Foreign Policy: Kerry vs. Bush

[Rohirrim]

In an effort to argue issues, not personal attacks, I thought I would occasionally write up something on each issue so we could argue ideas, instead of ideologies. The first is on foreign policy. BTW, if you believe that I have misrepresented the Bush Doctrine, feel free to correct it.

Bush has created a new paradigm – pre-emptive war and unilateralism. This hasn’t been tried before, at least not to the extent that Bush is employing it. The idea is that any state that may pose a threat to the U.S. (or supports terrorists) is liable to be attacked first, before they can carry out any threat. The U.S. will seek out allies, but will not rely on the opinions of the rest of the world before taking action. The Bush Doctrine negates the value of the UN, the value of arms control agreements (many of which he has already pulled out of), and in fact, the input of any other state in the military and foreign affairs of the U.S. It is a plan for U.S. global hegemony. For more, read this: http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5345

Kerry’s foreign policy ideas seem to be a throwback to the JFK principle – “We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient--that we are only six percent of the world's population--that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”

Like JFK, Kerry believes that the value of a strong military is that it is an insurance policy for peace. Kerry’s policy would be to modernize, fund and expand the training of our military forces to meet any threat, forge stronger alliances in the world, reduce the dependence on Mideast oil, and “…deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging” (JK.com) - in other words, a global, collaborative effort, rather than a unilateral one.

My Take: I go with Kerry on this one. As the 9/11 Commission report has pointed out, we are not in a struggle against states, we are in a struggle against an ideology. This is very similar to our Cold War struggle against communism. Yes, there were states that exemplified that struggle (the USSR, China) but we also were able to succeed at stemming the flow of the ideology throughout the world. Sometimes our methods were nefarious (propping up right wing dictators), but just as often, we succeeded through involvement in other countries; building schools, water systems, agricultural systems, bringing medicine, etc. In other words, we fought communism at ground level – and won. People were naturally drawn to what the U.S. represented. We won the hearts and minds. We also built up allegiances like NATO, which perhaps did more over time to bring the USSR to its knees than any other single act we accomplished. Eight presidents employed this continuing strategy against communism and won the Cold War. Why wouldn’t this same strategy work in the War on Terrorism?

I believe the Bush doctrine will lead to the exact opposite response. By pulling the U.S. out of arms control agreements, he makes it more likely that rogue states or terrorists will get their hands on WMDs. By dropping allegiances, he turns former allies into competitors, or worse, enemies. By threatening unilateral, pre-emptive strikes, he encourages our enemies to prepare for war (read North Korea and Iran). He is also stepping away from a continuity of ideas that presidents of both parties have upheld since WWII.

I recently read an article (July, New Yorker) written by a reporter in Waziristan, one of the ungovernable, tribal provinces of Pakistan on the Afghan border. The local khan took her to the one school available to the children of that province, many of whom had to travel for hours to attend. It was a madrassa, funded by the Saudis (among others), and taught Islamic fundamentalist Wahhabism. This is the pattern all over the poverty-stricken Arab world. Fundamentalism is the only game in town.

What if the U.S. (with its allies) built a school in this province? A school with computers, the internet, books and supplies, Peace Corps teachers creating new, local teachers, etc.? The khan told her if he had an alternative school, that madrassa would collapse because the majority of parents in the region (like parents everywhere) would want their children to have a better life than they could give them. Madrassas offer suicide, an alternative school would offer a future.

I also read an article about a Special Forces unit in Afghanistan who applied this method (on their own) in a village in Afghanistan. They built a school and a water system, set up a market with a money changing table, and provided security for the village. Their commander said it was the only way to win on the ground in Afghanistan, and the only way to get reliable information from the surrounding area. That unit was removed from Afghanistan and sent to Iraq.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good topic.

Kerry's doctrine is obviously more grounded in reality.

Unlike Bush, Kerry seems to understand that we can't develop effective intelligence networks in the war on al Qaeda and other terrorist groups w/o the cooperation of the intelligence agencies of other states (particularly Arab states.)

This is the main reason why bush's policies are making us less safe, IMO.

[watermock]

In an effort to argue issues, not personal attacks, I thought I would occasionally write up something on each issue so we could argue ideas, instead of ideologies. The first is on foreign policy. BTW, if you believe that I have misrepresented the Bush Doctrine, feel free to correct it.

Go on, I have never endorsed the Bush Doctrine, it was always an assumption.

Bush has created a new paradigm – pre-emptive war and unilateralism. This hasn’t been tried before, at least not to the extent that Bush is employing it. The idea is that any state that may pose a threat to the U.S. (or supports terrorists) is liable to be attacked first, before they can carry out any threat.

What I find amusing is no mention of 9/11, only an asserton of a madman bent on premption.

The U.S. will seek out allies, but will not rely on the opinions of the rest of the world before taking action.

What opinions? Who has the balls to stand up to the terrorists. Who was there for the United States when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor? Only the British and Australians and the Phillipines. Poland is still not amused. The rest are pussies. Who did you expect? The Oil for Terrorism Triumverate that is using Billions of dollars right now for suicide bombers?

The Bush Doctrine negates the value of the UN, the value of arms control agreements (many of which he has already pulled out of), and in fact, the input of any other state in the military and foreign affairs of the U.S. It is a plan for U.S. global hegemony.

Number one, the UN has a multi BILLION DOLLAR SCANDAL THAT ISN'T EVEN BEING COVERED BY THE PRESS. Second, pulling out of arms control agreements to weaken the USA is stupid beyond even your belief, and third, the idea of Hegonomy is ludicrous without any substantiation beyone the need of national security. The fact is, France, Russia and Germany had all their own plans under the UN. You just don't get it.

Kerry’s foreign policy ideas seem to be a throwback to the JFK principle – “We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient--that we are only six percent of the world's population--that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind--that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity--and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”

The rhetoric was far from the actual reality. It seems to be? Your telling me that Kerry is JFK who almost started WW3 then was assasinated by the Mafia and handed a rediculous war over to LBJ, who someone should tell LABF, neither LBJ or Bush, who 99.9 percent blah blah blah.

Neither one resigned. Both said they wouldn't run again. I could give a crap what the USA today thinks, I allready addressed that.

Like JFK, Kerry believes that the value of a strong military is that it is an insurance policy for peace. Kerry’s policy would be to modernize, fund and expand the training of our military forces to meet any threat, forge stronger alliances in the world, reduce the dependence on Mideast oil, and “…deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging” (JK.com) - in other words, a global, collaborative effort, rather than a unilateral one.

With what? Appeasement? He voted against the F-14. He voted against the F-15. He voted against the F-16. He voted against the F-117. He voted against the new Carrier Ronald Reagan. He has voted against every military tool we could think of.

Name one thing Kerry has done to reduce our dependence on oil other than the fact he has THREE HUGE SUV'S. As far as unitateral, your looking at looters not allies.

My Take: I go with Kerry on this one. As the 9/11 Commission report has pointed out, we are not in a struggle against states, we are in a struggle against an ideology. This is very similar to our Cold War struggle against communism. Yes, there were states that exemplified that struggle (the USSR, China) but we also were able to succeed at stemming the flow of the ideology throughout the world. Sometimes our methods were nefarious (propping up right wing dictators), but just as often, we succeeded through involvement in other countries; building schools, water systems, agricultural systems, bringing medicine, etc. In other words, we fought communism at ground level – and won.

