I Hate Dialysis Message Board
Off-Topic => Off-Topic: Talk about anything you want. => Topic started by: skillpete on May 16, 2007, 08:37:49 PM
-
I like the people I work with, but I learned not to talk politics with some of them because they INFURIATE ME! I think we're all entitled to our own opinions but when I hear people say that our country and the current administration is doing juuuuust fine and anyone who speaks against the war is against the troops or anti-American or a liberal or whatever bullcrap they hear on FOX news or from some talk radio host who's just following party lines. Meanwhile my nephew is serving his 3rd tour in Iraq, one of which was in Fallujah! I hate when people just repeat things they hear out of a playbook and have no knowledge from their own personal research. Instead of listening and watching only Right wing or only Left wing programs, all they have to do is watch both and use this great modern tool called the internet properly, or watch FRONLINE or PBS or the BBC and sometimes just read alot of articles and critically think things through and formulate an intelligent coherent opinion that corresponds with the events that are unfolding around us. We're the ones who pay ridiculous taxes and inflated gas prices, and don't even get me started on health care and stem cell research, why is religion involved in curing diseases! . I want our troops to come home safe and I want the foolishness and the brainwashing and the fear tactics and the lies to stop already!!! I'm sorry if my opinions are strong, I truly don't mean to offend anyone's political views , I'm just exercising my first amendment rights. Thanx
EDITED: Removed All Caps From Subject Line - Sluff/ Administrator
-
First of all I too have plenty of friends and Brothers fighting the war in Iraq. I am not condoning the war, but I do believe in supporting our troops and our Commander in Chief. Bottom line that's what we do, we don't run! :usaflag;
-
My thought on the subject is to support our troops, government, and country but i don't support wrongful invasion of a country in the 21st century.
Our Government and Military call them "insurgents" and "terrorists" fighting U.S. military in there own country with there own lifestyles and beliefs against ours.
All these middle east countries have been around and managed to survive with there lifestyle thousands of years before America came on board as a country. Islam as a whole has been the dominate religion and way of life for most of the middle east close to two thousand years now by force.
No way were we suppose to invade Iraq blind folded and they warned us of that in advance and continue to warn us :banghead; President Bush just say :oops; we made a mistake :urcrazy;
and pull out :banghead;
EDITED: Fixed :oops; Icon - Sluff/ Admin
-
I wonder what the insurgents and terrorists call the American Military ???
-
I Support Our Troops!!! and I do not care what the terrorists call us
http://ihatedialysis.com/forum/index.php?topic=3164.0
-
I'm not going to pretend I keep up to date on all the happenings in Iraq, but I know about WWII, and if someone had done something sooner, a whole lot of people probably would not have died. I also struggle with my contradictory feelings...on one hand, they are their own country, who are we to say what they should or shouldn't do? On the other hand, people's human rights were being violated on a massive scale, don't we (not we the US, but we the whole world) have a responsibility to step in and do something? If you see a murder happening and just look the other way, aren't you morally and ethically guilty too?
-
I like the people I work with, but I learned not to talk politics with some of them because they INFURIATE ME! I think we're all entitled to our own opinions but when I hear people say that our country and the current administration is doing juuuuust fine and anyone who speaks against the war is against the troops or anti-American or a liberal or whatever bullcrap they hear on FOX news or from some talk radio host who's just following party lines. Meanwhile my nephew is serving his 3rd tour in Iraq, one of which was in Fallujah! I hate when people just repeat things they hear out of a playbook and have no knowledge from their own personal research. Instead of listening and watching only Right wing or only Left wing programs, all they have to do is watch both and use this great modern tool called the internet properly, or watch FRONLINE or PBS or the BBC and sometimes just read alot of articles and critically think things through and formulate an intelligent coherent opinion that corresponds with the events that are unfolding around us. We're the ones who pay ridiculous taxes and inflated gas prices, and don't even get me started on health care and stem cell research, why is religion involved in curing diseases! . I want our troops to come home safe and I want the foolishness and the brainwashing and the fear tactics and the lies to stop already!!! I'm sorry if my opinions are strong, I truly don't mean to offend anyone's political views , I'm just exercising my first amendment rights. Thanx
So what does your nephew say? Because my cousin says he is glad he/we are over there because they will be on our door step if we pull out.
Should we have also ignored Europe when they were annihilating the Jews....just turned our heads? If we are so tolerant then why can't they practice their beliefs over on our soil. Just chop off heads of their own. Because it is wrong and someone has to take charge. I think we should just take them over. They had their chance.
I have a right to my opinion too. They don't in their country. You choose.
-
I would like to say that the US didn't get involved in WWII in Europe until after Pearl Harbour.
The US also didn't get involved with the mass genocide in Croatia.
Also, the US continues to fund Israel and turns a blind eye to their actions i.e. when they started a war against Hamas but justified murdering innocents in the process.
All of these issues are complicated and many people will have their own opinions. I for one, would like to see the UK pull our soldiers out and let the Iraqi's sort it out amongst themselves. They don't really pose any major threat as a nation. It is the terrorist groups that infiltrate the West that all the effort should be concentrated on and peace in Palestine.
-
We dealt with Iraq for 12+ years and all that happened was time and time again Saddam would commit acts of war on the US in one form or another despite UN resolutions forbidding him threatening member states enforcing resolutions against him.
We all seen what a failure the policy of the 90's was with Al-Qaeda. Attack after attack until they got lucky and pulled the big one on 9/11.
We could no longer use the wait as see policy with Iraq and hope they didnt get lucky and commit a similar attack.
What is happening now is a broader fight on terrorism.
It is far better to fight them where they live, than to end up having them come here to fight them. Currently the terrorists in Iraq stay mainly to guns and IED's. If the fight comes to the mainland US they will not fight in the same manner. They will resort to something much bigger and deadlier if the fight comes here.
-
If the fight comes to the mainland US they will not fight in the same manner. They will resort to something much bigger and deadlier if the fight comes here.
Like the weapons of mass destruction that aren't? I think that is nothing more than a scare tacktic and an excuse to go in for the oil. Lets put the effort we spend in Iraq into our own country.
-
Like the weapons of mass destruction that aren't? I think that is nothing more than a scare tacktic and an excuse to go in for the oil. Lets put the effort we spend in Iraq into our own country.
Again you are mistaken george.
There have been numerous wmd found and removed from Iraq.
Sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas among many other things have been found and removed from Iraq. Over 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons have been found and removed from Iraq. Not to mention almost two tons of Uranium that Saddam claimed he NEVER had.
-
This adventure has been a disaster, a self inflicted disaster and it has nothing to do with the troops. It has everything to do with the awful, awful leadership of this administration. A war czar!?! http://www.postchronicle.com/news/security/article_21281391.shtml this is not going to help.
Gen. David Petraeus is going to report on the progress of the permanent escalation surge in September. What's going to happen if, as looks more and more likely by the day, he reports that there isn't anything more militarily that can be done. There is no plan B.
What a disaster. And we still have another 17 months of these jokers.
-
This adventure has been a disaster, a self inflicted disaster and it has nothing to do with the troops. It has everything to do with the awful, awful leadership of this administration. A war czar!?! http://www.postchronicle.com/news/security/article_21281391.shtml this is not going to help.
Gen. David Petraeus is going to report on the progress of the permanent escalation surge in September. What's going to happen if, as looks more and more likely by the day, he reports that there isn't anything more militarily that can be done. There is no plan B.
What a disaster. And we still have another 17 months of these jokers.
Haha...and the same clowns are poised to screw us over on immigration. Lots of legalized illegals, their babies, their parents, their poverty, and their disease all for you and me courtesy of the creeps in Washington.
-
I don't get this Immigration compromise maybe it's another thread but why exactly is having a US with a population of 350,000,000 better than having a US with a population of 300,000,000?? If there had been no immigration
amnesty "fix" in 1986 (or 1965 for that matter) would the US, on balance, be a worse place to live?
Back to Iraq the whole story is coming out in dribs and drabs (just like the debacle at the Department of Justice) I think we'll see more things like this: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/05/18/cpa_documents/index1.html If only the administration could comprehend this sentiment from 2004 "It is nothing personal," the Iraqi says. "I like you and believe you could be bringing us a better future, but I still sympathize with those who attack the coalition because it is not right for Iraq to be occupied by foreign military forces."
The administration's world view is crashing down in flames, which puts us all in danger.
-
April 12, 2006
Eye of the Beholder
by Victor Davis Hanson
The American Enterprise Online
War-torn Iraq has about 26 million residents, a peaceful California perhaps now 35 million. The former is a violent and impoverished landscape, the latter said to be paradise on Earth. But how you envision either place to some degree depends on the eye of the beholder and is predicated on what the daily media appear to make of each.
