T Nation

A Reason for War?


#21

See? I don't get how love your country = love your government's policies. There are people here whose job it is to mock & ridicule our governments & they're not fundamentalists or 'anti-Canadian.'

  • here's a dictionary definition of conservatism (with a lower-case 'c'):
    1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party
    2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change
    3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

I also looked up Republican (capital R) in another dictionary & it said that the whole reason the party was created was to slow the spread of slavery. How things have changed! Now with all the deregulation they want, it's like they want to increase slavery! LOL


#22

Dustin, roy batty, mon queb,
Dustin, never let roy get you worked up. He is someone who started off as a Republican and became a drifter. He thinks it makes him unique. Actually, it just makes him indecisive and a little bit sad. He is the exception that makes the rule. Most people start out buying the false idealism that the democrats spew. Then they become educated and vote Republican. When asked whether I am a Republican, I always say, "I think, therefore I am." Thanks, Descartes. roy, will twist your words. Like any leftie, he can't win by the strict rules of logic. He typed, "So Islamic fundamentalists are the ONLY ones who kill people? Did you really type that?" Actually, you didn't. Here is what you typed, (whole quote included for you iscariot. No context crap) "Easy, one goes around killing infidels and themselves in the name of Allah, the other doesn't." roy is not any fun. He's too boring and predictable. If you want to have some real chills and spills, try arguing with iscariot. His thought processes are incredibly random. In a perverse way, that makes him interesting. Unfortunately, that guy is a bona fide anti-American. Therefore, never allow yourself to like him.
ALL RIGHT MORONS. BEFORE DECLARING THAT THERE ARE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, HOW ABOUT WAITING UNTIL WE MAKE OUR PRESENTATION TO THE WORLD. IN CASE YOU HAVE BEEN SLEEPING, WE HAVE ALREADY FOUND TWO OF THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS LABS THAT COLIN POWELL CORRECTLY STATED THE IRAQI'S HAD. DID I MENTION THAT THOSE LABS WERE NOT ONLY UNDECLARED, BUT WERE A VIOLATION OF MULTIPLE UN RESOLUTIONS. THERE ARE ALSO UNCONFIRMED REPORTS OF CHEMICALS IN THE RIVER NEXT TO BAGHDAD. THINK!!! WE WILL MAKE THE PRESENTATION WHEN WE HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. NOT BEFORE. WE REALIZE HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE THE MOST ACCURATE PRESENTATION POSSIBLE. IF WE MAKE A MISTAKE, THE bad guys WILL BE ALL OVER IT. PLEASE, I BEG YOU, NO MORE OF THIS, "THERE ARE NO WMD'S" CRAP. I KNOW IT'S HARD, BUT BE PATIENT. YOU IDIOTS WILL ULTIMATELY BE PROVED TO HAVE BEEN WRONG IN THE MOST DEVASTATINGLY OBVIOUS WAY POSSIBLE.
mon quebec, for blatant stupidity and lack of any formal education, I sentence you to living in quebec, envying the United States, and being of french descent. Wait. You are already all of those things. I can't think of a worse punishment.


#23

I don't think I would have as many problems as I have with the war if it weren't being directed by war profiteers. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt thundered against war profiteers - "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this disaster" - and Harry Truman (senator, vice president, president) described some forms of war profiteering as "treason." In World War I, businessmen who used the conflict as cover while they lined their own pockets were denounced by Sen. Robert La Follette as "enemies of democracy in the homeland." (We need a Department of Homeland Democracy at least as much as we need a Department of Homeland Security, and we need somebody like La Follette to run it.)

There is no such outrage in the Bush White House, nor among the Republican majority in Congress. They are happily complicit in the awarding of huge contracts, without competitive bids, to their big campaign contributors such as Halliburton, the vice president's old firm, and Bechtel. If Truman were in the Senate, he'd haul Dick Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld before an investigative committee so quick it'd make their heads spin.

And why is the Bush administration not angry about companies that continue to profit from government contracts even as they establish dummy "headquarters" off-shore so they won't have to pay American taxes?