WTF do you think we are trying to do right now dimwit? I find it amusing it was all "war for Oil" which was the mantra only a year ago. Where did that go?

To compare Communism to Radical Islam is just plain ignorant.

People were naturally drawn to what the U.S. represented. We won the hearts and minds. We also built up allegiances like NATO, which perhaps did more over time to bring the USSR to its knees than any other single act we accomplished.

That is rediculous. Nato was a nuclear counter threat and umbrella. We tried to let countries hold their own in freedom. You have no clue. Our weapons superiority and the people were fed up with communism toppled it. Yet, Kerry voted against every weapons system during that time. I just started to put the list together.


Eight presidents employed this continuing strategy against communism and won the Cold War. Why wouldn’t this same strategy work in the War on Terrorism?

Did the Soviet Union attack the WTC dimwit?

I believe the Bush doctrine will lead to the exact opposite response. By pulling the U.S. out of arms control agreements, he makes it more likely that rogue states or terrorists will get their hands on WMDs.

They allready have them. What are you totally ignorant?

By dropping allegiances, he turns former allies into competitors, or worse, enemies. By threatening unilateral, pre-emptive strikes, he encourages our enemies to prepare for war (read North Korea and Iran). He is also stepping away from a continuity of ideas that presidents of both parties have upheld since WWII.

The USA didn't drop any. They did, they want the Euro and let the USA hold the handle while they try to take over the world currency. The rest is bullshiat as well. North Korea has been Chinas proxy for decades, and Iran was supplied by Sudan. Go check it out dimwit.

The continuity of ideas is what we made the UN for, and they are in a 30 billion dollar scandal.

I recently read an article (July, New Yorker) written by a reporter in Waziristan, one of the ungovernable, tribal provinces of Pakistan on the Afghan border. The local khan took her to the one school available to the children of that province, many of whom had to travel for hours to attend. It was a madrassa, funded by the Saudis (among others), and taught Islamic fundamentalist Wahhabism. This is the pattern all over the poverty-stricken Arab world. Fundamentalism is the only game in town.

"Only game in town?". It WAS THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN. The reason is, we can't take over Pakistan where Bin Laden is, because the Taliban is there and there is a danger that Musarreff will lose control of the country. What is wrong with you? Of course, the USA is responsible for these rodents.

What if the U.S. (with its allies) built a school in this province? A school with computers, the internet, books and supplies, Peace Corps teachers creating new, local teachers, etc.? The khan told her if he had an alternative school, that madrassa would collapse because the majority of parents in the region (like parents everywhere) would want their children to have a better life than they could give them. Madrassas offer suicide, an alternative school would offer a future.

What is wrong with you? The USA is trying to build schools all over the place. The Mosques tell the children to blow them up. You don't understand the concept of Islam whatsoever. There is no denial or disconsertion. It's absolute. It shows how little you understand. They will not let go of the power of the warlords and mullahs.

I also read an article about a Special Forces unit in Afghanistan who applied this method (on their own) in a village in Afghanistan. They built a school and a water system, set up a market with a money changing table, and provided security for the village. Their commander said it was the only way to win on the ground in Afghanistan, and the only way to get reliable information from the surrounding area. That unit was removed from Afghanistan and sent to Iraq.

Are you supposed to baby sit it forever? This just shows how your earlier arguments were fallacious. Everything is set up, but the terrorists tear it down.

But it's our fault right? Get a clue.

[Rohirrim]

Thank you for taking so much time, and expending so much energy - to entirely miss the point.

[RunByDesign]

The wholly apparent point, is that no reason has been afforded as to WHY any of Bushs' policies are any better...WHY we should retain him as President, amidst his perpetual blundering.

Therein lies the dilemna.

[mosca]

i really don't find a ton of difference in bush's and kerry's foreign policy plans, but the obvious thing that sticks out to me is that kerry wants to 'launch and lead a new era of alliances'. i see no specifics on how or in what way this will be done. and i don't think that germany, france, spain, etc. will just come running like lap dogs and want to restore old alliances simply because kerry is now president. he's gonna have to make some concessions to their desires to win them over, and i suspect that would be premature withdrawal from iraq and assurances that we will not attack terrorist/terrorist harboring nations without their or the UN's consent. i personally do not agree with this notion and would rather have a policy in place such as bush's that attempts to get international support in military actions but is prepared to go on without it if it's not there.

i will say that i totally agree on his idea to modernize the military and add troops. but i'm somewhat skeptical as to whether or not this will happen, judging from his past voting record. easy to proclaim one thing on the election trail and then not follow through with it. but based just on what's been said, it is a must need and also one thing that angers me about bush's war management, in particular supplies and logistics problems with the troops and also how the post saddam security aspect of the occupation was conducted. i would hope that the bush admin. would learn from this mistake if they are elected to a second term.

[Rohirrim]

At least Kerry has said he will move in the direction of restoring alliances. With Bush, you know there's not even a slim chance of it.

[football idiot]

how do we "KNOW" this?

what alliances are we talking about?

the entire world, with the exception of a few small terrorist states in the Middle East, are working with us to DESTROY terrorism. Just because a few politicians from a few corrupt countries bad-mouthed the war doesn't mean we are blacklisted by the world. it means that the companies that illegally traded weapons to Saddam for oil and the politicians they sent money to are unhappy with us. and we don't need those kinds of friends.

public opinion doesn't matter. half the people in this country are saying stupid hateful stuff about our president right now. but we're supposed to worry about what the French citizens think based on what they're spoonfed by state-controlled liberal media?

please.

the only country with a true FREE press is ours. we don't have the CBC, or the BBC, or whatever state programming they get in other countries, we have independent news networks that are uncensored and allowed to tell all kinds of stories that politicians were rather they didn't.

how is Kerry going to build these alliances, and what are they going to do for us? save us a few bucks on Champagne from FRANCE?

[Rohirrim]

Name a war the U.S. has won without major allies? (I'm not talking Bulgaria and Poland) Yes, we need France in Iraq. Also Russia and Germany. We need to rebuild and reinforce the alliance of the West if we want to influence the rest of the world with our ideas. Like Kennedy said, we're only 6% of the world's population. We can't go it alone. No matter what Bush and his cabal thinks.

And Bush is getting the press (and comments) that his actions have earned. He is a bungler - on a world-class scale.

[football idiot]

a press that sensationalizes and blows every little thing out of proportion.

we didn't want the French's help in WWI and WWII. They've been reputed as cowards ever since Napoleon (a foreigner that took over France from within) suffered his last defeat.

The Russians and Germans? Do they even have a military force left to speak of? I know that the Warsaw pact seriously prohibited Germany from ever becoming a world threat militarily again. Russia is a fraction of its former self, with a few thousand decaying nuclear weapons and a bunch of military technology that is either obsolete or ill-maintained.

With our military superiority war with any nation on the planet does not scare me.

And even those who don't support the war are working with us to thwart the terrorists that are hiding in their homelands.

If Bush is a bungler (and other than an unfortunate public speaker, I'm not sure what he's 'bungled') how do we know Kerry is going to accomplish all this crap he's promising?