As a fifth-generation Californian, I deeply love this state, but still imagine what the reaction would be if the world awoke each morning to be told that once again there were six more murders, 27 rapes, 38 arsons, 180 robberies, and 360 instances of assault in California — yesterday, today, tomorrow, and every day. I wonder if the headlines would scream about “Nearly 200 poor Californians butchered again this month!”
How about a monthly media dose of “600 women raped in February alone!” Or try, “Over 600 violent robberies and assaults in March, with no end in sight!” Those do not even make up all of the state’s yearly 200,000 violent acts that law enforcement knows about.
Iraq’s judicial system seems a mess. On the eve of the war, Saddam let out 100,000 inmates from his vast prison archipelago. He himself still sits in the dock months after his trial began. But imagine an Iraq with a penal system like California’s with 170,000 criminals — an inmate population larger than those of Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Singapore combined.
Just to house such a shadow population costs our state nearly $7 billion a year — or about the same price of keeping 40,000 Army personnel per year in Iraq. What would be the image of our Golden State if we were reminded each morning, “Another $20 million spent today on housing our criminals”?
Some of California’s most recent prison scandals would be easy to sensationalize: “Guards watch as inmates are raped!” Or “Correction officer accused of having sex with underaged detainee!” And apropos of Saddam’s sluggish trial, remember that our home state multiple murderer, Tookie Williams, was finally executed in December 2005 — 26 years after he was originally sentenced.
Much is made of the inability to patrol Iraq’s borders with Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey. But California has only a single border with a foreign nation, not six. Yet over 3 million foreigners who snuck in illegally now live in our state. Worse, there are about 15,000 convicted alien felons incarcerated in our penal system, costing about $500 million a year. Imagine the potential tabloid headlines: “Illegal aliens in state comprise population larger than San Francisco!” or “Drugs, criminals, and smugglers given free pass into California!”
Every year, over 4,000 Californians die in car crashes — nearly twice the number of Americans lost so far in three years of combat operations in Iraq. In some sense, then, our badly maintained roads, and often poorly trained and sometimes intoxicated drivers, are even more lethal than Improvised Explosive Devices. Perhaps tomorrow’s headline might scream out at us: “300 Californians to perish this month on state highways! Hundreds more will be maimed and crippled!”
In 2001, California had 32 days of power outages, despite paying nearly the highest rates for electricity in the United States. Before complaining about the smoke in Baghdad rising from private generators, think back to the run on generators in California when they were contemplated as a future part of every household’s line of defense.
We’re told that Iraq’s finances are a mess. Yet until recently, so were California’s. Two years ago, Governor Schwarzenegger inherited a $38 billion annual budget shortfall. That could have made for strong morning newscast teasers: “Another $100 million borrowed today — $3 billion more in red ink to pile up by month’s end!”
So is California comparable to Iraq? Hardly. Yet it could easily be sketched by a reporter intent on doing so as a bank rupt, crime-ridden den with murderous highways, tens of thousands of inmates, with wide-open borders.
I myself recently returned home to California, without incident, from a visit to Iraq’s notorious Sunni Triangle. While I was gone, a drug-addicted criminal with a long list of convictions broke into our kitchen at 4 a.m., was surprised by my wife and daughter, and fled with our credit cards, cash, keys, and cell phones.
Sometimes I wonder who really was safer that week.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson041206.html
-
I would like to say that the US didn't get involved in WWII in Europe until after Pearl Harbour.
Right, and if we, or the UK, or someone else had reacted more quickly to the horrible things that were happening, we probably could have prevented a lot of WWII. The thing is, the US is damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Either we're butting into someone else's business, or we're a cold-hearted country who doesn't care about the suffering of others.
-
George Bush is still searching for WMD!!!
-
Really Black, that's a reasonable analysis?
People die all the time. Hey, rape happens everywhere. Really? Do you think that comparison shows Iraq is just a media distortion?
We chose to follow our current Iraq policy. Events did not compel our actions (in case you're thinking of posting VDH's similar editorial imagining WWII headlines based on his view of Iraq reporting).
We, or more accurately our founding fathers, chose our form of government. We have the society we have chosen. The citizens of California know that they make choices between living in a free society and living in a police state where with great diligence violent crime and terrorism would reach Stalinist Russia levels. I'm sure the streets of Moscow were very safe in the 1950s. The people of Iraq did not choose this American administration's policies and the continuing occupation of their country.
And remind me: How many desperate CA-refuges are being accommodated in Oregon and Nevada?
-
Really Black, that's a reasonable analysis?
People die all the time. Hey, rape happens everywhere. Really? Do you think that comparison shows Iraq is just a media distortion?
We chose to follow our current Iraq policy.
We, or more accurately our founding fathers, chose our form of government. We have the society we have chosen. The citizens of California know that they make choices between living in a free society and living in a police state where with great diligence violent crime and terrorism would reach Stalinist Russia levels. I'm sure the streets of Moscow were very safe in the 1950s. The people of Iraq did not choose this American administration's policies and the continuing occupation of their country.
And remind me: How many desperate CA-refuges are being accommodated in Oregon and Nevada?
Yes, I think that is a reasonable analysis and that there is a strong liberal bias in most of the media reports on Iraq, which creates a distorted image of what it is actually happening there. My friend's son is a Marine and I have known for many years that what he reports and what we learn from many media reports are often opposite sides of the same coin. There is much misinformation, and outright lies accepted by too many people as truth, because of those in the mainstream media with a liberal agenda of their own.
The people of Iraq didn't choose to be occupied and they could have avoided it by removing the dictator, who thumbed his nose at the UN for 12 years and abused his own people far worse than anything that has happened since the US troops arrived. Saddam murdered and tortured too many, probably in excess of a million people, with impunity for far too long. He attacked our UN sanctioned flights for too long. Since they could not remove Saddam, and the UN would not, we were left with no other acceptable choice. :twocents;
BTW, the people of Iraq are not our enemy and we are not fighting them; we are fighting the terrorists, from inside and outside of Iraq. Since they have already attacked us so many times before, here in the US and all over the world, why would anyone believe they will not follow us here if we aren't fighting them there?
As far as CA refugees, there are many who have left So. CA because of the high crime rate and ghetto creep. One of the families is living near me.
I've long thought that CA ought to be two states. In fact, it might even be a good idea to give So CA back to Mexico or just annex Mexico entirely. :rofl; Yes, I'm joking, but the thought has crossed my mind.
In case you can't tell, I am an ultra-conservative, pro-choice, Republican, and often vote a straight Republican ticket. But, I have written Lindsey Graham and told him he is too soft on illegal immigration and threatened to vote Democrat to get him out of office. :lol;
-
So let me get this right. We're not fighting the Iraqis, we're just borrowing their country to use as a giant terrorist magnate.
Interesting therory. The intention may have been to create a magnate but I think that what has been wrought is a terrorism university. Sure everyone is hangingout on campus now but after graduation people tend to move on.
I'd think an ultra conservative would favor tried and true strategies and traditions rather than some new fangeled "Green Latern Therory of Geopolitics" http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_geopolitics
-
George Bush is still searching for WMD!!!
George Bush is a Donkey's Ass!!!
The thing is, the US is damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Either we're butting into someone else's business, or we're a cold-hearted country who doesn't care about the suffering of others.
How very true it is that one cant make all happy all of the time but "damned if we do, and damned if we don't" is your impression which does not necessarily make it so. There will always be many opinions about the U.S. some more popular than others.
We need to get out of Iraq. Saddam is gone and we are not going to end terrorism by occupying SOMEONE ELSE'S COUNTRY. Who in the hell do we think we are? Oh but how interesting that IRAQ doubles as a country with big time oil and we AMERICANS ARE BIB TIME CONSUMERS. 9/11 was a tragic day for all of America and the right opportunity for the Donkey in charge, to be supported by all of America to possibly do some good against the bastards that took so many innocent lives AND use the back door to influence a country with something we desire. Remember, friends use one another and we are pushing our way into a friendship. All for the good of man? Give me a break with crap like that.
-
So let me get this right. We're not fighting the Iraqis, we're just borrowing their country to use as a giant terrorist magnate.
Interesting theory. The intention may have been to create a magnate but I think that what has been wrought is a terrorism university. Sure everyone is hangingout on campus now but after graduation people tend to move on.
I'd think an ultra conservative would favor tried and true strategies and traditions rather than some new fangled "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics" http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_geopolitics
No, we aren't "borrowing" their country. The terrorists are, and they were training there before we arrived. If it has become a magnet for terrorists, then better there than here. As far as graduation is concerned, let's hope they die first.
