You guys know where the "axis of evil" term came from, right.
Bush's old speechwriter was told to come up with a reason to go to war with Iraq (this is the 2002 S of the U address I'm talking about). So he created the axis of evil using Iraq and Iran, including N. Korea for good measure. Funny how our country's foreign policy gets dictated by a speech writer. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030113ta_talk_hertzberg"; target="_blank">see article here</a>
Which really makes you wonder about how this country is actually being run. amazing, isn't it?
BTW Anyone else notice Bush bring up the aluminium tubes? Sort of funny that the Bush Admin wants to call Saddam a liar when they are doing it themselves. Just shows you what they are willing to do to sell this whole war thing to you guys. And some of you eat that shit up, too. amazing
<strong>You guys know where the "axis of evil" term came from, right.
Bush's old speechwriter was told to come up with a reason to go to war with Iraq (this is the 2002 S of the U address I'm talking about). So he created the axis of evil using Iraq and Iran, including N. Korea for good measure. Funny how our country's foreign policy gets dictated by a speech writer. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030113ta_talk_hertzberg"; target="_blank">see article here</a>
Which really makes you wonder about how this country is actually being run. amazing, isn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're logic is backwards. The speech writer is told to write something to support a policy and you say the speech writer makes the policy? The writer is told what to do and somehow he's the one telling other people what to do?
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>BTW Anyone else notice Bush bring up the aluminium tubes? Sort of funny that the Bush Admin wants to call Saddam a liar when they are doing it themselves. Just shows you what they are willing to do to sell this whole war thing to you guys. And some of you eat that shit up, too. amazing</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're an expert in this area too? Why not reply with your 10 pages of anti-American diatribe? Or maybe, just maybe ? you?re wrong :eek:
You're logic is backwards. The speech writer is told to write something to support a policy and you say the speech writer makes the policy? The writer is told what to do and somehow he's the one telling other people what to do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, scott. I forgot how stupid some of the people that would read this could be. Let me dumb it down for you. He was asked to write a justification for war with Iraq. Now first, should the justification come before the idea to go to war? If the Bush admin had justification at that time, perhaps that justification should be used. Of course, they didn't so it wasn't.
Second, the crucial part of this is the issue with N. Korea. The Axis of Evil designation has really gotten the ball rolling, and including N. Korea in that group was not a result of a deliberate policy. It demonstrates all too well that the Bush Admin is carelessly and dangerously run. The narrow focus on the interests of a few cause MAJOR foul up such as this.
And when did pointing out blatant lies, notably Bush's ficticious IAEA reports, become anti-american? Or is it that any criticism of George Bush and his Administration is anti-american? Did the US cease being a democracy without me noticing?
Deriding an american for publicly critiqing his government is about as anti-american as you can get.
i agree with your right to dissent giant, but it sounds to me like you're defending saddam hussein.
now last night president bush accused hussein of many things, most of which are most likely true.
whether or not that gives us the right to preemptively strike iraq, or invade them remains to be seen. my rise for concern is why now? why iraq? why not nigeria? why not china? why not cuba?
but i'd be loathe to start tallying lies when it comes to likes of saddam hussein, who let's face it, no one would be sad to see disappear, not even the fundamentalist islamics.
I thought it was a good speech. He seemed to lay out some compelling reasons why Mr. Hussein shouldn't stick around any longer than he has to.
Giving the people who live in Iraq a break from this insane, evil asshole is reason enough, IMO. It'll probably be the happiest day of their lives when they realize they are freer and don't have to live in fear and dread 24/7.
I guess I'm naive, but I don't see what the problem is. Seems very clear-cut to me: Hussein was supposed to do this, this and this. He agreed. 12 years later, after numerous "second chances", waiting, talking, sending inspectors in, out, back, out again, back in, etc. he hasn't done that, that and that.
I think he's unstable and dangerous. I think he poses a genuine, honest-to-goodness threat.
Anyone who think we're "rushing" to anything needs to tweak their definition of the word "rush" because he's had more time and more "second chances" than anyone I can think of. I admire our restraint sometimes.
Hussein could simply put an end to all of this today if he wanted to. He obviously doesn't.
I tend to want to believe (and put my trust and faith in) the President, Powell, Rumsfeld, the U.N. inspectors, Iraqi defectors, intelligence reports, etc. more than I do Hollywood actors, naked Bay Area protestors and college students.
But that's just me.