[Rohirrim]

It's not just a matter of what these countries can do militarily, although both Russia and Germany still have strong militaries. France is also strong, contrary to popular belief - ever hear of the Mirage? It's a matter of having a Western coalition that expresses a voice in the world. We still have China to deal with. Maybe not now, but down the road for sure. The way to really combat terrorism, by moving the Arab world into the 20th century, and combatting their influence in Africa and Europe, not to mention the Middle East, will not be accomplished by military power alone. Face the facts, we'll have to build schools that combat the message of the madrassas. We'll have to help with power supplies, water supplies, agriculture, etc. That's will lead to the long term victory. Military forces won't. For that program, we'll need help.

[Crushaholic]

Like it or not, the United States is the leader of the free world. We have maintained that position for a long time. IMO, a good leader is someone who does what they think is the right direction for the people. Bush tried to get the support of countries such as Germany and France. He could have gone to war before he did. They refused to come along with us. At some point, a leader has to lead and make tough decisions.

The policy of containment in the Cold War has cost us billions of dollars throughout the years. We were engaged in a staredown contest with the Soviet Union that spread fear, misinformation and general paranoia amongst the population. We were much better when the Soviet Union collapsed when Reagan forced the issue.

The policy of preemptive strike, IMO, came about partly as a response to the criticism from the left that Bush could have done more to prevent 9/11. Now, we hit before they get a chance to hit us. I feel much safer in that situation, rather than play the reactionary role. Who knows how many Americans will die if the bastards hit us again? That's not a risk I want to take.

[Rohirrim]

Let's try looking at this with a little bit of logic.

First, we know that Wolfowitz had plans to attack Iraq ready to go in 1992. We also know that the members of the current Bush team (Cheney, Rummy, et al) were all on board.

Second, we know that Bush was getting reports from Blix/Kay that they did not believe in the existance of WMDs in Iraq.

Third, the other Western powers (incl. Russia) wanted the inspection regime to continue to its natural conclusion before committing forces.

Add it up: The Bush team knows where Blix/Kay is headed (and they're damn right, as we now know). They also know if they keep waiting, their excuse for invading Iraq is likely to evaporate.

The other Western powers are fully aware of what kind of game is being played - and they don't want to play it.

Bush drums up "mushroom clouds" only "forty five minutes away." Fear takes control of our country. Powell's arm is twisted by Cheney to go lie to the UN. Bush launches the attack. We now know the whole thing was complete :bs: No WMDs. No Al Queda. 900+ Americans dead.

And what has Iraq led to? More instability in the region. More Al Queda recruits. More terrorism being spread through the internet to new cells. Arab fanatics flocking to the OBL banner.

And France, Russia and Germany are all a bunch of wussies - right?

[plummerrox]

And France, Russia and Germany are all a bunch of wussies - right?


right

[Spider]

::)

[Exile_In_SJ]

What allies did we lose that actually do anything for us? We retain the most important ones. Britain and Australia. What do France and Germany do for us as so called allies?
Nothing militarily.

France and Germany abandoned us and need to get back in our good graces. France did everything they could to defeat us diplomatically. They need to mend the fences. We don't need France for anything. Nothing, nada.

Germany let's us base troops on it's soil. It's a mutually beneficial situation, but we are even now thinking of removing them which makes Germany less important. But even as Germany oppoed the liberation of Iraq, they've done nothing hard to damage the alliance.

It's basically France which did the harm, and Heinz-Kerry wants to go hat in hand and beg forgiveness from the french.

Even the russians who aren't really our allies are looking into sending troops to Iraq.

We don't need to repair alliances, it's a fallacy put out by Heinz-Kerry

[Exile_In_SJ]

Iraq is now free and will be holding elections. Afghanistan is now free and building democracy, with the majority of Afghans registering to vote. Yeah there are terrorists, but, they will be and are being dealt with as they show up.

Millions of Iraqis have been freed from tyranny as have Afghanis...

900 dead American soldiers? A bad thing, to be sure, but 5000 American soldiers died on D-Day trying to free France. The region will e better off with a democratic Iraq in the region, then after Iraq, a democratic Iran, A democratic Syria...Democracy has never been free. We sacrificed to make Germany and Japan the thriving democracies they are today. The world is better off because of it. The world will be better off for our efforts today, it may take a while, but it will be better off.

[Rascal]

Ever heard of the mirage? The French are still strong?

Are you kidding me? Besides having a somewhat respectable special forces corp everything, and yes I mean everything is laughable. They probably wouldn't be able to defend themselves if Iraq had invaded them prior to desert storm 1.

Hell, they would see the mass of troops and throw up the white flag, move to foreign countries and buy people to defend their country.

Germany and France are so imbedded in that UN scandel that any foreign policy that rests on getting support for them is dumb. They are the definition of corrupted government.

[Exile_In_SJ]

France may have even aided in the Rwandan genocide... France is not an ally we want to have.

[Rohirrim]

Still ignoring the points of logic from my post I see - about what led up to an unnecessary war that is doing us more harm than good, regardless of what debatable good it does for Iraq.

[Exile_In_SJ]

It's not just a matter of what these countries can do militarily, although both Russia and Germany still have strong militaries. France is also strong, contrary to popular belief - ever hear of the Mirage? It's a matter of having a Western coalition that expresses a voice in the world. We still have China to deal with. Maybe not now, but down the road for sure. The way to really combat terrorism, by moving the Arab world into the 20th century, and combatting their influence in Africa and Europe, not to mention the Middle East, will not be accomplished by military power alone. Face the facts, we'll have to build schools that combat the message of the madrassas. We'll have to help with power supplies, water supplies, agriculture, etc. That's will lead to the long term victory. Military forces won't. For that program, we'll need help.

Do you realize that France held joint naval operations with China this year?
France's influence in Africa is purely negative being a former brutal colonial power there.

[Rascal]

Doing us more harm than good?

I'm pretty sure WWII was doing us a lot of harm at the moment, but people realized the benefits if we stayed the course.

A democratic Iraq with ties to the US is a very beneficial thing. It won't be easy but worth the effort.

Since neither of us have a time machine, neither one of us can know for sure and only have our political biasness to decide for us which side to take.

[Exile_In_SJ]

I disagree that it's doing us more harm than good. Basic difference of opinion.

[Rohirrim]

And what has Iraq led to? More instability in the region. More Al Queda recruits. More terrorism being spread through the internet to new cells. Arab fanatics flocking to the OBL banner.

Like I said. The future is now. Opinion and fact are two different things, whether you want to believe it or not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Let's try looking at this with a little bit of logic.

First, we know that Wolfowitz had plans to attack Iraq ready to go in 1992. We also know that the members of the current Bush team (Cheney, Rummy, et al) were all on board.

Second, we know that Bush was getting reports from Blix/Kay that they did not believe in the existance of WMDs in Iraq.

Third, the other Western powers (incl. Russia) wanted the inspection regime to continue to its natural conclusion before committing forces.

Don't forget #4:

Both Powell and Rice are on record in 2/01 stating that Saddam was not a threat and had been successfully disarmed. Their statements were caught on film. (See "Fahrenheit 9/11.")

[Rohirrim]

France may have even aided in the Rwandan genocide... France is not an ally we want to have.