Don't bother giving me loony left propaganda sites. :lol; If I want to read that kind of silly (and vicious) crap I'll check out moveon.org. :rofl;
-
So let me get this right. We're not fighting the Iraqis, we're just borrowing their country to use as a giant terrorist magnate.
Interesting theory. The intention may have been to create a magnate but I think that what has been wrought is a terrorism university. Sure everyone is hangingout on campus now but after graduation people tend to move on.
I'd think an ultra conservative would favor tried and true strategies and traditions rather than some new fangled "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics" http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/blog/yglesias/2006/jul/10/the_green_lantern_theory_of_geopolitics
No, we aren't "borrowing" their country. The terrorists are, and they were training there before we arrived. If it has become a magnet for terrorists, then better there than here. As far as graduation is concerned, let's hope they die first.
Don't bother giving me loony left propaganda sites. :lol; If I want to read that kind of silly (and vicious) crap I'll check out moveon.org. :rofl;
Amen.. we waited to long to put an end to the attacks on our country and ships and embassies and soldiers and so on.. all Clinton every did was launch expensive missiles at desolate locations. And the attacks kept coming. We took the fight to them under Bush and they have not hit us since. Better there then here. Boxman55
-
Even the President doesn't share your specious recollection of events. The White House does not pretend there were significant weapons programs in Iraq (our military's actions post invasion were not the actions of someone who thought there were WMD lying around. What more do you need to know?), the President no longer pretends that there was a connection to 9/11. I am sympathetic that thinking there were WMD or a link to 9/11 must make this disaster easier to swallow, but in the end the reality of the situation will overwhelm all the but the 20% nub of what was once the Republican party.
In 19 months that 20% nub can go back to worrying about "Black Helicopters" and the ATF, muttering about the "media". Good riddance.
I think Matt's Green Lantern Theory is exactly right. Spot on. It is the idea if only we believed a bit more, if only we just really put our hearts into it everything would have worked just the way it was suppose to and there'd be a friendly Iraqi democracy, pro-Israel and welcoming to our perminanent military presence. If only the American public wasn't bamboozled by those terrorist sympathizers in the "media". What a bunch of hooey. The President took a huge gambol and lost. End of story.
-
Even the President doesn't share your specious recollection of events. The White House does not pretend there were significant weapons programs in Iraq (our military's actions post invasion were not the actions of someone who thought there were WMD lying around. What more do you need to know?), the President no longer pretends that there was a connection to 9/11. I am sympathetic that thinking there were WMD or a link to 9/11 must make this disaster easier to swallow, but in the end the reality of the situation will overwhelm all the but the 20% nub of what was once the Republican party.
The war was never about significant weapons programs. It dealt with very specific things over 12+ years that Saddam did and refused to do to abide by the cease fire from the gulf war.
Among them, Saddam was banned from having ANY programs, weapons or materials. That means ZERO, ZIP, NADDA, the BIG GOOSE EGG.
That does not mean one, or two, or some or a few or a couple. It means NONE!
The fact is we have found WMD, materials and other associated items all which were banned proves we were right and justified in taking action holding Saddam accountable for his actions against us and the world. Even the UN stated that Iraq had illegally moved banned materials from Iraq in the last weeks leading up to the war.
No need for Bush to pretend any link to 9/11 because he never claimed a link. That was a complete fabrication by the left.
We went to war with Iraq because of 9/11, not because they were involved with it. Not really a hard concept to grasp.
-
It has been reported (officially by the Bush administration) that the shells in question constitute old artillery shells manufactured before 1991. The degraded sarin nerve agent and mustard blister agent contained in those shells had long since lost their viability, and as such represented no threat whatsoever.
Is Cheney part of the “left fabrication” machine? “Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June. "This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."
Cheney made that statement the day after “The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and about its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.”
Read the whole article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html?hpid=topnews
Then there is the so called One Percent Doctrine which has been discredited by events. Do you really believe that the One Percent Doctrine will last beyond this administration? Or has been applied anywhere other than Iraq? If the One Percent Doctrine was really informing administration policy wouldn't the fight against Global Warming caused by humans be at the top of the adminstration's agenda?
Bigsky are you pro Ron Paul? I saw where he came out against the Federal Reserve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
-
You go, Big Sky! To Bill, I am surprised such an intelligent person such as yourself can't see that the main stream media portraits such a grim picture of Iraq to promote their own agenda and shape our perceptions to fit their agenda. I am actually surprised you think they HAVE no agenda! For years the Clinton administration ignored terrorist acts such as the first World Trade Center bombings, Kenya, Lebanon, USS Cole and now the current administration has to right their mistakes. I am proud of George W.Bush, a man willing to stand up and do what needed to be done and stick to his convictions instead of swaying to the wind, as President Clinton did. Why do you think that since 9/11 we have not had any attacks on our soil? Luck? I think not. How quick you forget September 11, 2001. I grew up seeing the World Trade Center being built, and it breaks my heart not to see those towers on the New York skyline when I go home to New Jersey. Jeez, these people want to kill us, and destroy every thing America stands for. Speak to anyone returning from Iraq regarding the press and what they report - it is the total opposite of what the MSM reports. I would rather fight them over there than have them kill our citizens here. Bush isn't perfect - far from it - but I feel he is the right man for this battle. As far as WMD Saddam used them against his own people, for goodness sake - that's a fact. What makes you think he didn't have them? BTW he sent them to Syria -he had enough time between the UN dragging their feet with the sanctions. I say, go W, and God Bless America and our Troups!
-
people will believe what they want irregardless of the truth, which is often somewhere in the middle. :twocents;
-
It has been reported (officially by the Bush administration) that the shells in question constitute old artillery shells manufactured before 1991. The degraded sarin nerve agent and mustard blister agent contained in those shells had long since lost their viability, and as such represented no threat whatsoever.
1991? Really :sarcasm;
Of course, this whole thing been going on since 1991, when Saddam offered up the cease fire for the first Gulf War, so why wouldn't the shells be from 1991. You might note that those shells were claimed to have been destroyed by Saddam back in the mid 90's. Funny how they were found among many others also that were in bunkers built as late as 1998. Also you might note not all those shells were degraded to the point of not being a threat, just for the fact that when the terrorists used one in Iraq as an IED two US soldiers had to be treated for sarin exposure. Also of fact is that we had to destroy banned equipment that Saddam had rebuilt. You might note this equipment was first destroyed by the UN back in the 90's and Saddam violated resolutions and rebuilt it.
Is Cheney part of the “left fabrication” machine? “Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June. "This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, who he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."
Hate to tell you this Bill but Al-Qaeda was operating in Iraq long before the war. They have been in Iraq since at least 1993. Saddam worked with Bin Laden despite the loony left claiming otherwise. From Saddams own son making the claim to the fact that the London Telegraph uncovered documents during the invasion that clearly showed Al-Qaeda and Iraq meeting despite that fact Saddam was banned from doing any such thing. Limited contact my rear. The very fact that Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence says to the different, the very fact that the 93 WTC was committed by Ramzi Yousef AKA the Iraqi and that Saddam gave safe harbor of the Al-Qaeda agent who fled the US after the bombing says different. Just why do you think we bombed in Sudan?
Not to mention the fact that the link was strong enough that the Justice Department made the link twice in the 90's and put it down in a federal indictment!
Then there is the so called One Percent Doctrine which has been discredited by events. Do you really believe that the One Percent Doctrine will last beyond this administration? Or has been applied anywhere other than Iraq? If the One Percent Doctrine was really informing administration policy wouldn't the fight against Global Warming caused by humans be at the top of the adminstration's agenda?
Good golly, I am surprised you had the gumption to hold of mentioning global warming until now. ;D
-
Let's see, Al Qaeda was in Afganistan, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, but NOT Iraq? What's wrong with this picture, Bill?
-
That was a declassified Defense Department report that discounted Hussein's prewar ties to Al-Qaeda.
Entire books have been researched based on interviews with Bremmer and others on the ground in Iraq. That Salon article points to scores of documents released by the Coallition's own interim administration that were accidentally released as Word documents with all the previous draft language included before it was scrubbed - these redacted comments clearly show that this information was know at the time by those in charge, yet the public spin continued, clear evidence that what was coming from official channels was spin. Where is your evidence that the "media" knew what they were reporting was false?
It's silly to justify our Iraq project because of anger over 9/11. It is bad policy to lump every Muslim with a gun into a single bucket labled "terrorist". If anyother person had been president on 9/11 the US would be in much stronger postion today.