Ah, but these are all just leftist ponderings. Just ignore everything I say.


#24

I think the people in Kuwait & Iran all knew that Iraq didn't have anything & therefore didn't perceive Iraq as a threat. Just look at the media there. Sure, they hated Saddam Hussein but they weren't afraid of him. Do you know that Hitler became the most popular leader in German history because he made his underlings think weak countries were immediate threats, invaded them & went from triumph to triumph like that? Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but look at him now.

US=GG are you calling Wolfowitz a liar?


#25

Oh yeah, I only picked Hitler because he was the 1st who came to mind. He's definitely not the only one who did that sort of thing.


#26

"Oh, Gee... I am not a fundamentalist, therefore I am not conservative."


Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension. I never said that you were or were not a fundamentalist. I'm perfectly aware that having a religious belief doesn't automatically mean conservativism.


"You clearly don't know the definition of conservative or libral."


Clearly, I do. You just didn't understand what I said.


"Don't ever question my partriotism or love for my country."


Ouch! I struck a nerve didn't I.


In fact, the very fact that you hate anyone complaining about the government just shows that you don't give a flip about what America really stands for.


No, I don't hate anyone, even you Roy. My post was regarding your obvious hatred for this administration. I've yet to hear you say anything postive about George W, or the administration itself. Your paranoia over the Patriot Act is always interesting. By listening to your posts you'd think we were living in Nazi Germany.


"So Islamic fundamentalists are the ONLY ones who kill people?"


In recent history, on a large scale, yes. Do christians go around converting or killing those that don't want to convert to christianity? No wait, that's the muslims that hide behind there religion of peace.


"Did you really type that?"


Yep, are you hard of hearing?


"It is scary that people like you, with no interest in the past or sense of history, are voters."


Honestly Roy, I probably have just as much knowledge of history as you do. At least that is what I'm going to school for. And yes, I'm well aware of The Crusades and the like. Christians did kill in God's name. This of course was in response to Muslim crusades.


"I noticed you avoided my reply to you on the "hell yeah war" thread. I addressed your reply to me directly, and you just sort of missed that one..."


Yes Roy, your intellectual prowess scares me. That's why I avoided you. Actually you didn't respond to my post until about a week after I made mine. Sorry, didn't feel like posting again on something I lost interest in, or on an already dead thread.


"probably because you didn't have enough of a background in recent history to hold your own in a debate."


I have plenty of background in recent history to hold my own in a debate. Is there something you'd like to debate? A recent event in history perhaps?


"For you it has to descend in to name calling."


I don't remember calling you any names. If I did it was a past thread and I called you a liberal, which in several posts your disdain for George W. made you appear to be one.


"If you don't know an intelligent repsonse, call someone a "leftist". That makes you look really smart and witty."


Thanks, I'll keep that one in mind.


In all seriousness, I could care less if we find WMD. They were in the damn country and there are all sorts of evidence to suggest this. Anecdotes for chemical weapons found on Iraqi soldiers, mobile labs, secret buildings found out in the middle of the desert. In my eyes the war was nessesary and Saddams out of power.


Lastly Roy, I do not follow our government blindly. Our 15 billion dollar give away to Africa is ridiculous, as is our border policy, or lack thereof. No one in either party has the testicles to enforce our borders. Not exacly helping U.S citizens now is it?


Sorry, forgot to say that you might like George W. It just seems that you don't in some of your posts.


Dustin


#27

United States=Good Guys,


He didn't work me up too bad. Thanks for the heads-up. I'll remember that when I defend america in future anti-american threads. :slight_smile:


Dustin


#28

Well, its becoming obvious that the CIA really didn't know what Iraq did or didn't have.
But did anyone in the Bush Admin ever question the intel?
Or were Rumsfeld & co. all too eager to get the war started for the benefit of Halliburton & Bechtel?

Nobody questions that Hussein DID possess WMDs, but how recently he had them is the issue- and if Washington knew about it.

Gee, do you think Hussein & his sons are really hiding in some hut or still buried in a bombed bldg?

