I am ashamed of ALL our leaders...

SINthysist

Rural Racist Homophobe
Joined
Nov 29, 2001
Posts
11,940
Thursday, March 28, 2002
Bring Speicher Home

[commentary by John LeBoutillier]

Reuters News Service is now reporting that Baghdad has yet again asked the US Government to send an official delegation to discuss the ongoing case of Lt. Commander Michael Scott Speicher - the F-18 Navy pilot shot down in 1991 on the first day of the Gulf War.
While new reports are being 'leaked' in Washington and London of recent sightings of Speicher, the US Government is resisting the call to send an official delegation - accompanied by US press - to Baghdad.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says, "I don't believe very much what the regime of Saddam Hussein puts out. They're masters of propaganda." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, at his daily briefing, said that the administration didn't have enough information to evaluate the Iraqi statement.
The Bush Administration clearly does not want to negotiate with Baghdad - about Speicher - or anything else. They are afraid of getting caught up in haggling over details as the Clinton Administration did over the UN Arms Inspectors. Baghdad looks like they are cooperating as long as they are holding talks; Washington wants the world to see that Baghdad is not cooperating.
The problem is simple: Scott Speicher is most likely alive in captivity in Baghdad.
The mistake the first Bush Administration - then-Defense Secretary Cheney in particular - made in 1991 was declaring him dead the very day he was shot down. How could they possibly have known he was dead - before a search and rescue team had even gone to the crash site?
And when, years later, a careful search was made of the site, what did they find? A secret 'E&E' code - a specific and unique Escape and Evade signal given individually to each pilot. Such a signal could only mean one thing: Speicher had indeed survived his shootdown in good enough shape to scratch the E&E code into the surrounding terrain.
Thus, all subsequent live-sightings of "an American pilot" must be given credence. And there have been many beginning with an Iraqi defector who claimed to have driven an American pilot to Baghdad. Later, when shown 'mug shots' he was able to pick Speicher's photo out of a collection of similar looking men.
Then came credible intelligence reports from foreign governments of Scott Speicher being held in an underground detention facility - either directly under Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters - or in the area of Salman Park where all sorts of military and covert training have been observed.
Then, just before the Clinton Administration went out of office in January 2001, they received new evidence that Speicher was alive. Clinton even said so publicly. And they then changed his status from Killed-in-Action (KIA) to Missing-in-Action(MIA).
Now the Pentagon admits they are considering yet another status change to Prisoner-of-War (POW).
Yet, despite this flurry of activity and amid indications that Speicher is alive, the Bush Administration chooses to play word games with the Iraqi Government. Secretary Rumsfeld claims the offer to send a team to Baghdad was not an "official" request. So then Baghdad issues yet another invitation and our government again tries to ignore or dismiss it.
The fate of now-Commander Scott Speicher is of the utmost importance. The Bush Administration should do everything - including going to Baghdad - to bring that hero pilot home.
If the Bush Team is worried about eroding their argument for a war against Saddam, they shouldn't worry too much. The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of such a war. That will not change; the American people have felt that way since Bush I failed to finish the job in 1991.
Right now with the Mid-East in total turmoil and our Arab so-called allies not in favor of a war against Saddam anyway, our government should go over there and solve - once and for all - the case of Scott Speicher.
America is not America as long as we leave one of our people behind.
http://leboutillier.blogspot.com/
 
I say that if Bush actually gears up to attack Iraq we need to impeach his happy ass. That and this whole KGB crap happening with that sublimely stupid "director of homeland security" bit. We need that like Clinton needs Ellen Degeneres. That's what the FBI is for.

Ashamed blah. Pissed off is more like it.

I'ma give Ted Stevens another earful. He's not nearly as hot for Bush as Frank "Let's get started, ANWR is the answer" Murkowski.
 
Without an attack on Iraq
Hussein will soon strike back.

[I just read that Pyongyang has nukes in underground bunkers despite signing an agreement with Clinton not to.]