Nobody is arguing that our allies should be squeaky clean. Should we go over a list of former U.S. allies, including Saddam, and check their credentials? One of our strongest allies right now is Saudi Arabia. I don't feel too comfortable about that - but for right now, that alliance is a necessity. Alliances serve particular purposes on the world stage. Allies don't have to be our best buddies.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No matter what your ideology, Kerry's policies would have to be better than this:

Can’t Bush and Blair See Iraq Is About to Explode?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0802-01.htm

BAGHDAD - The war is a fraud. I’m not talking about the weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. Nor the links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda which didn’t exist. Nor all the other lies upon which we went to war. I’m talking about the new lies.

For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us the threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America’s puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month’s death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 — the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told.

The stage management of this catastrophe in Iraq was all too evident at Saddam Hussein’s “trial”. Not only did the US military censor the tapes of the event. Not only did they effectively delete all sound of the 11 other defendants. But the Americans led Saddam Hussein to believe — until he reached the courtroom — that he was on his way to his execution. Indeed, when he entered the room he believed that the judge was there to condemn him to death. This, after all, was the way Saddam ran his own state security courts. No wonder he initially looked “disorientated” — CNN’s helpful description — because, of course, he was meant to look that way. We had made sure of that. Which is why Saddam asked Judge Juhi: “Are you a lawyer? ... Is this a trial?” And swiftly, as he realized that this really was an initial court hearing — not a preliminary to his own hanging — he quickly adopted an attitude of belligerence. But don’t think we’re going to learn much more about Saddam’s future court appearances. Salem Chalabi, the brother of convicted fraudster Ahmad and the man entrusted by the Americans with the tribunal, told the Iraqi press two weeks ago that all media would be excluded from future court hearings. And I can see why. Because if Saddam does a Milosevic, he’ll want to talk about the real intelligence and military connections of his regime — which were primarily with the United States.

Living in Iraq these past few weeks is a weird as well as dangerous experience. I drive down to Najaf. Highway 8 is one of the worst in Iraq. Westerners are murdered there. It is littered with burnt-out police vehicles and American trucks. Every police post for 70 miles has been abandoned. Yet a few hours later, I am sitting in my room in Baghdad watching British Prime Minister Tony Blair, grinning in the House of Commons as if he is the hero of a school debating competition; so much for the Butler report.

Indeed, watching any Western television station in Baghdad these days is like tuning in to Planet Mars. Doesn’t Blair realize that Iraq is about to implode? Doesn’t Bush realize this? The American-appointed "government” controls only parts of Baghdad — and even there its ministers and civil servants are car-bombed and assassinated. Baquba, Samara, Kut, Mahmoudiya, Hilla, Fallujah, Ramadi, all are outside government authority. Iyad Allawi, the “prime minister”, is little more than mayor of Baghdad. “Some journalists,” Blair announces, “almost want there to be a disaster in Iraq.” He doesn’t get it. The disaster exists now.

When suicide bombers ram their cars into hundreds of recruits outside police stations, how on earth can anyone hold an election next January? Even the National Conference to appoint those who will arrange elections has been twice postponed. And looking back through my notebooks over the past five weeks, I find that not a single Iraqi, not a single American soldier I have spoken to, not a single mercenary — be he American, British or South African — believes that there will be elections in January. All said that Iraq is deteriorating by the day. And most asked why we journalists weren’t saying so.

But in Baghdad, I turn on my television and watch Bush telling his Republican supporters that Iraq is improving, that Iraqis support the “coalition”, that they support their new US-manufactured government, that the “war on terror” is being won, that Americans are safer. Then I go to an Internet site and watch two hooded men hacking off the head of an American in Riyadh, tearing at the vertebrae of an American in Iraq with a knife. Each day, the papers here list another construction company pulling out of the country. And I go down to visit the friendly, tragically sad staff of the Baghdad mortuary and there, each day, are dozens of those Iraqis we supposedly came to liberate, screaming and weeping and cursing as they carry their loved ones on their shoulders in cheap coffins.

I keep re-reading Tony Blair’s statement. “I remain convinced it was right to go to war. It was the most difficult decision of my life.” And I cannot understand it. It may be a terrible decision to go to war. Even Chamberlain thought that; but he didn’t find it a difficult decision — because, after the Nazi invasion of Poland, it was the right thing to do. And driving the streets of Baghdad now, watching the terrified American patrols, hearing yet another thunderous explosion shaking my windows and doors after dawn, I realize what all this means. Going to war in Iraq, invading Iraq last year, was the most difficult decision Blair had to take because he thought — correctly — that it might be the wrong decision. I will always remember his remark to British troops in Basra, that the sacrifice of British soldiers was not Hollywood but “real flesh and blood”. Yes, it was real flesh and blood that was shed.

"Deadly force is authorized,” it says on checkpoints all over Baghdad. Authorized by whom? There is no accountability. Repeatedly, on the great highways out of the city US soldiers shriek at motorists and open fire at the least suspicion. “We had some Navy Seals down at our checkpoint the other day,” a 1st Cavalry sergeant says to me. “They asked if we were having any trouble. I said, yes, they’ve been shooting at us from a house over there. One of them asked: ‘That house?’ We said yes. So they have these three SUVs and a lot of weapons made of titanium and they drive off towards the house. And later they come back and say ‘We’ve taken care of that’. And we didn’t get shot at any more.” What does this mean? The Americans are now bragging about their siege of Najaf. Lt. Col. Garry Bishop of the 37th Armored Division’s 1st Battalion believes it was an “ideal” battle (even though he failed to kill or capture Moqtada Sadr whose “Mehdi army” were fighting the US forces). It was “ideal”, Bishop explained, because the Americans avoided damaging the holy shrines of the Imams Ali and Hussein. What are Iraqis to make of this? What if a Muslim army occupied Kent and bombarded Canterbury and then bragged that they hadn’t damaged Canterbury Cathedral? Would we be grateful? What, indeed, are we to make of a war which is turned into a fantasy by those who started it? As foreign workers pour out of Iraq for fear of their lives, US Secretary of State Colin Powell tells a press conference that hostage-taking is having an “effect” on reconstruction. Effect! Oil pipeline explosions are now as regular as power cuts. In parts of Baghdad now, they have only four hours of electricity a day; the streets swarm with foreign mercenaries, guns poking from windows, shouting abusively at Iraqis who don’t clear the way for them. This is the “safer” Iraq which Blair was boasting of the other day. What world does the British government exist in?

[Rascal]

Don't forget #4:

Both Powell and Rice are on record in 2/01 stating that Saddam was not a threat and had been successfully disarmed. Their statements were caught on film. (See "Fahrenheit 9/11.")

LOL!!!

LABF is using F9/11 as a factual source!!

LOL!!

No wonder you are so screwed up in the head!!

ROFL!!!

[Blueflame]

LOL!!!

LABF is using F9/11 as a factual source!!

LOL!!

No wonder you are so screwed up in the head!!

ROFL!!!

Whether the footage was included in F911 or not, Rice and Powell did make those statements, Rascal.

[Rascal]

I don't care if they did or not that wasn't my point and you know it. Anytime somebody uses that propaganda filled BS of a documentary as a factual basis for anything is moronic at best.

[Blueflame]

I don't care if they did or not that wasn't my point and you know it. Anytime somebody uses that propaganda filled BS of a documentary as a factual basis for anything is moronic at best.

While the material is decidedly presented in a biased manner, to say it includes no facts would be inaccurate, Rascal.