Nothing wrong with acting, being naked or in college, of course. But I don't think they're in as good a position to truly know circumstances, inside info, strategies, etc. as the others are. It's simply not their job, nor are they privy to everything. Powell trumps Sarandon on this, fellas.
And I know that some are just philosophically against war and violence no matter what. And I respect that...who the hell - in their right mind - likes war? But it doesn't make them "right" in every case. And I simply think they're wrong in this one.
If it wasn't for a few nasty, brutal wars, they might not have the ability to even protest, raise their voices and otherwise experience all these cool freedoms many take for granted. There's an awesome connection there between the two that I think gets overlooked and ignored sometimes.
It cuts both ways: sometimes you have to break a few eggs and endure some nasty business to come out the other side and realize "okay, that was worth it...look at the outcome".
That doesn't (and shouldn't) make a "blind patriot" or whatever the term used in that other thread. I'd MUCH prefer (because I have friends over there as we speak, who - if things got bad and went horribly awry - I might not ever see or talk to again ) that Hussein woke up tomorrow morning, realized what an asshole he's been, realizes the jig is up, gives the inspectors everything they're asking for and either eats a bullet for dinner or simply grabs some cash and splits to an island somewhere and just lives the rest of his life fishing and snorkeling and reading quietly on his porch.
I'd love for there to not to be one bomb dropped, rifle fired or missile launched. But...
Just seems very cut-and-dried to me. If I saw things in a few more hundred shades of gray, maybe it would be different...
i agree with pscates, i think the problem when looking from the outside in is why did we let it drag out for ten years until we did something, and to pay for our foot-dragging we're going to have to have some hardcore proof.
and if you look at afghanistan and how their lives have improved in such a short time, it must give iraqis hope that we will take care of him......
[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong>i agree with your right to dissent giant, but it sounds to me like you're defending saddam hussein.
now last night president bush accused hussein of many things, most of which are most likely true.
whether or not that gives us the right to preemptively strike iraq, or invade them remains to be seen. my rise for concern is why now? why iraq? why not nigeria? why not china? why not cuba?
but i'd be loathe to start tallying lies when it comes to likes of saddam hussein, who let's face it, no one would be sad to see disappear, not even the fundamentalist islamics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm really not sure what part of that statement you think is "defending saddam." Especially considering the focus was on N. Korea and the carelessness of the Bush Admin. Oh well.
Why Iraq? Contracts for US companies and their subsidiaries to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. forward position against Iran. Increased Influence in the Middle East. There are much worse human right issues elsewhere in the world that are completely ignored by the US government. Hell, we have Cheney lobbying to do business in Burma and running a company whose pipeline there was built in part by slave labor! The the folks that make up this Admin hardly have a positive human rights record.
As far as "tallying lies:" Why should the US use any?
BTW: about afghanistan. You realize that life isn't really better there. Random crime has risen dramatically since the Taliban was ousted. My boss' husband has travelled there a few times in the past year and a half (he was one of the first aid workers on the front line during the fighting) and he has pointed out that it has gotten very unsafe. Also go to <a href="http://www.rawa.org"; target="_blank">www.rawa.org</a> for a description of the situation (self-immolations on the rise, fierce fighting among warlords). And the reason it's so important to get carriers in the gulf for an Iraq attack is because so many of the AF planes in the region are focused on fighting warloards in afghanistan. It is hardly a stable situation. You are simply buying propaganda (that's not even abundant!) if you believe otherwise.
[quote]As far as "tallying lies:" Why should the US use any? <hr></blockquote>
oh god! drop the naive pose!
i tottally agreed with you, in that the government of iraq is hardly the most despotic. but when we become the world's policeman (and i think we're going to be, maybe we've already started) are you always going to be there, saying well why not here why not there. i agree that cheney's companies have already made a fortune rebuilding that part of the world, but that doesn't mean saddam hussein isn't an evil vile person, who needs to go.
listen, the bottom line is this, we beat them in a war. they surrendered and when they surrendered they agreed to do certain things and haven't kept their end of the bargain.
saddam would be gone had he not surrendered, ah screw it...
You see, it doesn't matter what Bush proposes, because SPJ, tonton and the rest of the liberals will assail it BECAUSE HE IS George W. Bush. There is no other reason. One poster actually CRITICIZED Bush for calling for a clean environment, gasless autos, help for drug addicts and the destitute and tax relief for working families.
His case against Iraq was devastating. You may not like it, but it was. The speech was a smashing success. The support for attacking Iraq in polls taken (immediately after the speech) is now in the 70th and 80th percentiles.