Do we wait until it's too late?
Let others decide our own true fate?

[When will the UN act against United States agression?]

When turning the cheek is all that will do
Then those who are free will soon be few.

[Will you shed a tear for that which might have been, or will it fall for what has come about?]










I would choose to be the liberators of a people terrorized by tyranny, let my allies cry foul, and my foes hate and never forgive me, than to know, on this day, at this point in time, I valued my well-being and piece of mind as to what others would think or say above thier freedom.









ARE YOU READY FOR A WAR?
 
Baby, I know more about whose got nukes and where they are than you do. I've got the resources you never will.

TJ said that we were breaking loose from the tyranny of England for a variety of reasons, including the fact that England was inciting insurrection on our shores.

You are not an American, you're a terrorist. You would have us go into a sovereign nation and remove the sovereign leader for no other reason beyond the fact that we don't like him and some time in the future he "might" use his nuclear arsenal. Terrorists justify their violation of their religious and societal principles the same way you do. Americans were founded on the concept of government freedom, of the people choosing their own government. Iraqis have no representation in our congress and they cannot elect our president. Why should we violate the most basic governmental principle we hold dear, that power comes from the people, and force a war and a new government on a sovereign nation without an attack?

I hate to break it to you, bubba, but I'd rather got through a Cold War with the so called Axis of Evil than to violate the very thing that makes me an American and damned proud to be an American. I refuse to become a terrorist or to allow my government to become a terrorist state.

Might does not make right. The ends do not justify the means. There are some principles that are far more valuable than national security or American lives. Or did the people who died in the various wars that protected the very principle of people as sovereign die just so we can violate it and make a complete mockery of what we're supposed to stand for?

Let Hussein make the first strike. Then we have a good reason to stop him. Preventative measures are good militarily, but they are anti-American. What's good militarily isn't always the right thing to do.
 
Nicely put, Killer. We have a whole nation of would-be terrorists. I'm just happy they're sitting in a Lazy Boy watching it on TV. So are they.
 
Hey, and your reasoning kept us out of WWII.

It wasn't our affair.

Of course, millions had to die at the hands of evil before evil finally got around to attacking us.

Hey, but it's only Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Turks and the like that are being killed by evil monsters.

Okay, I'll give you that!

IT IS NOT OUR AFFAIR!

AGREED!

Now when they attack us, and declare war on us, then it will be our affair.







[re-read and debated on taking this part out. After all, they did attack us.]













Of course, since your intel is sooooo much greater than mine, I'll just have to take your word that McVey and bin Laden (and his merry band of hijackers and mayrters) and Arafat were as lone of agents as Lee Harvey Oswald.

Just a few loose cannons that we should ignore.


















We really should avoid war at all costs.





And thanks for branding me a terrorist. For equating me to enlightened ruler of Iraq, bin Laden, a common suicide bomber for suggesting that we honor a time-honored tradition of diplomacy and it's logical conclusion, war.






What if Hussein's first strike is nuclear/biological and aimed at Jerusalem or Tel Aviv....

I guess that's not our business either.

We should emulate the wise, mighty Ostrich and shove our head deep into the sand and chant together holding hands,

"It'll go away. It'll go away. Think happy thoughts..."
 
KillerMuffin said:
You would have us go into a sovereign nation and remove the sovereign leader

Define "Sovereign Nation". The old parameters of power and parliment no longer apply. Iraq is, by many modern definitions, not a sovereign nation, but more of a Thugee cult with tanks controlling what used to be Persia. Define "Sovereign Nation". Define what the standards are for a country to permitted sovereignty in a global community.

I believe in the concept of Manifest Destiny when it comes to world order. I believe in the Moral Superiority of national constitutions. I believe we are on a brink when the world will have to choose between ideologies, and, as a unanimous consensus on platform will never happen, force is an accepted engine for change.