Where could they hide SO well with the country in control of Shi'ite Muslims- who hate him & would obviously do anything to get rid of him.

Isn't it possible he bought his way out? They obviously knew what was coming seeing as his crack regiments didn't put up much of a fierce fight NOR use all those WMDs.

Saddam is probably running a cocktail lounge in Chile - imagine the happy hour!

Theres just too many cracks showing and the shit isn't sticking to the wall anymore.


#29

Paranoia about the Patriot Act? The president has a bust of Winston Churchill on his desk in the oval office, given to him by Tony Blair. Churchill said that "for a government to put a person in prison without trial by his peers is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian governments, whether nazi or communist." He said that in 1943, condemning proposals of a similar nature in England, which weren't enacted. Remember, in 1943 England was in pretty desperate straits - it was under attack and facing destruction by the most vicious military force in history, and nevertheless Churchill rightly described measures like these as "in the highest degree odious", and "the foundation of totalitarian governments." There is really no threat to the United States, never mind one similar to the threat of the Nazis to Britain. So people should be much more 'paranoid' than they are right now. Canada has had the War Measures Act since WWI, but it's only ever been used once because we've never really had a tyrannical government. American patsies maybe, but not tyrants.


#30

Here we go again with the Nazi references. Monsiour, I know I have nothing to worry about. The gestapo hasn't visited my house anytime recently. The Patriot Act isn't going to keep me up at night.


If it can be proven to prevent terrorism, fine. If not, then it was a waste of time and resources. That's all.


Why does anything the U.S government might do bother you? Do you Monsiour have anything to hide? Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Ooops, sorry got a little carried away. But hey you don't live in America so why am I even responding to you?


Dustin


#31

I hid the weapons of mass destruction in my igloo. Mr. Hussein came over to reclaim them but he cheaped me out and refused to pay GST on the storage bill. Then he leered at one of my wives when he thought I wasn't looking. So I kicked him in the junk and held his head under water 'till he stopped squirming.


#32

Dustin>> Hey! I know members of the Communist Party of Alberta! :slightly_smiling:


#33

Here's a great article that's an overview on what we spent on the war (as much as 2.2 million just on the first-night "bunker buster" attack, on a bunker that did not exist!). Plus which politicians are going to get huge tax breaks, while 80 percent of Americans who earn under $77,000 will get back $29.50 (yahoo). Under the Republicans, the Pentagon has lost track of a trillion dollars worth of material. Meanwhile all over America, schools can't meet their budgets. Good times!

Homeland Insecurity
U.S. Schools, Middle Class, Poor Take Shelling
June 4 - 10, 2003

The Council on Foreign Relations estimates the cost of occupying Iraq with 75,000 troops at $20 billion a year. But the real cost is likely to be higher since we have 125,000 troops in Iraq now. How long they will be there is anybody's guess, because commanders were reported as saying last week that the fighting is not yet over.

If the Iraq war adds to the growing deficit, so does the fact that under Rumsfeld's command the Pentagon has somehow lost track of $1 trillion worth of materiel. According to a study from the GAO, conducted late last year, those losses include 56 planes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin cruise missile command launch units.

Then there are the little things, like the cost of blowing up Saddam's bunker. Bush said he had to start the war early on March 20 so as to kill Saddam, his sons, and other top officials at a secret meeting in a bunker. According to reports last week, that bunker did not exist.

But consider what it cost, according to estimates by an analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation:

Two stealth fighters, at $1,500 an hour each for three hours: $9,000

Two Navy Prowlers as escort, at $4,000 an hour. Total for three hours: $24,000

Two bunker-buster bombs, at $60,000 a pop. Total: $120,000

Two Tomahawk missiles, at $750,000 to $1 million each. Total: $2 million

The grand total? Somewhere between $1.6 million and $2.2 million to take out a nonexistent bunker.

That might not seem like much, the way the Pentagon throws around money, but it would pay for at least 1 million school lunches (at $2.14 each) for kids from poor families.