I agree with 98% of the domestic agenda. Let me tell you, it didn't look good for the democrats to sit on their hands during his outline of the tax plan.
It doesn't matter what he says. He could announce they we have found a cure for aids and cancer an you'd still criticize him.
[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
are you always going to be there, saying well why not here why not there.<hr></blockquote>
I should point out that you are the one that said that, not me.
[quote]
i agree that cheney's companies have already made a fortune rebuilding that part of the world, but that doesn't mean saddam hussein isn't an evil vile person, who needs to go.
<hr></blockquote>
It also should be pointed out that Halliburton, while being run by Cheney, used European subsidiaries to circumvent US imposed sanctions that barred Cheney's company from rebuilding the facilities he destroyed as Secretary of Defence. We are talking about a MAJOR conflict of interest.
In addition, this conflict has nothing to do with being the world's policeman. The current doctrine, as outlined in the Sept. 2000 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses," explicitly states that the US should act solely in its own interests when conduction foreign military operations. A summary of that report:
[quote]The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.
I don't want to get on your case too much, but war (the loss of tens or hundereds of thousands of lives) is important enough to make sure the facts are straight.
i did say that giant, but i'm not using it as an excuse not to act in iraq, if it was my little world when we were done in iraq we would free the saudis, the iranis, the chinese, the nepalese, the nigerians (probably the worst place on earth) the cubans, etc. etc. but it just doesn't work that way.
just don't use our inaction in parts of the world where we have no commercial interests for taking care of something that we didn't start, and should have finished 12 years ago.
Hey giant what ever happened to that thread where you defended the notion of OBL day care centers? <hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. Is that what I said?
[quote]Originally posted by Giant:
You have to be pretty ignorant to not know that the one of the major reasons fundamentalist Islamic groups are gaining so many followers is their devotion to social programs. Egypt is probably the best example, where the hospitals run by fundamentalist islamic groups are generations better than the government run ones. These same groups have been almost the sole providers of disaster relief. Another example is Hamas. 95% of its operations are social programs, and it is the major and almost sole provider of these programs to Palestinians....
Research it. Eqypt and Palestine are perfect examples. There is no opinion involved in this. Fact: fundamentalist Islamic groups provide the bulk of the social services in Eqypt and Palestine. Fact: in eqypt the services provided are of much higher quality than those provided by the government. I have heard this repeated by professors and journalists over and over and over again for the past year and some months in numerous lectures here at Northwestern. This is the case for most of the middle east and is the primary method by which fundamentalist islam has gained a strong following. It is also why governments in middle east countries are losing influence over their citizens. When the people feel abondoned by their government and well-funded islamic groups take their place, what do you think will happen?<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:
<strong> if it was my little world when we were done in iraq we would free the saudis, the iranis, the chinese, the nepalese, the nigerians (probably the worst place on earth) the cubans, etc. etc. bit it just doesn't work that way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've noticed that many folks on this board believe that they should tell others how and by whom they should be governed. Hmmm...
I think there's a huge chunk of truth in SDW's post: no matter WHAT Bush does, HOW he does it, WHEN he does it, etc., it'll get dinged by people who simply a) don't dig on him b) belong to the other party c) buy into all the "Dubya is stupid" stuff d) realize they're going against type if they support a Republican, etc.
Just like Republicans and conservatives did/do with Clinton.
Yeah, I said it to save you the trouble of having to.
But I think Bush has a pretty strong case in this instance and I'm just not someone who like to "hope Saddam won't do anything foolish..." and I don't trust people who've got a horrible history of the things Hussein does. The world doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.
Good intentions and wishing really hard often don't cut it.
If all this was going on and the evidence was the same, the circumstances were identical and Mr. Clinton was President, no matter what I thought about his character and all the scandals hanging over him, I would support him 100% if he laid out as plain and forceful of a list of reasons as the President did last night.
Does hatred and mockery of Bush often override everything else to some?
I think I know the answer to this...
And it's a legit question because my hatred and mockery of Bill Clinton certainly colored my opinions and thoughts of him in all but a few scenarios and issues. But I would've loved Clinton to take this man completely out because we wouldn't be in this situation right now. It would've already have been taken care of and that would've been a pretty strong legacy feather in President Clinton's cap.
jesus giant, even when i agree with you, you give me grief.
i don't want to tell people how they should be governed, i just think they should have a voice in it. and in all those countries i mentioned the populace is oppressed. why is the jihad directed at america? solely because of our position in israel? a position we would dearly love to get out from under i might add. well that's pretty weak.
the jihad should be directed at the oppressor, but then the fundamentalists are just as oppressive as the rotten arab governments.
