pressure gauges.

Iraq denied having mobile weapons labs. U.N. weapons inspectors said they had found that Iraq used mobile labs to test food but had come across no evidence of banned weapons production.

If a dual use (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/5724807.htm) is possible, then why test food with equipment buried within a complex of Cargo Containeres under earthen camouflage in the Iraqi Desert? Contrast that with the mobile 'Weather Balloon' trailers.


Two trailers believed to have been BW laboratories were discovered over the last month. One was captured at a Kurdish checkpoint on April 19 near Kirkuk and the other by the U.S. Army earlier this month near Mosul by members of the Army's 327th Infantry at a former missile production facility, Middle East Newsline reported.

The report by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency said the trailers were believed to be second- or third-generation designs of the plants described by an Iraqi source. The source, one of several people who over the last three years reported on Iraq's WMD programs, said that in 1995 Iraq launched a program to design and build seven sets of mobile BW labs.

This (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/) site is probably the most comprehensive evaluation for the possible purposes of the mobile trailers in question.


The plant's design possibly could be used to produce hydrogen using a chemical reaction, but it would be inefficient. The capacity of this trailer is larger than typical units for hydrogen production for weather balloons.

The differences with Planes and BW equipment: Planes were hidden from targeting by air assests, but a clandestine BW program inherently uses plausible deniability to decieve UN Weapons inspectors hunting for them on the ground.

Your 'point'?

:P

[pinkeye]

atnadastra, thanks for keeping this discussion civil. what i find bizarre is that many questions are being asked in the u.s., in canada, in europe, and elsewhere about the bush administration's case for military intervention in iraq. unless this ridiculous liberal media conspiracy is indeed true, i have a hard time accepting the fact that the bush administration has been totally honest with the international community. do the means justify the end? perhaps, but so far the world has yet to be shown this conclusive proof that iraq was a threat to american national security, for this is what the war in iraq really boils down to. iraq did not register on the bush administration's radar screen prior to 9-11, in the sense that military intervention was not a public policy issue. many regimes possess wmd. many regimes flaunt u.n. regulations. many western governments contravene international law, conventions, etc. while france and friends impeded american efforts to garner u.n. sanction for military intervention, the bush administration is hindering international efforts to curb pollution, for example. but i digress. as i said, there is a general consensus around the world, hence the lack of international support, that the bush administration did a poor job of justifying military intervention in iraq. in contrast, military intervention in afghanistan garnered international support. canada refused to participate in iraq, yet the canadian government contributed important resources to the afghanistan mission, as did germany and many others.
at this point the only thing left to say is we can agree to disagree.
now, mr usa320, i'd like to know what makes you an expert in the field of international relations and security studies. unless you have the appropriate education and experience, you should keep your comments to yourself. you bring nothing to the discussion...

[Argyll]

He 219 some good stuff there thanks!
I ,unlike many others still belive something will turn up,despite some of the Qestioning of such "finds",I just want solid,100% proof,that's not too much to ask is it?,after all,both our Governments said it was there,so nothing less will be acceptable to the General public!(here in the UK anyway!!) ;)

[pinkeye]

one last thing, many members glorify war as though it's a big party. war is terrible and should never, under any circumstances, be glorified. some members have disturbing icons or banners that claim iraq is a large parking lot for the u.s. military and other such garbage. that's why i think some members are jingoistic in their attitudes. yes, you crushed iraq, but does that mean you have to celebrate that fact? disgusting...
war should be a last measure. sure it's interesting to discuss gear, tactics, etc., but let's maintain some respect for life and the dignity of civilian populations. iraq was and continues to be a sovereign country, so it's not a parking lot to anyone.
and do these ridiculous terrorist hunting permit icons apply only to foreign terrorist groups? what about the home-grown variety that, among other things, was responsible for the tragedy in oklahoma city? the kkk and other groups continue to terrorise the u.s.' ethnic communities, so hopefully your zeal to kill muslim terrorists also extends to your white neighbours and work colleagues who burn crosses, murder asians and homo******s, etc.