Bigsky: you don't think there is a One Percent chance that global warming caused by humans is real?
-
Again, Al Qaeda was in Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia but NOT in Iraq? Hmmm...
Thank God George Bush was in office on 9/11 - the thought of Gore as POTUS sends shivers down my spine...divine intervention.
-
That was a declassified Defense Department report that discounted Hussein's prewar ties to Al-Qaeda.
Entire books have been researched based on interviews with Bremmer and others on the ground in Iraq. That Salon article points to scores of documents released by the Coallition's own interim administration that were accidentally released as Word documents with all the previous draft language included before it was scrubbed - these redacted comments clearly show that this information was know at the time by those in charge, yet the public spin continued, clear evidence that what was coming from official channels was spin. Where is your evidence that the "media" knew what they were reporting was false?
It's silly to justify our Iraq project because of anger over 9/11. It is bad policy to lump every Muslim with a gun into a single bucket labled "terrorist". If anyother person had been president on 9/11 the US would be in much stronger postion today.
Bigsky: you don't think there is a One Percent chance that global warming caused by humans is real?
No one has lumped any muslims as terrorists.
Saddam has a long freaking history of being a terrorist and trying to commit and committing terrorist acts on the US.
Unless you are trying to claim some huge conspiracy that started with the Clinton Administration putting the Iraqi Liberation Act into law and submitting by your reckoning a false indictment linking Osama and Saddam????
Any other person president? You are full of s***. There were only two others who could have been president. gore and kerry. One who fell in line with Clinton in not fighting terrorism and another wafflecone who claimed he was for and against the war all at the same time.
Ohh you just been itching to bring global warming up. Burning a hole in your pocket it was. ;D
-
... Bigsky: you don't think there is a One Percent chance that global warming caused by humans is real?
I'm not Bigsky, but if you want to start a thread about "Global Warming", I'm game, especially since this thread is close to checkmate. ;D
-
... Bigsky: you don't think there is a One Percent chance that global warming caused by humans is real?
I'm not Bigsky, but if you want to start a thread about "Global Warming", I'm game, especially since this thread is close to checkmate. ;D
I'm not Bill, but I would like to hear what others have to say about Global Warming. Who wants to start?
-
... Bigsky: you don't think there is a One Percent chance that global warming caused by humans is real?
I'm not Bigsky, but if you want to start a thread about "Global Warming", I'm game, especially since this thread is close to checkmate. ;D
I'm not Bill, but I would like to hear what others have to say about Global Warming. Who wants to start?
I'll start.
-
Again, Al Qaeda was in Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia but NOT in Iraq? Hmmm...
Thank God George Bush was in office on 9/11 - the thought of Gore as POTUS sends shivers down my spine...divine intervention.
I think there are the main players and the pretenders. The best analogy is to the Mafia in America - there is a clear hierarchy here. The al qaeda Capos were all in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2002 when the administration decided to deemphasize the fight against the people who attacked us on 9/11 and instead focus on toppling Saddam.
If #41 was president on 9/11 we'd be in a much better position. If the McCain of 2000 was president on 9/11 we'd be in a much better position - I blame the voters of South Carolina for the mess we're in (because of the 2000 Republican primary). If Gore was president on 9/11 we'd be in a much better position - for that I blame the SCOTUS
-
Again, Al Qaeda was in Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia but NOT in Iraq? Hmmm...
Thank God George Bush was in office on 9/11 - the thought of Gore as POTUS sends shivers down my spine...divine intervention.
... I blame the voters of South Carolina for the mess we're in (because of the 2000 Republican primary). If Gore was president on 9/11 we'd be in a much better position - for that I blame the SCOTUS
Two quick points before I proceed:
1) OK, as a South Carolina voter, if we get to take credit for McCain losing ... then, "Hooray, for us!"
2) McCain is, other than his stance on most military issues, a RINO.
Now to the rest: You "blame" the SCOTUS? For declaring that FL law in force at the time the election took place had to be followed? You can't retroactively change a state law. Do you know what ex post facto means? There has been plenty of time for change in FL since the libs tried to steal the election by retroactively changing the law governing an election after the fact; have they?
Oh, and BTW, there was a recount done months after the fact, I think it was paid for by about 20 or so entities, mostly media related, and the margin of victory for President Bush was larger. Not only that, there was no evidence of anyone being blocked from voting and no evidence of tampering ever produced, despite Jesse Jackson's claims and tantrums. There were some minor procedural changes made in one county (maybe two?), so he would shut up and go home.
I also believe Al Gore would have been worse than Jimmy Carter; we do not need a socialist tree hugger in the WH. If you are old enough to remember the employment figures and interest rates 5 times higher than today, you know what a catastrophe Carter was. I knew we were in trouble before he was elected because we took our vacation in GA that year and NOT ONE person we spoke to during the entire week said they were going to vote for him after experiencing him a gov. Dad asked person after person, "Who are you going to vote for?" hotel clerks, other guests, waitresses, gas station attendants, attraction staff, and not one said Carter. In Florida, when we returned home, Carter was the man of the hour. Yep, we knew we were in trouble when the people of his home state, who knew him best, didn't like him. That was the first year Mom and Dad voted Republican. BTW, Gore didn't carry his home state either did he?
Just to satisfy my curiosity what would Gore have done after 9/11? Raised taxes and made the recession turn into a depression? Worn a keffiyeh and tried to talk the terrorists into "making nice"? What would he have done about Saddam shooting at US planes in Iraq? Waited until the pilot death toll was an international disgrace? Would Saddam still be allowing terrorists to train in Iraq? killing the Kurds by the thousands? raising terrorists grandsons skilled in torture? still defying the UN? I know it's pure conjecture, but what do you think Gore would have done other than preach his silly global warming theories?
-
I just got home from a quick trip to Chicago but I was thinking that if the 2000 election had gone to Gore we'd be having some other political discussion on IHD.
Someone would have started a post saying $5.00 gas infuriates me. And I would of said well after 9/11 it was necessary to get us off oil and then you might have written back about how anyone but Gore would have made a better President on 9/11 especially George Bush.
The I would have written I believe George Bush would have been worse than Richard Nixon; we do not need another dictator in the White House. If you are old enough to remember the plumbers, the secret bombing of Cambodia and a politicized Department of Justice, then you know what a catastrophe Nixon was.
Just to satisfy my curiosity what would Bush have done after 9/11 I imagined he won in 2000. He would have asked not asked a single thing of the general public, not a single gas consumption tax. In fact every year after 9/11 our consumption of oil would have increased! Instead of running down the price of a barrel of oil through international agreements by all nations to use less oil, oil would be over $60 a barrel - not less than $20. Bush would have held hands with the Saudis while immense flow of petrol dollars flowed into the Middle East. And I bet he would have started wide spread domestic spying on the general public taking his role as commander in chief to the extreme that he would decide he could do what ever he wanted - the Republican Congress would have exercised no oversight during a BUsh presidency, as opposed the vigorous oversight we've had these last six years.
Instead of stabilizing Afghanistan and pressuring Iran to end their nuclear program he would have invaded Iraq. I'm serious - I know it sounds crazy but I bet he'd have done it. We'd be putting all our energy into picking sides in an Iraqi civil war while OBL regrouped in the Pakistani Tribal Areas (don't think so? Just look at the history of the Wahabis in British India - I'm sure if he had been given half a chance OBL would be rebuilding his organization in Wazerstan, repeating history). We'd be torturing or at least aggressively interrogating people picked off the street by which ever sect we aligned with in Iraq, meanwhile the vice president would be funneling money to his old company Halibuton. In fact I bet they'd set up a private army outside the military's normal chain of command. After four years we'd have killed Iraqis by the tens of thousands , raising generations of terrorists and their grandsons skilled in torture. By now we would have alienated our historic allies while paying off young regimes in eastern Europe to set up secret prisons where we'd "interrogate" people snatched off the streets in European capitols. By now a president Bush would have turned every department of government into a republican hack factory - in fact I bet a president Bush would have combined a bunch of disparate federal agencies into some giant dysfunctional super agency. And called it something ridiculous like Fatherland Security or Homeland Security. I bet a president Bush wouldn't have even secured the ports or the critical infrastructure - you'd probably have to remove your shoes at airports but entire containers would still be coming into the country unchecked.
I know it's pure conjecture, but what do you think Bush would have done other than preach his silly compassionate conservatism theories?
-
Posted by OKarol in another thread.
http://www.youtube.com/v/ervaMPt4Ha0&autoplay=1
-
The war was never about significant weapons programs.
Someone sure made it seem like it was. No one got the idea on their own.