Comments
<strong>communism is mostly dead, what's left alive is so rancidly corrupt that no one would touch it....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some form of anti American/Government philosophies is present here.
Bush's old speechwriter was told to come up with a reason to go to war with Iraq (this is the 2002 S of the U address I'm talking about). So he created the axis of evil using Iraq and Iran, including N. Korea for good measure. Funny how our country's foreign policy gets dictated by a speech writer. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030113ta_talk_hertzberg"; target="_blank">see article here</a>
Which really makes you wonder about how this country is actually being run. amazing, isn't it?
BTW Anyone else notice Bush bring up the aluminium tubes? Sort of funny that the Bush Admin wants to call Saddam a liar when they are doing it themselves. Just shows you what they are willing to do to sell this whole war thing to you guys. And some of you eat that shit up, too. amazing
<strong>There seem to be a lot of communists on these boards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
In case you are serious: Please elaborate so we can show you what you misunderstood
If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism; if our government is to function it must have dissent.
Henry Commager
<strong>You guys know where the "axis of evil" term came from, right.
Bush's old speechwriter was told to come up with a reason to go to war with Iraq (this is the 2002 S of the U address I'm talking about). So he created the axis of evil using Iraq and Iran, including N. Korea for good measure. Funny how our country's foreign policy gets dictated by a speech writer. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?030113ta_talk_hertzberg"; target="_blank">see article here</a>
Which really makes you wonder about how this country is actually being run. amazing, isn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're logic is backwards. The speech writer is told to write something to support a policy and you say the speech writer makes the policy? The writer is told what to do and somehow he's the one telling other people what to do?
[quote]Originally posted by giant:
<strong>BTW Anyone else notice Bush bring up the aluminium tubes? Sort of funny that the Bush Admin wants to call Saddam a liar when they are doing it themselves. Just shows you what they are willing to do to sell this whole war thing to you guys. And some of you eat that shit up, too. amazing</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're an expert in this area too? Why not reply with your 10 pages of anti-American diatribe? Or maybe, just maybe ? you?re wrong :eek:
<strong>
You're logic is backwards. The speech writer is told to write something to support a policy and you say the speech writer makes the policy? The writer is told what to do and somehow he's the one telling other people what to do?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, scott. I forgot how stupid some of the people that would read this could be. Let me dumb it down for you. He was asked to write a justification for war with Iraq. Now first, should the justification come before the idea to go to war? If the Bush admin had justification at that time, perhaps that justification should be used. Of course, they didn't so it wasn't.
Second, the crucial part of this is the issue with N. Korea. The Axis of Evil designation has really gotten the ball rolling, and including N. Korea in that group was not a result of a deliberate policy. It demonstrates all too well that the Bush Admin is carelessly and dangerously run. The narrow focus on the interests of a few cause MAJOR foul up such as this.
And when did pointing out blatant lies, notably Bush's ficticious IAEA reports, become anti-american? Or is it that any criticism of George Bush and his Administration is anti-american? Did the US cease being a democracy without me noticing?
Deriding an american for publicly critiqing his government is about as anti-american as you can get.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
now last night president bush accused hussein of many things, most of which are most likely true.
whether or not that gives us the right to preemptively strike iraq, or invade them remains to be seen. my rise for concern is why now? why iraq? why not nigeria? why not china? why not cuba?
but i'd be loathe to start tallying lies when it comes to likes of saddam hussein, who let's face it, no one would be sad to see disappear, not even the fundamentalist islamics.
Giving the people who live in Iraq a break from this insane, evil asshole is reason enough, IMO. It'll probably be the happiest day of their lives when they realize they are freer and don't have to live in fear and dread 24/7.
I guess I'm naive, but I don't see what the problem is. Seems very clear-cut to me: Hussein was supposed to do this, this and this. He agreed. 12 years later, after numerous "second chances", waiting, talking, sending inspectors in, out, back, out again, back in, etc. he hasn't done that, that and that.
I think he's unstable and dangerous. I think he poses a genuine, honest-to-goodness threat.
Anyone who think we're "rushing" to anything needs to tweak their definition of the word "rush" because he's had more time and more "second chances" than anyone I can think of. I admire our restraint sometimes.
Hussein could simply put an end to all of this today if he wanted to. He obviously doesn't.
