Which part of this don't some of you understand?

[Tungwagger]

And I'll be happy to provide the link...

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156073&perpage=25&pagenumber=2

 

[70/30]

Al Qaeda has attacked us, they don't have to have Saddam to get access. The more entities we upset using the Perle Plan, the less they'll need Saddam to get access. Global PR campaigns are good policy, of course, unless your policy is for Baghdad to be the first of many steps.

Actually, Afghanistan was the step before. Whilst Omar was an obvious target, same result, easy access to Tehran. Good fortune allows the troops to be based with international approval (if not urging). The step before that step (neglecting an obvious threat, doubly bad since GWB was warned of that obvious threat 36days in advance) is being investigated by a committee with a $3million budget and against the wishes of the pres and vp. Half of the committee isn't qualified or their interests are highly conflicted. Funny, the disaster being investigated cost America 100's of billions and 3000lives up front, what was whitewater about again? Peter Jennings made it seem like nothing of substance.

 

[miles]

Not to worry miles, you'll soon be getting the killing sands you crave...

ppman

Very lame, pp. Even for you.

 

[JazzManJim]

Hey, kill a million and a half people, run a torture mill, gas kids, raze a couple hundred villages...

No problem. We could give a shit less.

 

[EllieTalbot]

Hey, kill a million and a half people, run a torture mill, gas kids, raze a couple hundred villages...

No problem. We could give a shit less.

Agreed in America,
Ellie

 

[JazzManJim]

Agreed in America,
Ellie

I mean, really.

Hussein is going through his people like a thresher through ripe wheat and we could really care less. We ahve the high-flown morals we like to trumpet and we wring our hands and talk about caring for human life and we let these people get brutalized and murdered every day. We ignore their begging for our help and we've done that for over a decade.

That's the one thing I simply don't understand about the entire discussion around this subject. I don't give a rat's ass for UN Resolutions. You'd be hard-pressed to find one thing in the last 40 years they've done right. I don't really know if Hussein can get the WMDs to international terrorist groups like he would very much want to. I think he can, but I don't really know. Iraqi oil doesn't matter one bit to me. They're only number 9 on our list, and we have plenty of places from where we can make it up. So none of that really makes a blip on my own personal radar.

The one thing that does matter to me, though, is doing our dead level best as humans to ensure that other humans have every chance we can give them to live free. If we're not willing to pony up whatever it takes to liberate the Iraqi people, we're chickenshit and not one whit better than the monster who lords over them now.

 

[70/30]

I think the "we'll use 10times as many bombs as 1991" causes a slight chafe.

 

[Linedrive]

The core of the problem resolves around the distrust of the U.S. government. I don't like alot of the things government does, and in the past I've voiced my displeasure with a variety of things they do, to call me a "government mouthpiece" would be vastly overrating things and you do not know me very well.

The problem is, many people have already convinced themselves that they refuse to believe anything out of Washington DC. For some reason, the average citizen seems to think they know more than the government and they have all the answers.

Sorry to inform you of this, but every once in a while the government is not up to some conspiracy, which a would be a hard fact for so many to accept.

In August 2001 if the Government came out and said they were going into Afghanistan because they had evidence Al Qaeda was preparing an attack on America, the outcries would've been deafening.

If they didn't do anything in Iraq, and an attack occured against Americans, the same people protesting this war would be outraged that the government didn't do anything.

The way I see many people looking at it, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[70/30]

In August 2001 if the Government came out and said they were going into Afghanistan because they had evidence Al Qaeda was preparing an attack on America, the outcries would've been deafening.

All I'm saying is Condoleezza Rice was given a report August 6, 2001 saying that Al Qaeda (which declared war against the USA in 1998) had plans to hijack an airplane. She presented this information to GWB, nothing of note was done. The public wasn't warned. Airlines weren't advised. Summer 2001 Feinstein was calling for cohesion between the agencies--she listened to Hart-Rudman.