[Rascal]

Sure there are some facts in it...9-11 did happen for one...but to use that as a factual source for anything is ludicrous.

And I'm not being biased in my language here. If it was a film about Clinton when he was president or something else and the Republicans were using it as fact I would say the same damn thing. Using that as a source is comparable to using newsmax or some other extreme slanted biased journalism for fact. There may be facts listed in that article, but to suggest that it a) wasn't takin out of context, or b) spun to fit their agenda is dumb.

[Blueflame]

Sure there are some facts in it...9-11 did happen for one...but to use that as a factual source for anything is ludicrous.

And I'm not being biased in my language here. If it was a film about Clinton when he was president or something else and the Republicans were using it as fact I would say the same damn thing. Using that as a source is comparable to using newsmax or some other extreme slanted biased journalism for fact. There may be facts listed in that article, but to suggest that it a) wasn't takin out of context, or b) spun to fit their agenda is dumb.

It's no more biased than Fix News...

[Rascal]

LOL!! What a load of horse sh!t!!! ROFL!!!

You think Fox is as slanted as that movie? HA!!!

Dang, you liberals really can't stand one news source even slightly slanted convervative.

*** edit....I did post In your not so humble opinion but changed it.

[Blueflame]

In your not so humble opinion.

Heh... everything posted on this board is someon's not so humble opinion. ;D

[Blueflame]

LOL!! What a load of horse sh!t!!! ROFL!!!

You think Fox is as slanted as that movie? HA!!!

Dang, you liberals really can't stand one news source even slightly slanted convervative.

Yes it is... and deliberately so. It's nothing more than a propaganda arm for the Republican party.

[Rascal]

LOL. That is sad that you honestly think that.

But whatever Blue. Its your opinion to beleive whatever you want. Just make sure you don't fall out of your cups with that spinning/and extreme left slant you have :)

[Blueflame]

LOL. That is sad that you honestly think that.

But whatever Blue. Its your opinion to beleive whatever you want. Just make sure you don't fall out of your cups with that spinning/and extreme left slant you have :)

To me, it's more sad that you can't see the obvious. :)

Outfoxed was a real eye-opener. Fix News will never... and I do mean never... be tuned in on my TV again.

[Rascal]

And that's your right as a citizen of this great country.

Just realize that anytime you or anyone else posts something from that "movie" be prepared for me to say something about it and how that doesn't support whatever point you were trying to make.

I'm sure the same applies with Fox, excuse me Fix as you call it, with you.

BTW...the comment about falling out of your cups is because of your location description. You seem to be pretty level headed, except for your political beliefs :) , so I didn't think it would bother you but if it did no harm intented just joking around.

[Blueflame]

And that's your right as a citizen of this great country.

Just realize that anytime you or anyone else posts something from that "movie" be prepared for me to say something about it and how that doesn't support whatever point you were trying to make.

I'm sure the same applies with Fox, excuse me Fix as you call it, with you.

BTW...the comment about falling out of your cups is because of your location description. You seem to be pretty level headed, except for your political beliefs :) , so I didn't think it would bother you but if it did no harm intented just joking around.

Hey, I understand that you don't like F911 or respect Michael Moore's work. It's all good. :)

I'm not an easily-offended sort... ribbing each other is part of what makes this board fun. ;D

[Captain_Poncho]

It's no more biased than Fix News...

Oh my heavens.

I love how you try to portray yourself as some sort of intellectual that simply analyzes data and comes to rational conclusions, and then your hateful liberal side comes bursting out from the facade to make cracks like that...

[Blueflame]

Oh my heavens.

I love how you try to portray yourself as some sort of intellectual that simply analyzes data and comes to rational conclusions, and then your hateful liberal side comes bursting out from the facade to make cracks like that...

Have you seen "Outfoxed", Captain? Before I watched the DVD, I already realized that Fix was biased... but the level and deliberate nature of that bias still surprised me.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Outfoxed was funded by moveon.org. That alone makes it suspect in it's agenda. It's done by extreme leftists which calls it's credibility into question.

To use that documentary as a source of fact is the same as using F9/11 as a source of fact. There is none. It's all distortion.

[Rascal]

Outfoxed was funded by moveon.org. That alone makes it suspect in it's agenda. It's done by extreme leftists which calls it's credibility into question.

To use that documentary as a source of fact is the same as using F9/11 as a source of fact. There is none. It's all distortion.

That may be true, but until you have seen it I wouldn't comment on it.

I've seen 9-11 (mind you I didn't pay though) but until I see Outfoxed I'm not going to comment on the validity of it by using other people's opinions who I have never meet for before (call me a skeptic if you wish).

[Blueflame]

Outfoxed was funded by moveon.org. That alone makes it suspect in it's agenda. It's done by extreme leftists which calls it's credibility into question.

To use that documentary as a source of fact is the same as using F9/11 as a source of fact. There is none. It's all distortion.

On the contrary, Exile... there are a lot of facts in F911. Most of the criticism of the movie has been trivial points such as that Richard Clarke OK'ed the Saudis flights out of America. While that's true, he was acting in his official capacity as the "terrorism czar" for the Bush administration at the time, so the distinction is tiny and nitpicky, yet characterized by some as a "deceit" nonetheless.

Same goes for Outfoxed... when the film clips are taken directly off Fix broadcasts, it's difficult to say that it isn't factual.

[Captain_Poncho]

Have you seen "Outfoxed", Captain? Before I watched the DVD, I already realized that Fix was biased... but the level and deliberate nature of that bias still surprised me.

I don't patronize propaganda films made by the likes of moveon.org, and then use them as solid backing for my arguments.

Of course, since most nut roll leftists like LABS embrace each and every conspiracy theory that anyone with a keyboard can generate, feel free to follow suit. It's certainly not unexpected behavior from that side of the aisle.

[Blueflame]

I don't patronize propaganda films made by the likes of moveon.org, and then use them as solid backing for my arguments.

Of course, since most nut roll leftists like LABS embrace each and every conspiracy theory that anyone with a keyboard can generate, feel free to follow suit. It's certainly not unexpected behavior from that side of the aisle.

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, Captain... rofl rofl rofl

[Captain_Poncho]

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt, Captain... rofl rofl rofl

Of course.

I'm in denial since I don't subscribe to nutty conspiracy theories put forth by political hacks with a bent to the left.

Thank heavens you're here to be the shining light of truth for the unwashed masses.

Fox News = bad!

Commondreams, moveon.org = truthtellers!

Glad we got that all straight.

[Blueflame]

Of course.

I'm in denial since I don't subscribe to nutty conspiracy theories put forth by political hacks with a bent to the left.

Thank heavens you're here to be the shining light of truth for the unwashed masses.

Fox News = bad!

Commondreams, moveon.org = truthtellers!

Glad we got that all straight.

Did you actually read Sibel Edmonds' letter, Captain?

Fix News does have a bias, as do the two other mentioned information sources. The difference is that commondreams and moveon do not claim to be "fair and balanced"... LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF is using F9/11 as a factual source!!

Um, hello genius?

My reference was to a specific piece of film footage used in Moore's film (one in which both Rice and Powell state that Saddam "is not a threat," "has been successfully disarmed and contained," etc.

Cue rascal's retort:

"Who are you gonna believe? Videotaped evidence or your lyin' eyes?"