I tend to want to believe (and put my trust and faith in) the President, Powell, Rumsfeld, the U.N. inspectors, Iraqi defectors, intelligence reports, etc. more than I do Hollywood actors, naked Bay Area protestors and college students.
But that's just me.
Nothing wrong with acting, being naked or in college, of course. But I don't think they're in as good a position to truly know circumstances, inside info, strategies, etc. as the others are. It's simply not their job, nor are they privy to everything. Powell trumps Sarandon on this, fellas.
And I know that some are just philosophically against war and violence no matter what. And I respect that...who the hell - in their right mind - likes war? But it doesn't make them "right" in every case. And I simply think they're wrong in this one.
If it wasn't for a few nasty, brutal wars, they might not have the ability to even protest, raise their voices and otherwise experience all these cool freedoms many take for granted. There's an awesome connection there between the two that I think gets overlooked and ignored sometimes.
It cuts both ways: sometimes you have to break a few eggs and endure some nasty business to come out the other side and realize "okay, that was worth it...look at the outcome".
That doesn't (and shouldn't) make a "blind patriot" or whatever the term used in that other thread. I'd MUCH prefer (because I have friends over there as we speak, who - if things got bad and went horribly awry - I might not ever see or talk to again
I'd love for there to not to be one bomb dropped, rifle fired or missile launched. But...
Just seems very cut-and-dried to me. If I saw things in a few more hundred shades of gray, maybe it would be different...
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
and if you look at afghanistan and how their lives have improved in such a short time, it must give iraqis hope that we will take care of him......
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: superkaratemonkeydeathcar ]</p>
<strong>i agree with your right to dissent giant, but it sounds to me like you're defending saddam hussein.
now last night president bush accused hussein of many things, most of which are most likely true.
whether or not that gives us the right to preemptively strike iraq, or invade them remains to be seen. my rise for concern is why now? why iraq? why not nigeria? why not china? why not cuba?
but i'd be loathe to start tallying lies when it comes to likes of saddam hussein, who let's face it, no one would be sad to see disappear, not even the fundamentalist islamics.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm really not sure what part of that statement you think is "defending saddam." Especially considering the focus was on N. Korea and the carelessness of the Bush Admin. Oh well.
Why Iraq? Contracts for US companies and their subsidiaries to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. forward position against Iran. Increased Influence in the Middle East. There are much worse human right issues elsewhere in the world that are completely ignored by the US government. Hell, we have Cheney lobbying to do business in Burma and running a company whose pipeline there was built in part by slave labor! The the folks that make up this Admin hardly have a positive human rights record.
As far as "tallying lies:" Why should the US use any?
BTW: about afghanistan. You realize that life isn't really better there. Random crime has risen dramatically since the Taliban was ousted. My boss' husband has travelled there a few times in the past year and a half (he was one of the first aid workers on the front line during the fighting) and he has pointed out that it has gotten very unsafe. Also go to <a href="http://www.rawa.org"; target="_blank">www.rawa.org</a> for a description of the situation (self-immolations on the rise, fierce fighting among warlords). And the reason it's so important to get carriers in the gulf for an Iraq attack is because so many of the AF planes in the region are focused on fighting warloards in afghanistan. It is hardly a stable situation. You are simply buying propaganda (that's not even abundant!) if you believe otherwise.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
oh god! drop the naive pose!
i tottally agreed with you, in that the government of iraq is hardly the most despotic. but when we become the world's policeman (and i think we're going to be, maybe we've already started) are you always going to be there, saying well why not here why not there. i agree that cheney's companies have already made a fortune rebuilding that part of the world, but that doesn't mean saddam hussein isn't an evil vile person, who needs to go.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: superkaratemonkeydeathcar ]</p>
saddam would be gone had he not surrendered, ah screw it...
You see, it doesn't matter what Bush proposes, because SPJ, tonton and the rest of the liberals will assail it BECAUSE HE IS George W. Bush. There is no other reason. One poster actually CRITICIZED Bush for calling for a clean environment, gasless autos, help for drug addicts and the destitute and tax relief for working families.
His case against Iraq was devastating. You may not like it, but it was. The speech was a smashing success. The support for attacking Iraq in polls taken (immediately after the speech) is now in the 70th and 80th percentiles.
I agree with 98% of the domestic agenda. Let me tell you, it didn't look good for the democrats to sit on their hands during his outline of the tax plan.
It doesn't matter what he says. He could announce they we have found a cure for aids and cancer an you'd still criticize him.
are you always going to be there, saying well why not here why not there.<hr></blockquote>
I should point out that you are the one that said that, not me.