[pinkeye]

here is a document that disputes the bush administration's case for military intervention in iraq. you may disagree with it, but it's important to read and assess different perspectives. i will post the link purely to give members some food for thought. i have said what i had to say on this issue...

here's the link:

Counter-Dossier : The dishonest Case for War on Iraq


by Alan Simpson, MP - Chair of Labour Against the War
and Dr Glen Rangwala - Lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, UK

http://traprockpeace.org/counter-dossier.html

[He219]

kashyyk wrote:

i find bizarre is that many questions are being asked in the u.s., in canada, in europe, and elsewhere about the bush administration's case for military intervention in iraq
You find free speech (in the case for intervention) 'bizarre'?


i have a hard time accepting the fact that the bush administration has been totally honest with the international community
How so?


the world has yet to be shown this conclusive proof that iraq was a threat to american national security, for this is what the war in iraq really boils down to.

Not just American National Security. Saddam is a threat to the international community and especially to his own people. The war boils down to 12 years of UN impotence and stagnation in accounting for his Weapons of Mass Destruction along with the terms that dictated Iraqi surrender in the First Gulf War. What happens when 'YOUR' conclusive proof follows, similar to the 'conclusive proof' found upon discovery of German Concentration Camps?


iraq did not register on the bush administration's radar screen prior to 9-11, in the sense that military intervention was not a public policy issue
More conjecture.....


many regimes possess wmd. many regimes flaunt u.n. regulations. many western governments contravene international law, conventions, etc

What regiemes (other than North Korea) flaunt UN 'regulations' while posessing WMD? What nations are 'contravening' international laws, conventions, etc?


while france and friends impeded american efforts to garner u.n. sanction for military intervention
You said it; "while France and 'Friends' impeded American efforts" to gain UN consensus.


the bush administration is hindering international efforts to curb pollution, for example.

Oh yeah? Not participating in the Kyoto Protocol 'hinders' international efforts to curb pollution??? Yes, we all should participate, but the effort is certainly not 'hindered' by others participating....


there is a general consensus around the world, hence the lack of international support

Conjecture once again. There is a SPLIT in consensus around the world as to the grounds for justification of the military intervention in iraq. An international coalition of nations however did support the cause to remove Saddam. I believe you see the benefits yourself.


in contrast, military intervention in afghanistan garnered international support
The UN did not sanction action in Iraq with France Vetoing ANY Resolution for UNanimity, unlike Afghanistan. So only if there is UN consensus can an action be legitimate for nations to want to participate?


i'd like to know what makes you an expert in the field of international relations and security studies. unless you have the appropriate education and experience, you should keep your comments to yourself. you bring nothing to the discussion...
You are the prime exaple!

;)

[He219]

Thanks, Argyll!


iraq was and continues to be a sovereign country, so it's not a parking lot to anyone

I certainly do not glorify war. I know both sides. The 'Hunting and Parking Permits' are SATIRE, not Jingoism as you would like to believe.


sat·ire ( P ) ****unciation Key (str) n.

A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.
Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

As for your article, there are holes and naive inconsistencies throughout.

What would you have done with Saddam continuing his tyrannical rule over the people of Iraq, in defiance of 12 years of UN sanctions with his unaccounted posession of WMD (itemized by UNSCOM itself) and his siphoning of the UN Oil for Food program to enrich himself while murdering hundreds of thousands of his own people up to the time of Invasion of his regieme?

[atnadastra]

*snip*
what i find bizarre is that many questions are being asked in the u.s., in canada, in europe, and elsewhere about the bush administration's case for military intervention in iraq. unless this ridiculous liberal media conspiracy is indeed true, i have a hard time accepting the fact that the bush administration has been totally honest with the international community.

I believe that time will bear out the truth of Bush's claims regarding the WMDs in Iraq. To those who would say that the Bush administration made up all these allegations re: WMDs, I say this:

If George W. Bush was the kind of man who would knowing lie to the world about WMDs in Iraq, would he not also be the kind of man who would ensure that WMDs are "found" (read: planted) in Iraq? If he was such an evil mastermind as to fabricate the WMD charges, why then would he allow his administration to be embarrassed so publicly with the apparent lack of evidence of WMDs?


*snip*
iraq did not register on the bush administration's radar screen prior to 9-11, in the sense that military intervention was not a public policy issue.