Of course, since most nut roll leftists like LABS embrace each and every conspiracy theory that anyone with a keyboard can generate, feel free to follow suit.

Of course, for fundamentalist whackos residing on the extreme right-wing lunatic fringe,
any presentation of fact which exposes BushCo incompetence, impropriety, or criminality is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory."

Take all those admirals, generals, and former joint chiefs of staff who, in an unprecedented action, broke away from their parties to endorse John Kerry, for instance.

Conspiracy nuts, all of 'em!

Hilarious!

[errand]

Name a war the U.S. has won without major allies? .

...I think a better question would be name a war anyone else in the world won without our help?

Germany can only beat France and the few little countries surrounding it.

France? Get real. Like the joke goes....How many Frenchmen does it take to defend France? We don't know, it's never happened.

Russia? If not for our 2nd front, they would have been whipped by Germany, but our impending invasion on the coast of France in WWII tied up a heck of alot of Gemran troops. Hell, the mighty soviet Army was whipped by Afghan fighters....get a clue dude.

Italy? While they are on our side, they cannot be counted on to save the world...hells bells, even Germany had to bail them out in WWII.

Yeah, we're only 6% of the world's population, and yes,we consume 25% of the world's natural resources.....and we feed, clothe, loan money to, and protect/defend over 90% of the world.

You would do better to rethink your hate /blame America take...because nobody else is going to make sure that not only your family lives in a free country, but that all these other non-factors families do too.

[errand]

Let's try looking at this with a little bit of logic.

First, we know that Wolfowitz had plans to attack Iraq ready to go in 1992. We also know that the members of the current Bush team (Cheney, Rummy, et al) were all on board.

Rohirrim, guess what? We have a plan to invade practically every nation in the world....we have contigency plans to invade Cuba, Europe, Africa, China, Japan, Korea.....

Second, we know that Bush was getting reports from Blix/Kay that they did not believe in the existance of WMDs in Iraq.

Third, the other Western powers (incl. Russia) wanted the inspection regime to continue to its natural conclusion before committing forces.

Add it up: The Bush team knows where Blix/Kay is headed (and they're damn right, as we now know). They also know if they keep waiting, their excuse for invading Iraq is likely to evaporate.

The other Western powers are fully aware of what kind of game is being played - and they don't want to play it.

Everyone else in the world believed that Iraq had WMD's...the Russians said he had them, Germans said he had them, French said he had them, British said he had them...practically every major power in the world claimed he had them. John Kerry said he had them...John Edwards saw the same intel that the president did and came to the same conclusion as Bush did, CIA director George Tenet said "it's a slam dunk" when asked about the intel that Iraq had WMD's. So I find it amazing that you blast Bush for going along with what the entire world said, and then bitch when he doesn't.

Bush drums up "mushroom clouds" only "forty five minutes away." Fear takes control of our country. Powell's arm is twisted by Cheney to go lie to the UN. Bush launches the attack. We now know the whole thing was complete :bs: No WMDs. No Al Queda. 900+ Americans dead.

And of course you forget the 3,000 american civilians murdered on 9/11....not to mention the 25-30 million people liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq. You guys all claim Bush was obsessed with Iraq...and yet we invaded Afghanistan first.

And what has Iraq led to? More instability in the region. More Al Queda recruits. More terrorism being spread through the internet to new cells. Arab fanatics flocking to the OBL banner.

No, it's led to Libya giving up it's pursuit of WMD's....it's led to the discovery that Iran too, was pursuing WMD's....it's led to the Oil for Food scandal being discovered....it's led to the liberation of 12-15 million women being able to have avoice in how their lives are govern in two countries where rights for them were non-existent.....it's led to the liberation of over 25 million people....it's led to the annihilation of one of the world';s most dispicable regimes that beat, tortured, and murdered women, children and practically anyone else they wanted to...it's led to the discovery of mass graves....it's led to the discovery of other attacks planned by terrorists around the world...and it's led the terrorists to Iraq, rather than the streets of Anytown, USA....where the US Marines, 82nd & 101st Airborne and the Air Cav will arrange their meeting with Allah.

And France, Russia and Germany are all a bunch of wussies - right?

...well, now that you mentioned it....YES they are.

[errand]

Don't forget #4:

Both Powell and Rice are on record in 2/01 stating that Saddam was not a threat and had been successfully disarmed. Their statements were caught on film. (See "Fahrenheit 9/11.")


....and John Kerry is on record as saying that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat, and needed to be disarmed.

[errand]

Whether the footage was included in F911 or not, Rice and Powell did make those statements, Rascal.

Care to comment on all the libs and Dems who said the same things Bush has....

Ted Kennedy....John Kerry....Hillary Clinton....Al Gore.....Bill Clinton......the list is quite long ya know.

[errand]

Have you seen "Outfoxed", Captain? Before I watched the DVD, I already realized that Fix was biased... but the level and deliberate nature of that bias still surprised me.

...and yet she believes that CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and all the others are not leaning to the left. Typical.....

[Blueflame]

...and yet she believes that CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, and all the others are not leaning to the left. Typical.....

....and posted links to articles that support that opinion as well.

Here's another one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/03/opinion/03krug.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...and John Kerry is on record as saying that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat, and needed to be disarmed.

This was before he and everyone else in America found out the intel was bogus and that AWOL Boy had lied about the reasons for invading.

[watermock]

First the remaining weapons were hidden in Syria, and many have made their way to the Sudan.

Second, was Kerry lying as well, how were you to know until you put your footprint in there, since they were blocking the UN Inspectors constantly and firing at US planes patrolling the No Fly Zone?

Tommy Franks was on tonight and still thinks there are unaccounted BioWMD.

Finally, the invasion was the worst kept secret in the history of warfare and they still couldn't manage anything but run like cockroaches.

We surrounded Al Sadr's little house yesterday and could of blown it up to smitherines. Next time we will.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Rohirrim, guess what? We have a plan to invade practically every nation in the world....we have contigency plans to invade Cuba, Europe, Africa, China, Japan, Korea.....



Everyone else in the world believed that Iraq had WMD's...the Russians said he had them, Germans said he had them, French said he had them, British said he had them...practically every major power in the world claimed he had them. John Kerry said he had them...John Edwards saw the same intel that the president did and came to the same conclusion as Bush did, CIA director George Tenet said "it's a slam dunk" when asked about the intel that Iraq had WMD's. So I find it amazing that you blast Bush for going along with what the entire world said, and then bitch when he doesn't.



And of course you forget the 3,000 american civilians murdered on 9/11....not to mention the 25-30 million people liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq. You guys all claim Bush was obsessed with Iraq...and yet we invaded Afghanistan first.



No, it's led to Libya giving up it's pursuit of WMD's....it's led to the discovery that Iran too, was pursuing WMD's....it's led to the Oil for Food scandal being discovered....it's led to the liberation of 12-15 million women being able to have avoice in how their lives are govern in two countries where rights for them were non-existent.....it's led to the liberation of over 25 million people....it's led to the annihilation of one of the world';s most dispicable regimes that beat, tortured, and murdered women, children and practically anyone else they wanted to...it's led to the discovery of mass graves....it's led to the discovery of other attacks planned by terrorists around the world...and it's led the terrorists to Iraq, rather than the streets of Anytown, USA....where the US Marines, 82nd & 101st Airborne and the Air Cav will arrange their meeting with Allah.