If Iraq continues to be a real, credible threat to world stability, (and don't let today's modern hip sense of over-irony fool you into thinking it isn't) I believe we have every right to deny "sovereignty" to Iraq and remove Saddam from power.
 
My intelligence is probably better then yours Sin because yours has to soak through that alcohol/medication soaked brain.
 
CelestialBody said:
I highly doubt anyone would say not to attack Iraq if they launched an offensive against us.

She said not to attack first, not to sit on our asses, but wait till we have cause.

And that cause could be very credible evidence to an immediate attack agianst us or our allies.
 
Dixon Carter Lee said:


Define "Sovereign Nation". The old parameters of power and parliment no longer apply. Iraq is, by many modern definitions, not a sovereign nation, but more of a Thugee cult with tanks controlling what used to be Persia. Define "Sovereign Nation". Define what the standards are for a country to permitted sovereignty in a global community.

I believe in the concept of Manifest Destiny when it comes to world order. I believe in the Moral Superiority of national constitutions. I believe we are on a brink when the world will have to choose between ideologies, and, as a unanimous consensus on platform will never happen, force is an accepted engine for change.

If Iraq continues to be a real, credible threat to world stability, (and don't let today's modern hip sense of over-irony fool you into thinking it isn't) I believe we have every right to deny "sovereignty" to Iraq and remove Saddam from power.

If you want to overthrow Saddam by covert means, go ahead. Just don't send in the Marines. Gunboat diplomacy in a nuclear age is a very dangerous game.
 
So is bio-chemical warfare, funding and harboring Al Queda, invasion of neighboring countries, dirty nuclear bombs, the de-stabiliation of the Middle East, the murder and forced poverty of millions of citizens...
 
Dixon Carter Lee said:
So is bio-chemical warfare, funding and harboring Al Queda, invasion of neighboring countries, dirty nuclear bombs, the de-stabiliation of the Middle East, the murder and forced poverty of millions of citizens...

You are already at war with Saddam, a political war, an intelligence war, an unconventional war. It must be fought by unconventional means. Spy vs. Spy, subversion, sabotage. Keep it unconventional lest it spiral out of control. Back his opposition, arm them, train them, finance them. Let them take him out. You get the desired results and no innocent third parties get hurt.
 
Mensa said:


If you want to overthrow Saddam by covert means, go ahead. Just don't send in the Marines. Gunboat diplomacy in a nuclear age is a very dangerous game.
Paying people to become suicide bombers is also a dangerous game,Which if what Ive been reading is correct, Saddam has been doing for quite awhile. Seems to me that the US has been reactive the past 20 years or so, Starting with the Americans being held hostage in Tehran, Perhaps its time to be Proactive. I dont believe Saddam can be overthrown covertly, it will take force to eliminate the man. Is force a perfect solution? Probably not, But what are the other choices?
 
What, exactly, has Iraq ever done to us? It invaded our ally, but it didn't invade us.

Kill 'em before he gets us (AJ has a direct pipeline into Saddam's war room), whatever. You're a moron, AJ, and you know it. Reading your militia material is deluding you even worse than you normally are. You know where I get my intel. I've already explained it to you.

Dixon, Saddam Hussein is sovereign. The Iraqis and/or his military might make him that way. Saddam Hussein is the ruler of Iraq. Blacks Law: "The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent state is governed." That's Saddam Hussein. Sovereignty isn't something that changes with time. It's the same thing over and over. The people are sovereign, and the people in Iraq have chosen Saddam Hussein, actively or passively. Don't try to make an evil action look pretty with irrelevant philosophy.

Personally, I'd rather the man dropped dead right now. I'd like to go in and get rid of Kim Jung Il and the Ayatollah. My level of comfort would definitely go up.

What gives us the right to depose these people? Absolutely nothing. In fact our own literature denies us that right. Either that or The Declaration of Indepence is out of vogue these days and no longer applies. We have no right to choose the government of another nation. We have no right to destroy the government of another nation just because we don't like them.

Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
The United States possesses more weapons of mass destruction than any other nation on the planet.
Saddam Hussein has never used nuclear or atomic weapons.
The United States has.

By your very definition, the United States is the most dangerous nation because we possess the armament and we will use them. We have in the past, there's nothing to stop us now. Should other nations who disagree with our weapons policy and our arms policy depose the Constitution and stick in whatever they feel? We are the largest threat to world stability by your definition. Saddam has them, but we're the only ones that has ever used them deliberately on another nation.

Pseudo-security is not worth the price we would pay to get it.
 
SIN, Sorry Dude! but KM is on the Fuckin' Money!

Azwed said:
And that cause could be very credible evidence to an immediate attack agianst us or our allies.

No denial of that - as I've said before, if the West stoops to "pre-emptive strike" mode - all bets are off - we will reap the same back... Well put!

To use your own Rightist logic, SIN - it is HIGHLY impractical to "take out" either Saddass or "The Dear Leader". Costs of doing this in US and Allied lives would be absolutely unacceptable in the Isolationist "Hawk" camp. in mere political terms - Dubbya would be out on his ass so fast it'd make your head spin.

The Helms' and their ilk would have his balls for brekkie! Impeachment - no doubt about it!

Do not forget what KM did in the USAF, Flatlander! She knows a lot more than she will EVER be allowed to repeat, IMHO.
 
CelestialBody said:
Dixon,

Who is we? Are you referring to the US? The Western World? The world at large? Who are you identifying yourself with?

We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure international tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this constitution for the global union.

We. Democractic government of the people, by the people and for the people. Please don't by coy or ironic enough to think that there isn't a distinct war going on between the ideaology of Democracy and Extreme Fundamentalism, because there is. And it's not 10 nuts in the desert waaaaaay over there. And they're not just going to be happy with us out of Saudi Arabia. This is a fight for the planet.

We is the United States, England, Belgium, Russia, Indochina, Japan and any other state that wishes to trade and function with each other in the 21st Century. Iraq and the former Taliban have no such wish, and, further, are actively fighting to destroy that way of life.

If you don't think Saddam Hussein doesn't believe he's the reincarnation of some ancient Arab king destined to rule the world, you aren't paying attention. He is a real threat to the stability of the planet, and so is his government.

Don't think I'm getting all John Wayne on you. I support sovereinty and international law and the ban on assassinating leaders and the ACLU and Amnesty International. I also know that the world is a much smaller palce than you realize, that American freedom is not a given, but must be fought for and protected every day, and that we are at an sociological crossroads.

We're a powerful county. We can sit here on the Internet and discuss all of this. And none of this would be here if we didnt' expand our nation to the west, if we didn't take Panama and build a canal, if we didn't invade the sovereign nation of Germany, twice, if we didn't illegally fund a dozen fledgling democracies to halt the domino effect of communism, etc.

Did we do any of this badly and cruelly? Yes, we did. Did it hurt us as a nation somwhat? Yes, it did. Would be here now if it wasn't done?

No, we wouldn't.
 
bored1 said:
I dont believe Saddam can be overthrown covertly, it will take force to eliminate the man.

He may wish you to believe otherwise but all men are mortal. It wouldn't be the first time it's been done, it won't be the last. It's clean, neat, quick, efficient, and final.
 
Mensa said:


He may wish you to believe otherwise but all men are mortal. It wouldn't be the first time it's been done, it won't be the last. It's clean, neat, quick, efficient, and final.
Yes it has been done before, He seems to be particuarly lucky as hes lasted this long. Do you suppose he ever gets a goodnights sleep? Always wondering who he can trust? Hes gotta be one messed up man:)
 
Either Iraq has to abide by the cease fire agreement, or we shall cease to cease fire. I wouldn't worry about a larger war when Israel has already shown it can kick the arab world's ass by herself.
 
You're making an awful lot of assumptions about what I'm "saying", and going off on tangents I haven't even commented on.
 
Back
Top