Why the hell didn't anyone else listen to Hart-Rudman? I think GWB wanted to be through with the old (clinton years) and tighten things up when it struck him. One problem, they didn't attack an embassy in Sri Lanka. They didn't take hostages and demand Faisal al Shakira to be released. Hence, GWB screwed up--you pick whether they tanked it or had incompetents everywhere. Either way I'd like a decent probe into an affair that actually mattered.

 

[EllieTalbot]

I mean, really.

Hussein is going through his people like a thresher through ripe wheat and we could really care less. We ahve the high-flown morals we like to trumpet and we wring our hands and talk about caring for human life and we let these people get brutalized and murdered every day. We ignore their begging for our help and we've done that for over a decade...

The one thing that does matter to me, though, is doing our dead level best as humans to ensure that other humans have every chance we can give them to live free. If we're not willing to pony up whatever it takes to liberate the Iraqi people, we're chickenshit and not one whit better than the monster who lords over them now.

Agreed. If only we had the resources and wherewithal to do the same for all those suffering at the hands of bloody dictators.

In this case, we have that opportunity and reasons beyond altruism to do it.



Daunted on the Danube,
Ellie

 

[Guest]

*notes newbie to watch*

 

[Zurich]

GWB

"To: The White House
WITH REFERENCE to recent events concerning Iraq, the US Government has taken the position that it does not need to prove a charge against the Iraqi leadership, but rather that the Iraqi leadership is responsible for disproving the accusations the US Goverment has laid.

WHILST DEPLORING Saddam Hussein, his regime and his human rights record, we the undersigned believe that use of such methedologies to justify war is deeply immoral and damages both our claims to moral ascendancy over less politically developed nations and the international norms of civilised conduct that attempt to prevent the relationship between the nation states of this world descend into pure anarchy.

GIVEN THE ABOVE we the undersigned hereby demand that President George W Bush of the United States of America prove to our satisfaction that he is not a shit kicking, redneck, pant-pissing drunkard. Failure to answer to these charges will result in them being validated in our minds. "


Sincerely,

The Undersigned

S. Penn
M. Sheen
S. Hussein

 

[JazzManJim]

Agreed. If only we had the resources and wherewithal to do the same for all those suffering at the hands of bloody dictators.

In this case, we have that opportunity and reasons beyond altruism to do it.

We do have the resources. The wherewithal is much harder. After all, if we can't see clearly enough in the case of Iraq, how could we possibly see clearly enough in other places, such as Somalia or Rwanda (where their President recently said that UN inaction cost the lives of a million people).

But as for reasons beyond altruism, there are plenty. Stable democratic governments are good for business. Every country in the world has some economic value, either in natural or produced resources, or as consumers. Governments that are stable and democratic earn better, spend better, and produce better. That's good for us economically. Additionally, those sorts of governments remove the reason for us to actually intervene militarily. That saves money in deployment and combat costs also.

You have to be able to sell that, though. Doing so is a long process that involves a certain dedication on the behalf of public figures and a lot of repetition. Having a case in point wouldn't hurt either. I believe that, given a little bit of time, Iraq could become the first of those cases for those of us who have forgotten Japan and Germany.

 

[Linedrive]

Partison Politics...?

Fully 57 percent of Americans support a war with Iraq and 40 percent are opposed, according to the new Zogby America poll of 1,120 likely voters conducted March 5 - 7. According to the new poll Republicans overwhelmingly support the war by 84 percent to 12 percent, independents are nearly split 52 percent to 46 percent, while Democrats are opposed by a huge margin of 35 percent for a war to 61 percent against it.

 

[UnseenChagrin]

I don't understand any of it and am entirely enjoying my blissful ignorance. Being stuck on a mountain does have its advantages afterall. That and when there is an attack on US soil, I highly doubt they're going to attack Vermont.

 

[Guest]

Nice dress, miles.

Wear red stilettos.