Meanwhile, back at the White House, Bush knows he's got to do something about the economy for re-election. As a purported stimulus plan, he pushes through Congress a tax-refund plan on stock dividends. Over half of all Americans don't own stock, and most of those who do hold piddling amounts. But the theory is that if you give the rich a break, they'll spend money on capital goods and services that will trickle down to create jobs, the rich tide lifting all boats. Few economists think that is very likely to happen. But one thing is for sure. The tax plan is a great windfall for the president and his cabinet.

The total estimated tax savings, on dividends and capital gains, that Cheney, Bush, and the cabinet are likely to enjoy under the tax-cut plan will run anywhere from $800,993 to $3.2 million, according to an analysis by L.A. Democratic congressman Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Government Reform.

This averages out to at least $42,000 per cabinet member?and as much as $167,000. Cheney would come out a happy camper, with about $116,000 saved, and Rumsfeld reaps as much as $604,000. Colin Powell, forever the good guy, will make out quite nicely, gaining anywhere from $109,506 to $670,150.

The tax refund is a rip-off for the rich. Benefits to the top 1 percent of all taxpayers will average $11,483. The 80 percent of taxpayers who earn $77,000 or less come out with a miserable $29.50.

The three largest shareholders among officers and directors of Fortune 100 companies will save an estimated $120 million a year in total, meaning an annual average of $400,000 each. All told, these 300 execs will gain $1.3 billion over 10 years.

To cover the cost of the giveaways to Bush's inner circle, the 300 execs, and others?not to mention covering $1 trillion of Pentagon losses caused by lousy management?Bush will cut back the nation's social welfare programs.

Education, one of the president's domestic priorities ("Leave no child behind"), is apparently first to go under the knife. Examples:

? Tens of thousands of California teachers already have received layoff notices. They had been hired over the last few years to reduce class size. The classes are climbing back to where they were.

? In Colorado, schools are going to a four-day week to trim costs. Local businesses are trying to help out by purchasing classroom supplies and groceries for teachers.

? Two-thirds of Florida's pre-kindergarten programs have been axed.

? A newly built library in Hawaii has no books.

? Parents in Idaho are raising teachers' salaries through bake sales.

? Half the school districts in Kansas have cut staff, and some now charge students to participate in extracurricular events.

Elsewhere, more than 41 million people have no health insurance, and those numbers are believed to have increased under Bush. Half of all women who get pregnant don't get prenatal care because they don't have the money. Half of the nation's personal bankruptcies occur because of medical debts. Neither the administration nor Congress is any closer to a health-care solution.

In the past decade, homelessness has tripled in America's big cities. Some 3.5 million people now are homeless, but programs for low-cost housing are being cut. Prisons are bursting, from 1.2 million occupants in 2001 to about 2 million today. The price of natural gas, the clean fuel pushed by industry to replace dirty coal, was $1.58 per million BTUs in 1990. By 2000, it was $4.08 per million BTUs. And last Friday it stood at $5.99.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0323/mondo1.php


#34

To Dustin.

The Crusades were not in response to Jihad (Islamic Crusade).


#35

Wolfowitz has now admitted that the war was about oil:

Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003

Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war.

The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.

The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.

Asked why a nuclear power such as North Korea was being treated differently from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction had been found, the deputy defence minister said: "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."

Mr Wolfowitz went on to tell journalists at the conference that the US was set on a path of negotiation to help defuse tensions between North Korea and its neighbours - in contrast to the more belligerent attitude the Bush administration displayed in its dealings with Iraq.

His latest comments follow his widely reported statement from an interview in Vanity Fair last month, in which he said that "for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on: weapons of mass destruction."

Prior to that, his boss, defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, had already undermined the British government's position by saying Saddam Hussein may have destroyed his banned weapons before the war.

Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK governments, which are both facing fierce criticism at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify the war.

Amid growing calls from all parties for a public inquiry, the foreign affairs select committee announced last night it would investigate claims that the UK government misled the country over its evidence of Iraq's WMD.

The move is a major setback for Tony Blair, who had hoped to contain any inquiry within the intelligence and security committee, which meets in secret and reports to the prime minister.