Actually, that is not true. The GWB administration was well aware that the Iraq problem had been handed down to it from the previous two administrations. Further, when 9/11 happened, many Americans' first instincts were that Iraq was somehow involved.


*snip*
as i said, there is a general consensus around the world, hence the lack of international support, that the bush administration did a poor job of justifying military intervention in iraq


Again, not altogether true. GWB's resolution had garnered a majority vote among UN Security Council members, but since France and Russia both threatened to veto it, GWB abandoned the effort. Just because one or two countries with veto power disagree with the Iraq intervention does not mean that a majority of countries did not support it.

[pinkeye]

it's that damn liberal menace again, spreading lies. i guess millions of people, countless journalists and scholars, public servants, etc., etc., are just plain wrong and dumb, right? the world was against military intervention, but as long as bush and his corporate buddies think it's a good idea, then why not? i also read that dissent and concern among american soliders in iraq is increasing, and public support among the american population is decreasing...

a few of thousands of similar documents from the media, academia, think-tanks, etc.


http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates/article.asp?NewsID=5067

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/pdf/Iraq/Adminquotes.pdf

http://www.csis.org/features/iraq_intelfailure.pdf

http://www.wedeservethetruth.com/docs/GWB_WMD_Memo.pdf

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_com/pdf_com_iraq_intelligence_commission_press.pdf

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_nuclear_evidence_june_10_let.pdf

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030806.cosunil06/BNStory/International/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030727-iraq01.htm

check the bbc, the guardian, the cbc, etc., etc.,

as john stuart mill once said, "conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives"

[He219]

kasyyk wrote:

the world was against military intervention
Speak for yourself. You must have liked the way things were in Iraq.


A Coalition has already begun military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and enforce 17 UNSC resolutions.

The Coalition will also liberate the Iraqi people from one of the worst tyrants and most brutal regimes on earth.

Contributions from Coalition member nations range from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.

Forty-eight countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

This number is still growing, and it is no accident that many member nations of the Coalition recently escaped from the boot of a tyrant or have felt the scourge of terrorism. All Coalition member nations understand the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons pose to the world and the devastation his regime has wreaked on the Iraqi people.

The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people.
Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $22 trillion.
Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented.
The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe.

http://209.237.0.15/~jkahn/temp/arnold_stfu.jpg

[Argyll]

China has more citizens than these 48 countries,numbers are not the issue.
48 countries out of how many in the world,probably equates to less than 40%.........that's still leaves a lot of folks against the war,also within these 48 countries there were anti war feelings,so it really makes the numbers issue pointless.
This debate will go on like like time itself,If the Real reasons to oust Saddam was to free his people,and to remove the regime,the UN(tossers)and the rest of the world,would not have gone for it,in my opinion,as a lot of these country have appeasment,in that if it's not on their doorstep,it's not their problem!.
But throw in the WMD issue and how serious this is to world peace and stability,it became a whole new ball game!But the Chinese,Russians and the French(all of whom had some reasons for keeping the asshole)said no,all superpowers in their own rights!And the reasons for war were elevated to a level that basically said,we'll hit him 1st before he gets a chance.!!
There are always some who will say that until the 45 gallon drums full of sarin and tabin,or VX turn up,then the war was wrong,and that the intelligence was pretty well goatfuc*ed!!

[James]

Kashyyk,

A bit of advice (and I agree with what you've been posting) - you can't win in here. I've argued these points a couple of times. You made some very good points. I think it is too bad that posts that don't toe the party line are met with so many low brow responses. There are some things that have been said in these forums that perfectly illustrate (IMHO) why large portions of the population on this planet aren't very keen about the United States.

[Knave]

Kashyyk - if you're going to infer that the Media is a steadfast and honest reporter of the facts, I sincerely hope you're joking.

The Media - whichever their bias, and they always have one - is always more interested in selling the Sunday Edition and having folks tune in at 6 o'clock, than they are on honestly reporting the facts.

Why? Because the truth is boring. Affirming what your leaders tell you isn't interesting. Scandals are interesting. Making leaders out to be false is fascinating.