I am actually surprised you think they HAVE no agenda!
And you don't think Bush and his administration have an agenda of their own.
Simply because we have had no attacks on our soil does not indicate that we would have otherwise. We can't say how other precautions would have worked because we didn't try them.
You George W supporters are either blind as bats or I don't even know what....loony. Hasn't he been on more vacations than recent presidents in history? During a war that he is responsible for? It is a wonder to me how he has any supporters remaining whatsoever.
Bill, I really enjoyed that last post of yours. I think you are on the money brother!
-
What is wrong with everyone? don't you know Iraq is Cinton's fault!, so is global warming and flooding. The other day I got a flat.....guess who's fault.......you got it CLINTON! and an old lady cut the line at the supermarket.......that was Hillary, these rotten terrorists are Clinton's fault too and Saddam planned 9/11 in his basement with Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore. These stinken liberals will stop at nothing, thank god for George Bush or we would've never found the mustard gas, THE DREDDED POISONESS MUSTARD GAS!!, that mustard gas will kill us all look what it did in WW1 for crying out loud. Thank god (and Mexico) that we're fighting them there! and that there hasn't been another attack on our soil, who cares about England and Spain, as long as it wasn't here. And thank heavens Gore wasn't elected (or was he?) because if he was, we could blame more non-occurrences on him. Oh the humanity.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw8TCCkvnkQ
-
non sequitur alert
-
Someone sure made it seem like it was. No one got the idea on their own.
Only to those that pay attention to events as they unfolded.
Even the UN weapons inspector said Saddam refused to comply despite the UN, France, Germany and Russia lowering the bar for Saddam to comply and that it would take war to enforce the UN "threats" from the past 12 years.
I am actually surprised you think they HAVE no agenda!
And you don't think Bush and his administration have an agenda of their own.
Simply because we have had no attacks on our soil does not indicate that we would have otherwise. We can't say how other precautions would have worked because we didn't try them.
Actually it does. It shows the path taken in fighting terrorism by Clinton/Gore was severely flawed and that while we may not be on a perfect course in fighting terrorism it is a hell of alot better than it was before.
-
Actually it does. It shows the path taken in fighting terrorism by Clinton/Gore was severely flawed and that while we may not be on a perfect course in fighting terrorism it is a hell of alot better than it was before.
NO. It doesn't. You cannot say how we would have faired using a different attack because we did not try anything else post 9/11. You always go back to Clinton administration and bash him and blame him. Your "hero" (my words) was the one in office for 9/11 and saw an opportunity. He put us in this situation today. No one can say, "that wouldn't work", (I'm not talking pre 9/11. You can't talk pre 9/11 because thats not what we are talking about. There is a possibility that another strategy would have been more successful wheather you want to see that or not.) because we never tried anything.....we just went to freakin' war. Meanwhile Mr. G W is vacationing it up and screwing over a nation. There is little doubt in my mind that that slimy little prick has his own little side agenda while he was/is making decisions for our country.
-
NO. It doesn't. You cannot say how we would have faired using a different attack because we did not try anything else post 9/11. You always go back to Clinton administration and bash him and blame him. Your "hero" (my words) was the one in office for 9/11 and saw an opportunity. He put us in this situation today. No one can say, "that wouldn't work", (I'm not talking pre 9/11. You can't talk pre 9/11 because thats not what we are talking about. There is a possibility that another strategy would have been more successful wheather you want to see that or not.) because we never tried anything.....we just went to freakin' war. Meanwhile Mr. G W is vacationing it up and screwing over a nation. There is little doubt in my mind that that slimy little prick has his own little side agenda while he was/is making decisions for our country.
Its pretty easy to say it. History is very clear on the matter.
We sat back and played defense and it didn't work. Bush added a little offense to the playbook and we are now keeping terrorism at bay and are winning.
As to Iraq.
We tried using peace over and over and over. 12+ years in fact we tried peaceful methods to get Saddam to comply. IT FAILED!!!!
Saddam made threats, attacks on us and had more planned and we acted. We took out the government of Afghanistan just for refusing to turn over bin laden. Do you really think we were going to let Saddam continue to attack and plan more attacks on us? Really now.
This war was not an overnight thing. This thing has been building for well over 12 years. There was a reason that Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act instead of putting a veto on it!
-
Its pretty easy to say it. History is very clear on the matter.
We sat back and played defense and it didn't work. Bush added a little offense to the playbook and we are now keeping terrorism at bay and are winning.
As to Iraq.
We tried using peace over and over and over. 12+ years in fact we tried peaceful methods to get Saddam to comply. IT FAILED!!!!
Saddam made threats, attacks on us and had more planned and we acted. We took out the government of Afghanistan just for refusing to turn over bin laden. Do you really think we were going to let Saddam continue to attack and plan more attacks on us? Really now.
This war was not an overnight thing. This thing has been building for well over 12 years. There was a reason that Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Act instead of putting a veto on it!
I am referring to a "history" that never was. We (our government) reacted to 9/11 by invading Iraq (regardless of what had been building up). That was our only reaction, we tried no other strategy after that event, just went straight to war. Yes, Saddam needed to go and he has been gone for how long now, so all of this is not about Saddam. It was evident that more needed to be done and there was/is a cause to fight for when the terrorist attacks took place on our soil, however there are other paths to follow, or better yet, we could have made our own path for others to follow, rather than jumping into a full on war that supposedly was over years ago (major operations and such).
I do not expect any different of a thought from you BigSky, your last post is dead on consistant with the rest of the blinded point of views you closely share with so few other Americans now. Peace - George
-
Here is a poem about war. It's called "Say it ain't so joe" I left for the bus with my family in tow. Had to defend my country i didn't want to go. My son looked at me holding back his tears. How long will i be gone, a few months, many years? Standing tall in our uniform carring the burden of pain. Not allowing the thought, "Will i see you again." Let's say our goodbyes with a promise of a letter. Any kind of communique would make our lives better. On the bus we go all feeling the same way. Not much conversation what could we say? We show our pictures of the family we will miss. I can't help but feel, "Was that our last kiss?" The scent of their skin is still on my shoulder. Tears on my face i wish i was bolder. We sat very still showing no emotion. Some one up front started a commotion. We see the plane that will take us to our fate. The drill sergeant barks "Lets go don't be late." The plane is loud can't hear yourself talk. We're packed like sardines you can't even walk. Many hours in flight finnaly see the sand. We touch down soft no welcome to war band. I grab my gear and feel the morning heat. Our boots hit the sand. Man, are we beat. We sit in a tent the fans blow hot air. They scream at us we don't even care. The orders are given our bodies are spent. Can't figure out where all the time went. Take a quick shower eat food that not ediable. Tomorow's the first day. That much is inevitable. We wake at 0400 put on our heavy pack. Not sure when the enemy is going to attack. We walk for awhile our night goggles are on. All the stars in the sky are just about gone. I hear the shot before i feel the pain. Fall to the ground they start shooting again. My legs have no feeling I guess this is the end. Someone picks me up "I got you my friend" To the tent i go to be fixed and mended. My poor friend Joe his short life has ended. Who will tell his young wife and the babe thats not born? Your daddy was a good soldier. i'm sorry he is gone. They tell my wife, "No feeling from waist to feet." Never to walk again over my legs they put a sheet. When i come home there will be some concern. With the wheel chair and tubes it's then that they learn. Is daddy still the man that he used to be? I roll over toward them so that they all can see. The look on their faces i know what i must do. It's ok i say, i can still play with you. My wife looks on with fear in her eyes. Thankful that it isn't our finale goodbyes. I met a man named joe he's no longer here. She touches my hand i feel he is near. We look to the heavens for a sign from above. A smile on our face our heart full of love. Love, Keith.
-
I am referring to a "history" that never was. We (our government) reacted to 9/11 by invading Iraq (regardless of what had been building up). That was our only reaction, we tried no other strategy after that event, just went straight to war. Yes, Saddam needed to go and he has been gone for how long now, so all of this is not about Saddam. It was evident that more needed to be done and there was/is a cause to fight for when the terrorist attacks took place on our soil, however there are other paths to follow, or better yet, we could have made our own path for others to follow, rather than jumping into a full on war that supposedly was over years ago (major operations and such).