...well, now that you mentioned it....YES they are.


great responses...rep if the rep gods allow it

[Rohirrim]

Rohirrim, guess what? We have a plan to invade practically every nation in the world....we have contigency plans to invade Cuba, Europe, Africa, China, Japan, Korea.....

Those are military contigency plans, kept at the Pentagon. Wolfie's invasion plan was part of a whole new political/military doctrine hatched at the AEI.


Everyone else in the world believed that Iraq had WMD's...the Russians said he had them, Germans said he had them, French said he had them, British said he had them...practically every major power in the world claimed he had them. John Kerry said he had them...John Edwards saw the same intel that the president did and came to the same conclusion as Bush did, CIA director George Tenet said "it's a slam dunk" when asked about the intel that Iraq had WMD's. So I find it amazing that you blast Bush for going along with what the entire world said, and then bitch when he doesn't.

Just before we invaded, doubts were creeping in from Kay's reports. That's why our allies wanted the inspections to continue. The neocons couldn't wait for that. I ask myself, why not? Saddam was 100% totally contained and had been for 10 years. Why the rush? Why the mushroom clouds? It was a rush to war. The fever of the chickenhawks, that's why. They inflamed the country to war using 9/11 as their fire. Historians will look back on this the way they do "Remember the Maine." Exxon Mobile just posted 39% profits. They're pumping Iraqi oil. Makes ya think, eh?


And of course you forget the 3,000 american civilians murdered on 9/11....not to mention the 25-30 million people liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq. You guys all claim Bush was obsessed with Iraq...and yet we invaded Afghanistan first.

And are now letting Afghanistan fall back to the Taliban. No one has been "liberated" there, except for the heroin dealers who are now shipping freighters filled with opium out of Karachi and turning their profits over to OBL and the Taliban.

Iraq was a mistake based on ideology. Iraq also, for those who are extremely hard of hearing, had nothing to do with 9/11!!! Now, even Tommy Franks is gently pointing out that the plans in Iraqi were crap. When they went flying into Baghdad, they were supposed to have a bunch of money (to replace the troops they didn't have) to spread around to quiet down the populace. Too bad the money wasn't there - and neither were the troops.

No, it's led to Libya giving up it's pursuit of WMD's....it's led to the discovery that Iran too, was pursuing WMD's....it's led to the Oil for Food scandal being discovered....it's led to the liberation of 12-15 million women being able to have avoice in how their lives are govern in two countries where rights for them were non-existent.....it's led to the liberation of over 25 million people....it's led to the annihilation of one of the world';s most dispicable regimes that beat, tortured, and murdered women, children and practically anyone else they wanted to...it's led to the discovery of mass graves....it's led to the discovery of other attacks planned by terrorists around the world...and it's led the terrorists to Iraq, rather than the streets of Anytown, USA....where the US Marines, 82nd & 101st Airborne and the Air Cav will arrange their meeting with Allah.

Libya offered up that deal to Clinton about five years ago. It's been on hold ever since. The end game in Iraq hasn't been played yet. Who's to say that they won't elect an Imam in two years that's even worse? No. It's not our business to wander the planet like the international handyman, fixing everybody's problems. BTW, this humanitarian argument only popped up when the "mushroom clouds" turned into bs, then the bioweapons turned into bs, and the Al Queda connection turned into bs. Bush is playing Wheel of Fortune with the American people; he'll just keep spinning that wheel until something comes up that works.

...well, now that you mentioned it....YES they are

What a load. Rent a history book. After the Battle of Britain, the Brits already had the upper hand on Germany. We helped them mop up. The Russkys had kicked the crap out of the Nazis at Stalingrad and were in the process of pushing them back through Poland. The French Resistance during WWII is a very heroic story. Read about it some time. Many French (men and women) gave their lives in the fight - many in dark basements, all alone, at the hands of the Gestapo. The Russians lost in Afghanistan like we lost in Vietnam.

BTW, the game ain't over yet in Afghanistan or Iraq. Will our efforts be rewarded, or will these areas of the world be worse off than they were when we went in? Only time will tell. So far, the Taliban are re-claiming Afghanistan. OBL and Omar are still alive and well. We can't claim "Mission Accomplished" there. Iraq may be on the verge of all-out civil war. Al Queda have flocked to the country to attack Americans. Kidnappings have gone from political weapons to simple bandits looking for a payday. Chaos is starting to creep in. Do we have enough troops in the country to stop it? Will this be a victory, or another Vietnam?

And the question every American must answer: Was Iraq crucial to America's interests and safety?

Ignore how many times Bush repeats his little mantra ("America is safer") as if he's trying to hypnotize some country bumpkin - think for yourself. Is it true? I'm not buying.

[Rascal]

...and John Kerry is on record as saying that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat, and needed to be disarmed.

This was before he and everyone else in America found out the intel was bogus and that AWOL Boy had lied about the reasons for invading.


Hey numbnuts....

Bush lied huh? The intel was wrong, and like everybody else he believed the intel even though it was wrong despite coming from at least three different intelligence agencies (not only US).

Bush invaded because of bad intel...whose fault is that...the intelligence agencies. Do you remember the last president that invaded because of poor intelligence? Let me give you a hint...it happened twice during his presidency and yet people claim him as being a great president.

[Exile_In_SJ]

Did you also hear that Billy Jeff (whom I voted for) gave no bid contracts to Halliburton in Kosovo? What was the Clinton - Halliburton connection?

[Rascal]

What a load. Rent a history book. After the Battle of Britain, the Brits already had the upper hand on Germany. We helped them mop up. The Russkys had kicked the crap out of the Nazis at Stalingrad and were in the process of pushing them back through Poland. The French Resistance during WWII is a very heroic story. Read about it some time. Many French (men and women) gave their lives in the fight - many in dark basements, all alone, at the hands of the Gestapo. The Russians lost in Afghanistan like we lost in Vietnam.


LOL!!!

After the Battle of Britain the Brits had the upper hand? Are you kiddin me? The barely managed to hold off an invasion force. There was no way in hell they had the ability to go and invade mainland Europe by themselves and they knew it. Try reading some of Churchill's memoirs.

Yes fortunately Hitler was a dumbass and decided to go attack Russia. But as was pointed out if we hadn't been massing troops in England preparing for an invasion those troops defending against that invasion would have been used in Russia. Would it have mattered...who knows because it didn't happen.

Yes the French have "SOME" heroic stories about their underground...but that is all they have about anything heroic in WWII or something they can be proud of. To suggest the French are nothing but of bunch of pansies is ridiculous.

And the Russians lost against a much weaker opponent then we lost to in Vietnam. Although the results probably would have been the same if we had switched who was attacking whom in each location.

[Rohirrim]

LOL!!!

After the Battle of Britain the Brits had the upper hand? Are you kiddin me? The barely managed to hold off an invasion force. There was no way in hell they had the ability to go and invade mainland Europe by themselves and they knew it. Try reading some of Churchill's memoirs.

Yes fortunately Hitler was a dumbass and decided to go attack Russia. But as was pointed out if we hadn't been massing troops in England preparing for an invasion those troops defending against that invasion would have been used in Russia. Would it have mattered...who knows because it didn't happen.