The media rarely let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[budanski]

Kashyyk,

A bit of advice (and I agree with what you've been posting) - you can't win in here. I've argued these points a couple of times. You made some very good points. I think it is too bad that posts that don't toe the party line are met with so many low brow responses. There are some things that have been said in these forums that perfectly illustrate (IMHO) why large portions of the population on this planet aren't very keen about the United States.

Yes. we're all mindless lemmings drinking from the white house kool aid. :roll:

[usa320]

Kashyyk

http://www.x-plane.org/users/usa320/stfu.jpg


The whole world wasnt against military intervention.

The quiet majority of nations was FOR military intervention. The only ones that werent were the 4 that had to throw a temper tantrum at the UN.

I find it crazy how people can even ponder reasons to leave a megalomaniac like Saddam Huessin in power. Leaving him in charge of a country is by itself a crime against humanity. And Iraq would have been dealt with eventually anyway... no matter who was president. If gore won, and we got attacked again, and again, im sure the trail would eventually find its way to baghdad, and they would be blown to hell anyways. Even if slick Willy clinton was still in office, i think iraq would have been invaded.

[James]

Kashyyk,

A bit of advice (and I agree with what you've been posting) - you can't win in here. I've argued these points a couple of times. You made some very good points. I think it is too bad that posts that don't toe the party line are met with so many low brow responses. There are some things that have been said in these forums that perfectly illustrate (IMHO) why large portions of the population on this planet aren't very keen about the United States.

Yes. we're all mindless lemmings drinking from the white house kool aid. :roll:

I didn't single anyone out. Interesting that you took offense... :P

[budanski]

I take offense on behalf of ALL my fellow Low Brow Responders. p-)

[Seiyuuki]

random,
as a matter of fact i think saddam should have been removed by the first bush, not because he posed a threat to american security but rather because he murdered millions of iraqis and iranians.

We would love to have done that, but the problem is, our Arab friends in the coalition did not want Saddam gone, especially Saudi Arabia because Saddam provided a wonderful buffer for the Saudis from Iran.


the world was against military intervention

Population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people, world population is approximately 6,288,058,783 (U.S. Census Bureau 1998, give or take, rounded off to 7 billion for 2003), account for a faction of the remaining world population that simply don't know, don't care, or neutral...the population of the unwilling/whining does not constitute the world.

[Argyll]

Seiyuuki,
These figures you put up are meaningless,and I already pointed out,that 1.25 billion does not represent the eligable voters,those who actually have a say in the running of their respective countries,at a real wild guess here,in each of these countries,less than 60% are under the age of 18,which many countries consider the legal voting age!,also within these countries,anti war feelings were,for arguments sake split 50/50,all of a sudden your 1.3 billion people come down by at least 50%maybe less,which if you apply the same theory to the overall 7 billion of the world,is less than 30% actually Wanted war!
It is very arrogant to dismiss the non coalition support countries,as whining.neutral,unwilling ,yadda yadda yadda! as not the world,but it is a significantly larger percentage than those for the war ok I see the point it's not the world,but a bloody large chunk of it.....!!
At the end of the day statistics unless 100% proven facts,are irrelevant!As I also stated this will continue for years to come(the debate about the action taken!!).....I must say though,that the sabre rattling of another country who will fight back,and are a bigger threat than Iraq ever was,but the way in which the West has responded to that is very very different,and the rush to remove that regime is not quite as important...I wonder why that is?

[budanski]

Its funny how some equate France, Germany, and Russian support would ONLY qualify international support. Even if the U.S. got no support, it'll do whats necessary to act on a threat. The same goes for the Brits, Aussies, and Poles. It just so happens the U.S. can afford to act on these threats.

Fortunately Iraq was foolish enough to not abide to resolutions set on it. This gave the U.S. a window to act on. Unless, Iran itself has opened such a window, I don't see the U.S. getting enough support from its own people to go in now, we can only wait and see and aid the uprising by student protesters within. Whos to say there arent plans now being undertaken? If and when its revealed, will you then proclaim the U.S.'s rush to war then as you're asking why are we arent going into Iran now?

[Argyll]

Who said anything about Iran?

[budanski]

I'm going senile :oops: Well, just in case you did mention Iran. ;)

[Argyll]

A good choice though!! ;)