I do not expect any different of a thought from you BigSky, your last post is dead on consistant with the rest of the blinded point of views you closely share with so few other Americans now. Peace - George
Seems you never paid attention to events as they unfolded. Sorry but it was not our only reaction, nor was it our first. Far from it. We pushed for UN inspectors to go back into Iraq to investigate and hold Saddam accountable for his failures. So much so we even pressed the UN for one more chance for Saddam to comply via 1441. We did not have to do that! As per prior resolutions we could "use any force necessary" to make Saddam comply with UN resolutions. Even after Saddam balked at provisions of that we more than gave him time to leave Iraq or else. Time and time again the world used threats of force against Saddam to try to make him comply and he essentially told the world to get bent. There is no use making such threats if one doesnt have the backbone to back them up. We backed them up. The only problem is the US and the world dragged its feet far too long to hold saddam accountable thus letting hundreds of thousands die by Saddams hand during those years.
But hey, by all means lay out this plan that would have made Saddam comply without force. I mean after all the world only tried just about everything under the sun during those 12 years and it failed to make saddam comply. But come on now, lay out this master plan that would make him have complied.
-
But hey, by all means lay out this plan that would have made Saddam comply without force. What? Are we talking about the same things? I mean after all the world only tried just about everything under the sun during those 12 years and it failed to make saddam comply. But come on now, lay out this master plan that would make him have complied.
Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. If it's all about Saddam what are we doing. Okay, Saddam need to be taken out forcefully (did I say different). We need to occupy a country for four years (with little end in sight even after his capture and removal, and start a civil war) to accomplish something?
You don't even make sense to me. You show no sign of trying to view things from a different perspective other than from your own distorted position. Forget it, I don't even want to bother anymore.
-
Saddam, Saddam, Saddam. If it's all about Saddam what are we doing. Okay, Saddam need to be taken out forcefully (did I say different). We need to occupy a country for four years (with little end in sight even after his capture and removal, and start a civil war) to accomplish something?
You don't even make sense to me. You show no sign of trying to view things from a different perspective other than from your own distorted position. Forget it, I don't even want to bother anymore.
Hmm you claimed we reacted to 9/11 by going to war without trying anything else, despite the fact we did try other things. Was that your perspective to claim we didnt do "other" things when in fact we did? Now you admit he needed to be taken out by force. :rofl; Hmmm what happened to all your wondrous "other" things we should have tried that were not tried for 12+ freaken years and did not work????
Did you really think that we would go into Iraq and remove Saddam only and then let the country fall into the hands of terrorists. Did you really think that would happen and we would say f*** it to the people of Iraq, our job is done in removing Saddam, go fend for yourselves. Jeeesh ::)
-
... Just to satisfy my curiosity what would Gore have done after 9/11? Raised taxes and made the recession turn into a depression? Worn a keffiyeh and tried to talk the terrorists into "making nice"? What would he have done about Saddam shooting at US planes in Iraq? Waited until the pilot death toll was an international disgrace? Would Saddam still be allowing terrorists to train in Iraq? killing the Kurds by the thousands? raising terrorists grandsons skilled in torture? still defying the UN? I know it's pure conjecture, but what do you think Gore would have done other than preach his silly global warming theories?
Anyone care to guess or speculate on what Gore would have done if elected?
-
I'm going to guess...nothing?
-
Slightly more than John Kerry.
-
Why waste time even thinking about non-occurances and what if's. The fact is 9/11 happened while George Bush is in office and look at the state our country, Iraq and the world is in now, a total complete mess which makes GW look like a total incompetent, stubborn and arrogant president who doesn't seem to give 2 craps about catching bin ladden. and please stop bringing up Clinton, why not bring up Reagan or Bush Sr and compare how much they did to prevent terrorism. Instead of repeating what Hannity's been saying for the last 6 years, why not gather data from from as many credible sources as we can instead of the ridiculous Rubert Murdock machine known as FOX. He's not even American. And if we're going to bring up what we've been trying to do for 12 years with Saddam over and over again, then why not question Bush SR.again who was and still is in bed with the Saudi's for his family's oil companies, the very terrorists who performed 9/11! This isn't a left or right issue anymore, this is an American issue and we're in trouble because Bush doesn't want to secure our borders or our ports (remember Dubai) and don't forget the American border agents who are serving 11 years in prison by roughing up an illigal drug dealer trying to cross the border, and when they asked Bush for a parden, he publicly refused it and said he that he supported the decision of our courts, but wait.. wasn,t that the libs again....stop the bulls***t and wake up, thats why Im a registered independant. Support our troops in Iraq, and support our troops who came home and need medical attention for years to come and not shut them out!
-
Why waste time even thinking about non-occurances and what if's. The fact is 9/11 happened while George Bush is in office and look at the state our country, Iraq and the world is in now, a total complete mess which makes GW look like a total incompetent, stubborn and arrogant president who doesn't seem to give 2 craps about catching bin ladden. and please stop bringing up Clinton,
I suppose you do not want clinton brought up. Fact he said he was going to get bin laden years ago. Like I said before. I suspect Mr. Clinton and OJ are down in Florida playing golf and deciding whom they should go after first, bin laden or the mysterious person who killed Ron and Nichole.
why not bring up Reagan or Bush Sr and compare how much they did to prevent terrorism.
By all means bring it up.
And if we're going to bring up what we've been trying to do for 12 years with Saddam over and over again, then why not question Bush SR.again who was and still is in bed with the Saudi's for his family's oil companies, the very terrorists who performed 9/11!
Did ANY Saudi family members commit 9/11? Why such a racist attitude of convicting all Saudis, especially those of the royal family, for those saudis who were members of al-qaeda and who actually despise the Saudi Royal family?
The top Bush hater of this country as determined by the millions he spent against Bush, George Soros was also linked to the Saudi family because of business dealings. Interesting huh.
-
... Just to satisfy my curiosity what would Gore have done after 9/11? Raised taxes and made the recession turn into a depression? Worn a keffiyeh and tried to talk the terrorists into "making nice"? What would he have done about Saddam shooting at US planes in Iraq? Waited until the pilot death toll was an international disgrace? Would Saddam still be allowing terrorists to train in Iraq? killing the Kurds by the thousands? raising terrorists grandsons skilled in torture? still defying the UN? I know it's pure conjecture, but what do you think Gore would have done other than preach his silly global warming theories?
Anyone care to guess or speculate on what Gore would have done if elected?
He would have had a much better environment to work in because he would have been working with a majority Republican Congress. Accountability, debate, the battle of ideas these are all features of divided government and Gore would have benefited from having to accommodate Congress, he'd have made better decisions. The Bush administration operated with limited checks until January of this year. This was to their detriment over all (except possibly in the short term). It was laziness or hubris or ... well back to Hamlet, assign motivation and you'll have your adjective ... but Gore would not have had that luxury and would have thus avoided the trap.
If Gore had been President he would have certainly used 9/11 to advance his agenda (just as the current administration has used/is using 9/11 to advance theirs). Global warming. A carbon tax or straight fuel tax, higher fuel economy standards ...we'd be using much less oil right now and a number of countries that are current US foreign policy challenges would have far fewer resources to fund their proxy adventures.
People matter - person for person the people filling out the government positions in a Gore administration would be more competent than the people who have staffed/are staffing the Bush administration. Better people, better outcomes.
-
He would have had a much better environment to work in because he would have been working with a majority Republican Congress. Accountability, debate, the battle of ideas these are all features of divided government and Gore would have benefited from having to accommodate Congress, he'd have made better decisions. The Bush administration operated with limited checks until January of this year. This was to their detriment over all (except possibly in the short term). It was laziness or hubris or ... well back to Hamlet, assign motivation and you'll have your adjective ... but Gore would not have had that luxury and would have thus avoided the trap.
If Gore had been President he would have certainly used 9/11 to advance his agenda (just as the current administration has used/is using 9/11 to advance theirs). Global warming. A carbon tax or straight fuel tax, higher fuel economy standards ...we'd be using much less oil right now and a number of countries that are current US foreign policy challenges would have far fewer resources to fund their proxy adventures.
People matter - person for person the people filling out the government positions in a Gore administration would be more competent than the people who have staffed/are staffing the Bush administration. Better people, better outcomes.
That was kinda alot to say without actually answering all of Black's questions. ;D
-
Well we're trying to generalize an unknowable I think the idea that better people make for better outcomes is pretty far reaching. This bigger then life Texas persona may play well in NASCAR country but it has worked against our interests. Who knows what opportunities President Gore would have that President Bush never had.
-
I know, bad form to reply to your own post but here is a specific. Gore would have hired Pat Lang.
From TPM http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
"When it comes to Middle East policy, career U.S. intelligence officer Patrick Lang is hardly a slouch. He was in charge of the Middle East, South Asia, and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s, and was later tapped to run the Pentagon's international spying operations.