Yes the French have "SOME" heroic stories about their underground...but that is all they have about anything heroic in WWII or something they can be proud of. To suggest the French are nothing but of bunch of pansies is ridiculous.

And the Russians lost against a much weaker opponent then we lost to in Vietnam. Although the results probably would have been the same if we had switched who was attacking whom in each location.

I didn't say they had the upper hand and could invade solo, I said they stopped the German invasion - which gave them the upper hand in defense.

IMO, the Russkys lost in Afghanistan for the same reason the U.S. lost in Vietnam: Dinosaur thinking. This always happens in wars throughout history. Forces use old strategies to deal with new threats. That's why I back Kerry's ideas for doubling Special Forces. We need small, multi-talented forces; super-soldiers, who speak the language, create allegiances as they fight, gain intelligence on the ground, and move fast. I think that would be more effective against guerilla or terrorist tactics.

[Rascal]

BS

You said they had the upper hand period. Which implys they were in the better situation. They also stopped the invasion the first time, if Hitler hadn't invaded Russia or if Russia had fallen he would have tried again but this time with jets.

[errand]

...and John Kerry is on record as saying that Saddam had WMD's and was a threat, and needed to be disarmed.

This was before he and everyone else in America found out the intel was bogus and that AWOL Boy had lied about the reasons for invading.


If the intel was bogus, then why couldn't he figure that out during the congressional briefings that they get all the time? your going to have to do better than that.....Kerry and his cronies made the same claims that Bush did....and for that matter, he didn't find out the intel was flawed any sooner than Bush did. If you really want to tell the truth....we ALL found out it was flawed at the same time.


But explain this to me......

Al-Queada and their cronies have had cells in America, throughout Africa, Europe, and the middle East, the Far East (Phillipines, Indonesia)....and yet, you want us to believe that they were never in Iraq?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hey numbnuts....

Bush lied huh?

That's correct, assclown.

Remember Con-dee's remarks about "mushroom clouds?" (Among numerous other examples of misleading and false statements by the bushistas.)

The extent to which the intel was hyped, cherry-picked, forged, etc., wasn't known until after Dim Son invaded.

You get an 'F' in revisonist history.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Al-Queada and their cronies have had cells in America, throughout Africa, Europe, and the middle East, the Far East (Phillipines, Indonesia)....and yet, you want us to believe that they were never in Iraq?

If you don't know the answer to this already then you are either blissfully unaware of the facts or in denial.

Under Hussein, Iraq was a military/secular dictatorship. Dictators like Hussein have zero tolerance for individuals like bin Laden and groups like al Qaeda because these individuals/groups constitute a threat to their absolute hegemony/power.

Osama bin Laden referred to Hussein as an "infidel." Why? Because Iraq was a secular society that snubbed bin Laden's islamic fundamentalist beliefs.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/not-recklis.gif

[errand]

Al-Queada and their cronies have had cells in America, throughout Africa, Europe, and the middle East, the Far East (Phillipines, Indonesia)....and yet, you want us to believe that they were never in Iraq?

If you don't know the answer to this already then you are either blissfully unaware of the facts or in denial.

Under Hussein, Iraq was a military/secular dictatorship. Dictators like Hussein have zero tolerance for individuals like bin Laden and groups like al Qaeda because these individuals/groups constitute a threat to their absolute hegemony/power.

Osama bin Laden referred to Hussein as an "infidel." Why? Because Iraq was a secular society that snubbed bin Laden's islamic fundamentalist beliefs.

so your claiming that al-queda can infiltrate every nation known to man, but not Iraq? Yeah, the probability of that is even greater than hitting the lottery the same day as being bitten by a shark and getting sturck by lightning twice.

And because Saddam was so intolerant of these militants, they have now come to Iraq and have began an insurgency to what? Get him back in power?

Explain to us why, if he didn't tolerate al-queada, they would so much as lift even a little finger to help him repel the infidels from America? your logic doesn't make sense.

Saddam hated al-queda and Osama....and yet, they have all flocked to Saddam's defense? what's wrong with this picture?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

so your claiming that al-queda can infiltrate every nation known to man, but not Iraq?

How many experts and investigations will it take to convince you that al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq? (Before Dim Son invaded, that is.) The 9/11 commission just concluded in its report that there was no evidence whatsoever of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

You also missed my point about Iraq as a secular state and a military dictatorship under Hussein. Al Qaeda finds supporters and recruits in islamic theocracies, e.g., fundamentalist states where people are sympathetic to its worldview. (States like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, for example.)

And because Saddam was so intolerant of these militants, they have now come to Iraq and have began an insurgency to what? Get him back in power?

Some of the troublemakers in the country right now are Saddam loyalists (Iraqis) who want him back. Some are 'jihadists' from other islamic states who are either members of al Qaeda (or other terrorist groups) or just sympathetic to the cause of fighting "the great satan." For the latter, any chance to kill Americans is a gift from fricking Allah.

Explain to us why, if he didn't tolerate al-queada, they would so much as lift even a little finger to help him repel the infidels from America? your logic doesn't make sense.

Al Qaeda and other like-minded jihadists are not in Iraq because they give two sh*ts about Saddam or because they want to help him. They're there for their own agenda, i.e., to defeat "the great satan."
And the reason they are able to use Iraq as their theater is because Saddam is gone and the whole country is in a state of chaos and disorder.

Saddam hated al-queda and Osama....and yet, they have all flocked to Saddam's defense? what's wrong with this picture?

See above.

They aren't 'flocking' to anyone's defense. They are merely capitalizing on another opportunity to fight their "holy war" against America. Does "Somalia" ring a bell?

[Rascal]

Bush invaded because of bad intel...whose fault is that...the intelligence agencies. Do you remember the last president that invaded because of poor intelligence? Let me give you a hint...it happened twice during his presidency and yet people claim him as being a great president.

Bump.

[enjolras]

Saddam hated al-queda and Osama....and yet, they have all flocked to Saddam's defense? what's wrong with this picture?

Hell right now the Baathists and Al-Qeada style terrorists are duking it out over who gets to control Iraq when the 'great insurgency' or whatever the hell they're calling it is over. That's pretty strong evidence that they are not there in support of Saddam, but rather in support of themselves. Al-Qeada sees the power vacuum created by the fall of Saddam as an opportunity to beat the great American enemy and establish a Afghanistan style territory for them to congregate in again.

I do beleive Al-Qeada was in Iraq.. just like Al-Qeada is in America, England, and even Canada. The question isn't whether or not Al-Qeada was THERE, but rather was Saddam actively supporting Al-Qeada? Intelligence had shown before the war, and the new reports reiterate that no such link likely existed beyond cursory contact in the early 90's.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/save-some-religion.jpg

[watermock]

The Intel wasn't flawed.

Saddam shipped the WMD which was left to Syria, and some of it was shipped again to the Sudan. There was serious consideration to invade Syria in 2003.

The only reason I worry about the enemy is thinking is how I can kill him.

We have hit them harder than anyone in the Clinton Adminsitration by a factor of 1000. If people don't realize it that is their ignorance.

[BroncoInferno]

The Intel wasn't flawed.

Saddam shipped the WMD which was left to Syria, and some of it was shipped again to the Sudan. There was serious consideration to invade Syria in 2003.

Once again, mock straightens us all out with facts rather than rampant specualtion. ::)

[watermock]

Think what you want.