In the US, the failure to find solid proof of chemical, biological and nuclear arms in Iraq has raised similar concerns over Mr Bush's justification for the war and prompted calls for congressional investigations.

Mr Wolfowitz is viewed as one of the most hawkish members of the Bush administration. The 57-year old expert in international relations was a strong advocate of military action against Afghanistan and Iraq.

Following the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon, Mr Wolfowitz pledged that the US would pursue terrorists and "end" states' harbouring or sponsoring of militants.

Prior to his appointment to the Bush cabinet in February 2001, Mr Wolfowitz was dean and professor of international relations at the Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), of the Johns Hopkins University.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,970331,00.html

If you go to the Guardian story, there is a link to the Defense Dept. transcripts.


#36

Well here's one thing no one has pointed out yet:

If Bush lied and tried to get the intelligence community to back him up, then so did Clinton, so did Gore, so did France and Germany, so did the UN. ALL of these people have maintained and continue to maintain that Saddam had WMDs.

I think we all remember Tom Daschle's speech in '98 about how Saddam was evil and would not respond to diplomacy and only understood force.

So Lumpy and MQ, are you prepared to say all those other people lied also? Or are you like Tom Daschle and your opinion has nothing to do with what is right and what you believe, but rather you only hate Republicans and are making shit up?


#37

Oh Lumpy,

Found on the Guardian Website Today

Correction

Paul Wolfowitz
A report which was posted on our website on June 4 under the heading "Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil" misconstrued remarks made by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, making it appear that he had said that oil was the main reason for going to war in Iraq. He did not say that. He said, according to the department of defence website, "The ... difference between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil. In the case of North Korea, the country is teetering on the edge of economic collapse and that I believe is a major point of leverage whereas the military picture with North Korea is very different from that with Iraq." The sense was clearly that the US had no economic options by means of which to achieve its objectives, not that the economic value of the oil motivated the war. The report appeared only on the website and has now been removed.

Best of Luck


#38

Older Lifter,
I love it!!! Nice job destroying lumpy. The problem is that it is far too easy. Instead of working out or trying to educate himself, lumpy spends his time on these disreputable websites. When he finds one from some college dropout, he copies it (ALL OF IT) I might add. He's one of those morons who thinks, "If it's written it's true." My suggestion to you is this: show him to be a hypocrite and a dumbass two more times, then ignore him completely. Then we will nominate someone else. We can't have him influencing anyone else. There are already far too many dipshits running around.


#39

US=GG, you're finally using the weapon all brainless idiots usually have to content with. It's a shame you abandoned you logical, thoughtfull, mature, coeherent and intelligent speech that I've grown to love so much, in favour of personal attacks and insults that caracterize those who have no other way to defend their points.

And fitone, the war aint over, your murderous actions might be but there's another one going on.

Restless-hating patriotic nationalistic nazis since as long as he can remember...


#40

"So Lumpy and MQ, are you prepared to say all those other people lied also?"

Sure, if it makes you happy. Except that it was the Bush administration who used a trumped-up threat to our security as a "convenient excuse" for war. That's a big difference. I suppose it is un-American for me to expect the President not to lie to citizens about why we are committing troops and spending billions of dollars, illegally invading a sovereign nation with a pre-emptive strike? Why is lying about blowjobs impeachable, and lying about sending the country to war is not?

Just how much better is the US military doing, finding those WMD, than the UN weapons inspectors did? Now that we own Iraq, inspectors are free to go wherever they want, whenever they want.

US=GG
You can dish it out, but you can't take it. What do you plan on spending your $29.50 tax rebate on? Perhaps a new blender? Dinner for four at McDonalds? Personally, I would rather have that money pay for a health care plan.. Don't get mad at me, I'm not the one driving the economy into a ditch. If you don't like the news, I don't know what to tell ya.

Older Lifter
Nice catch. I am just pointing out news stories I find interesting. If the stories get retracted, well I guess I should be embarrassed. Not "Jessica Lynch" embarrassed, not "WMD" embarrassed, but still a little embarrassed all the same.