So when he sat down in 2001 with Doug Feith for a job interview, Feith probably should have been anxious to bring someone with Lang's experience, stature, and expertise into the young Bush administration. Feith needed someone to run the Pentagon's office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, and Lang had been recommended for the position. The interview didn't go well.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002147.php
Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.
"He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me," Lang recalled, "which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers -- they always had briefing papers, you know -- about me.
"He's looking at this stuff, and he says, 'I've heard of you. I heard of you.'
"He says, 'Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?'
"And I said, 'Yeah, that's really true.'
"That's too bad," Feith said.
The audience howled.
"That was the end of the interview," Lang said. "I'm not quite sure what he meant, but you can work it out."
Feith & Co. apparently realized that it's best not to have too many qualified experts cluttering up the administration. Who knows what kind of reality-based policies they might have pursued?"
Gore would have pursued reality based policies.
-
Well we're trying to generalize an unknowable I think the idea that better people make for better outcomes is pretty far reaching. This bigger then life Texas persona may play well in NASCAR country but it has worked against our interests. Who knows what opportunities President Gore would have that President Bush never had.
Hmm yet all we need to do is look to gores response to terrorism under the clinton administration and see just what he most likely would or in this case would not have done.
-
I love a good debate. There are very good points from both sides of this debate and I don't want to see it end... but....Lets stop with the nasty PM's that have been reported to the moderators and remember everyone has the right to voice their opinions but lets not allow our beliefs to be so strong that we allow ourselves to resort to name calling or to get rude. :)
Sluff/ Admin
-
Latest US casualty body count 3474 as of 5/30/07
-
Latest US casualty body count 3474 as of 5/30/07
During WWII my father saw that many killed in just a few hours. Casualties are a horrible fact of war. I would rather lose trained military in Iraq than more helpless civilians such as we lost on 9/11.
-
How about neither?
Before January 2003 Iraq was an issue but there were a multiplicity of options - any one of which today, we would happily grasp if it were still available - now after four years our policy has destabilized the entire region. The fly paper theory has been pretty thoroughly discredited by events.
When I read reports like this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20070529/cm_ucgg/networkofterrorspreadsinshatteredmideastsocieties
Friends of [the president's] from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny."
I think ... We have a bad situation on our hands.
-
It's a good thing this is not WWII. What makes this loss of life more upsetting to me is that I am unable to justify it. I feel like Iraq is more about oil and power than a war on terror, and with few to no reports on actual progress and headway in the battle, the casualty reports are all we get. Why do we continue to justify our loss of troops by referring to WWII or Vietnam, or any other war for that matter, this battle is making history not revisiting it, the technological advances themselves deny us from such comparisons. Our presence in Iraq sickens me as does the Bush adsministration. I am so looking forward to the next election with a fresh group of candidates and the ousting of Bush! He can take all the vacations he wants while the next guy is working on restoring the United States reputation. I am ashamed to have such an idiot leader in charge of my country!
-
Anyone else feel like this "war on terror" is alot like the "war on drugs"?
-
Anyone else feel like this "war on terror" is alot like the "war on drugs"?
Maybe the administration could declare war on whales.
We'd be able to walk across the ocean there'd be so many.
-
How about neither?
Before January 2003 Iraq was an issue but there were a multiplicity of options - any one of which today, we would happily grasp if it were still available - now after four years our policy has destabilized the entire region. The fly paper theory has been pretty thoroughly discredited by events.
Maybe you might want to try listing these options for once instead of just claiming them time and time again. Ohh please make sure they are none of the same options tried over the prior 12+ years that failed time and time again.
-
It's a good thing this is not WWII. What makes this loss of life more upsetting to me is that I am unable to justify it. I feel like Iraq is more about oil and power than a war on terror, and with few to no reports on actual progress and headway in the battle, the casualty reports are all we get. Why do we continue to justify our loss of troops by referring to WWII or Vietnam, or any other war for that matter, this battle is making history not revisiting it, the technological advances themselves deny us from such comparisons. Our presence in Iraq sickens me as does the Bush adsministration. I am so looking forward to the next election with a fresh group of candidates and the ousting of Bush! He can take all the vacations he wants while the next guy is working on restoring the United States reputation. I am ashamed to have such an idiot leader in charge of my country!
About oil?
Hmm we and the world bend over backwards for over a decade trying to get compliance and you think its about oil and power ::)
-
How about neither?
Before January 2003 Iraq was an issue but there were a multiplicity of options - any one of which today, we would happily grasp if it were still available - now after four years our policy has destabilized the entire region. The fly paper theory has been pretty thoroughly discredited by events.
Maybe you might want to try listing these options for once instead of just claiming them time and time again. Ohh please make sure they are none of the same options tried over the prior 12+ years that failed time and time again.
Withdraw and focus on Afghanistan
Continue with the UN inspections
Continue with isolation/embargo
Engage in regional diplomacy
Do nothing
Go fishing
Watch a Rangers game
Really anything other than what they decided to do
I think the Bush administration and both parties in Congress would today embrace a dictator if he could control Iraq, keep it in one piece and allow us to withdraw. Right now we are looking down the barrel of a dissolved Iraq in civil war. The idea of a UN inspection regime that was offered in the weeks before the war sounds very good right now. There is no likely outcome that would of resulted from any course of action available to us in January 2003 that would have been worse than what we have today. Because of the actions this administration selected we have created a disaster that would have never happened if any other strategy was employed. What we have today is, or is leading to, or is threatening to become the very worse case scenario. The worse case scenario that we face today is an order of magnitude greater than any other worse case scenario an alternative strategy would have allowed.
But this idea of the fly paper theory is flawed on a fundamental level. People, including this administration, seem confused on what their job is exactly. Their job is not to protect you, to tuck you in at night. The President, the members of Congress, every solider and officer in the military all take an oath to defend the Constitution. They do not swear to keep you and aunt Bessy safe they swear to defend the Constitution. Our job - the Americans alive today, including the President - is to make sure the Constitution survives. So long as the Constitution is alive and well then we've covered our shift. If you look at the Vice-President's speech to West Point grads last week you see that he is saying that the Constitution is a barrier to keeping you safe tonight. He's saying that we'd be safer if those pesky Constitutional rights weren't in the way.
That is wrong. If we have to die to protect our Constitution then so be it but it is the Constitution that must survive, not you or I. And it is the Constitution that is gravely threatened.
-
Withdraw and focus on Afghanistan
Continue with the UN inspections
Continue with isolation/embargo
Engage in regional diplomacy
Do nothing
Go fishing
Watch a Rangers game
Really anything other than what they decided to do
So much for the innuendo that another option could have been used to resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam.
What you have listed amounts from sticking ones head into the sand hoping it will go away to 3 of them that were tried time and time again and failed.
As to the oath,
It means far more than you seem to think.
-
Withdraw and focus on Afghanistan
Continue with the UN inspections
Continue with isolation/embargo
Engage in regional diplomacy
Do nothing
Go fishing
Watch a Rangers game
Really anything other than what they decided to do
So much for the innuendo that another option could have been used to resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam.
What you have listed amounts from sticking ones head into the sand hoping it will go away to 3 of them that were tried time and time again and failed.
As to the oath,
It means far more than you seem to think.
That's exactly the point. We did not have to resolve anything. We had plenty of other things to take care of, we could have lived with the situation as is, threatening more effectively after our quick success in Afghanistan. If he had not blundered into Iraq our quick success in Afghanistan would have been an effective motivator to people like Saddam.
We managed to tolerate the Soviets for 40 years without seeking some final resolution. We've managed to live with Castro 90 miles from the US mainland for 50 years without resolving that situation. We've managed to live with North Korea - no one's wackier then Kim il Sung - without seeking to resolve the Korean war. Iraq had no solution, it should be clear that one could not "resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam" no matter what you did. What more evidence could one possibly need?
-
That's exactly the point. We did not have to resolve anything. We had plenty of other things to take care of, we could have lived with the situation as is, threatening more effectively after our quick success in Afghanistan. If he had not blundered into Iraq our quick success in Afghanistan would have been an effective motivator to people like Saddam.
We managed to tolerate the Soviets for 40 years without seeking some final resolution. We've managed to live with Castro 90 miles from the US mainland for 50 years without resolving that situation. We've managed to live with North Korea - no one's wackier then Kim il Sung - without seeking to resolve the Korean war. Iraq had no solution, it should be clear that one could not "resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam" no matter what you did. What more evidence could one possibly need?
So it should not have been resolved despite time and time again Saddam committing acts of war and terror on the US and his forbidden association with terrorists.
As to the soviets, castro and N korea there are vast differences in them compared to saddam.