[quote]
i agree that cheney's companies have already made a fortune rebuilding that part of the world, but that doesn't mean saddam hussein isn't an evil vile person, who needs to go.
<hr></blockquote>
It also should be pointed out that Halliburton, while being run by Cheney, used European subsidiaries to circumvent US imposed sanctions that barred Cheney's company from rebuilding the facilities he destroyed as Secretary of Defence. We are talking about a MAJOR conflict of interest.
In addition, this conflict has nothing to do with being the world's policeman. The current doctrine, as outlined in the Sept. 2000 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses," explicitly states that the US should act solely in its own interests when conduction foreign military operations. A summary of that report:
[quote]The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'
The PNAC document supports a 'blueprint for maintaining global US pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests'.
This 'American grand strategy' must be advanced for 'as far into the future as possible', the report says. It also calls for the US to 'fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars' as a 'core mission'.
The report describes American armed forces abroad as 'the cavalry on the new American frontier'. The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document written by Wolfowitz and Libby that said the US must 'discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role'.
<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf"; target="_blank">You can read the document for yourself here.</a>
I don't want to get on your case too much, but war (the loss of tens or hundereds of thousands of lives) is important enough to make sure the facts are straight.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Hey giant what ever happened to that thread where you defended the notion of OBL day care centers? Seems to have dropped off the front page?
just don't use our inaction in parts of the world where we have no commercial interests for taking care of something that we didn't start, and should have finished 12 years ago.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: superkaratemonkeydeathcar ]</p>
Hey giant what ever happened to that thread where you defended the notion of OBL day care centers? <hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. Is that what I said?
[quote]Originally posted by Giant:
You have to be pretty ignorant to not know that the one of the major reasons fundamentalist Islamic groups are gaining so many followers is their devotion to social programs. Egypt is probably the best example, where the hospitals run by fundamentalist islamic groups are generations better than the government run ones. These same groups have been almost the sole providers of disaster relief. Another example is Hamas. 95% of its operations are social programs, and it is the major and almost sole provider of these programs to Palestinians....
Research it. Eqypt and Palestine are perfect examples. There is no opinion involved in this. Fact: fundamentalist Islamic groups provide the bulk of the social services in Eqypt and Palestine. Fact: in eqypt the services provided are of much higher quality than those provided by the government. I have heard this repeated by professors and journalists over and over and over again for the past year and some months in numerous lectures here at Northwestern. This is the case for most of the middle east and is the primary method by which fundamentalist islam has gained a strong following. It is also why governments in middle east countries are losing influence over their citizens. When the people feel abondoned by their government and well-funded islamic groups take their place, what do you think will happen?<hr></blockquote>
Interesting that you get nothing straight, Scott.
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong> if it was my little world when we were done in iraq we would free the saudis, the iranis, the chinese, the nepalese, the nigerians (probably the worst place on earth) the cubans, etc. etc. bit it just doesn't work that way.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've noticed that many folks on this board believe that they should tell others how and by whom they should be governed. Hmmm...
[ 01-29-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
Just like Republicans and conservatives did/do with Clinton.
Yeah, I said it to save you the trouble of having to.
But I think Bush has a pretty strong case in this instance and I'm just not someone who like to "hope Saddam won't do anything foolish..." and I don't trust people who've got a horrible history of the things Hussein does. The world doesn't work that way, I'm afraid.
Good intentions and wishing really hard often don't cut it.
If all this was going on and the evidence was the same, the circumstances were identical and Mr. Clinton was President, no matter what I thought about his character and all the scandals hanging over him, I would support him 100% if he laid out as plain and forceful of a list of reasons as the President did last night.
Does hatred and mockery of Bush often override everything else to some?
I think I know the answer to this...
And it's a legit question because my hatred and mockery of Bill Clinton certainly colored my opinions and thoughts of him in all but a few scenarios and issues. But I would've loved Clinton to take this man completely out because we wouldn't be in this situation right now. It would've already have been taken care of and that would've been a pretty strong legacy feather in President Clinton's cap.
i don't want to tell people how they should be governed, i just think they should have a voice in it. and in all those countries i mentioned the populace is oppressed. why is the jihad directed at america? solely because of our position in israel? a position we would dearly love to get out from under i might add. well that's pretty weak.
the jihad should be directed at the oppressor, but then the fundamentalists are just as oppressive as the rotten arab governments.