-
That's exactly the point. We did not have to resolve anything. We had plenty of other things to take care of, we could have lived with the situation as is, threatening more effectively after our quick success in Afghanistan. If he had not blundered into Iraq our quick success in Afghanistan would have been an effective motivator to people like Saddam.
We managed to tolerate the Soviets for 40 years without seeking some final resolution. We've managed to live with Castro 90 miles from the US mainland for 50 years without resolving that situation. We've managed to live with North Korea - no one's wackier then Kim il Sung - without seeking to resolve the Korean war. Iraq had no solution, it should be clear that one could not "resolve the situation with Iraq and Saddam" no matter what you did. What more evidence could one possibly need?
So it should not have been resolved despite time and time again Saddam committing acts of war and terror on the US and his forbidden association with terrorists.
As to the soviets, castro and N korea there are vast differences in them compared to saddam.
You're using the wrong tense, nothing has been resolved. We've traded one problem or set of problems for a worse set of problems.
We have yet to solve a single problem.
I am saying it should not have been tried. The chance for success was too small; the price of failure too high.
Of course each situation has its own unique details but there is a continuum and Saddam was somewhere between Castro and Sung.
-
You're using the wrong tense, nothing has been resolved. We've traded one problem or set of problems for a worse set of problems.
We have yet to solve a single problem.
I am saying it should not have been tried. The chance for success was too small; the price of failure too high.
Of course each situation has its own unique details but there is a continuum and Saddam was somewhere between Castro and Sung.
Saddam is no more and is no longer a threat. That issue is resolved.
The problem with al-qaeda existed before this action and was already a problem.
I do suppose if you were to eliminate most of saddams history then one could claim he fell between castro and sung.
-
The ousting of one man is an issue resolved?
And what exactly did that accomplish?
-
You're using the wrong tense, nothing has been resolved. We've traded one problem or set of problems for a worse set of problems.
We have yet to solve a single problem.
I am saying it should not have been tried. The chance for success was too small; the price of failure too high.
Of course each situation has its own unique details but there is a continuum and Saddam was somewhere between Castro and Sung.
Saddam is no more and is no longer a threat. That issue is resolved.
The problem with al-qaeda existed before this action and was already a problem.
I do suppose if you were to eliminate most of saddams history then one could claim he fell between castro and sung.
I think you're confusing a tactic <deposing Saddam> with a strategy <bring democratic example to the Arab Middle East> because you've lost sight of the mission <create a world more amenable to American interest>
It's a common mistake to think tactics are strategy; it is less common for people to mistake tactics for mission.
-
I think you're confusing a tactic <deposing Saddam> with a strategy <bring democratic example to the Arab Middle East> because you've lost sight of the mission <create a world more amenable to American interest>
It's a common mistake to think tactics are strategy; it is less common for people to mistake tactics for mission.
::) You really are out of the loop on this whole issue.
-
The ousting of one man is an issue resolved?
And what exactly did that accomplish?
Saddam is no longer able to fund terrorists across the world with the money of the Iraqi people. The fact that he is gone now means that is hundreds of millions of dollars that cannot be used to fund terrorist operations he had planned against the US and others.
-
The ousting of one man is an issue resolved?
And what exactly did that accomplish?
Saddam is no longer able to fund terrorists across the world with the money of the Iraqi people. The fact that he is gone now means that is hundreds of millions of dollars that cannot be used to fund terrorist operations he had planned against the US and others.
Our actions are the greatest fund raising tool a terrorist could dream of ... we replaced one sociopath with a multitude. We've created a terrorist factory out of a sole proprietorship. There has been no resolution.
-
And there will never be a solution. The religious mass hysteria in the Arab peninsula had to be resolved first between the fighting factions. Then a true peace can come to the region. We, as the capitalists, involved, have just made a situation worse.
-
Bigsky since you seem to have fully bought into the Laurie Mylroie world view with regard to Saddam and terrorism against the US you should like this symposium. It's long - it starts here http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=16985&p=1 First Mylroie (identified as one of the foremost American scholars on Iraq and Saddam Hussein) makes her case Saddam was behind basically everything, then her position is rebutted by Dr. Robert Leiken, the director of the Immigration and National Security Program at the Nixon Center, he argues that the connection does not exist on page 2 of the symposium (I said it was long) http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=16986&p=1
Leiken is thorough in knocking down Mylroie's theories. I think this is my favorite of his many conclusive points "On the contrary Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who at one time set up an intelligence office in the Pentagon devoted to proving Laurie’s thesis, had the rare integrity to acknowledge on October 4, 2004 that he had “not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. “
-
Our actions are the greatest fund raising tool a terrorist could dream of ... we replaced one sociopath with a multitude. We've created a terrorist factory out of a sole proprietorship. There has been no resolution.
Not really. We are drawing them out. Remember that al-qaeda was in very few countries in 93 and during the next 8 years spread to every country on the planet.
Bigsky since you seem to have fully bought into the Laurie Mylroie world view with regard to Saddam and terrorism against the US you should like this symposium.
No need for me to buy into her work. I have watched this thing for years. From Saddam kidnapping of well over 175 Americans to his attempted killing of presidents, ambassadors and others. Just why do you think we bombed Sudan? Long before this war started Newsweek and Time had written several articles about things Saddam had done and was trying to do, many of which were terrorist attacks on the US in one form or another.
Look at the stink the guy with TB is causing. One of Saddams plans that failed was to infect dozens of people with small pox and then send them to the US. If only 10 people got into the US with smallpox it would have potentially killed thousands if not millions.
This thing was tried to be worked out for over a decade with resolutions etc. etc.
Too many countries, most notably France, Germany, Russia went around such things and traded with Iraq anyway. As per the UN itself Saddam refused to even give the aid to his people from the oil for food programs.
When someone has been a constant threat and has attacked and continues to plan attacks, we cannot wait until they succeed and thousands or millions are killed before acting.
These resolutions NEVER worked with South Africa, so can anyone honestly think they were going to work with Saddam?
-
Our actions are the greatest fund raising tool a terrorist could dream of ... we replaced one sociopath with a multitude. We've created a terrorist factory out of a sole proprietorship. There has been no resolution.
Not really. We are drawing them out. Remember that al-qaeda was in very few countries in 93 and during the next 8 years spread to every country on the planet.
Bigsky since you seem to have fully bought into the Laurie Mylroie world view with regard to Saddam and terrorism against the US you should like this symposium.
No need for me to buy into her work. I have watched this thing for years. From Saddam kidnapping of well over 175 Americans to his attempted killing of presidents, ambassadors and others. Just why do you think we bombed Sudan? Long before this war started Newsweek and Time had written several articles about things Saddam had done and was trying to do, many of which were terrorist attacks on the US in one form or another.
Look at the stink the guy with TB is causing. One of Saddams plans that failed was to infect dozens of people with small pox and then send them to the US. If only 10 people got into the US with smallpox it would have potentially killed thousands if not millions.
This thing was tried to be worked out for over a decade with resolutions etc. etc.
Too many countries, most notably France, Germany, Russia went around such things and traded with Iraq anyway. As per the UN itself Saddam refused to even give the aid to his people from the oil for food programs.
When someone has been a constant threat and has attacked and continues to plan attacks, we cannot wait until they succeed and thousands or millions are killed before acting.
These resolutions NEVER worked with South Africa, so can anyone honestly think they were going to work with Saddam?
South Africa? Too bad Rumsfeld didn't give you a chance to explain the connection before he concluded there was no hard evidence. Lots of conjecture but usually you go to war on facts.
Speaking of Newsweek Fareed Zakaria has an interesting article up here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19001200/site/newsweek/page/0/ it's titled Beyond Bush. I don't know, a lot can happen in 19 months.
-
South Africa? Too bad Rumsfeld didn't give you a chance to explain the connection before he concluded there was no hard evidence. Lots of conjecture but usually you go to war on facts.
There was enough evidence for clinton to bomb sudan over it.
-
:bandance; CLINTON :bandance;
-
South Africa? Too bad Rumsfeld didn't give you a chance to explain the connection before he concluded there was no hard evidence. Lots of conjecture but usually you go to war on facts.
There was enough evidence for clinton to bomb sudan over it.
I still don't see the South Africa connection. I do understand the Sudan/OBL connection or at least the Sudan/Salafism/OBL connection but I don't know where I would put South Africa in that equation.
Bigsky, I'm curious if the administration's immigration strategy has shed any light for you on the administration's Iraq policy? Or rather has the administration's immigration strategy soured you on the administration? Which it would seem might lead you to see their Iraq strategy in a different light.
Micky Kaus has a great editorial up at the LA Times today where he runs through the striking similarities http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kaus4jun04,0,430080.story?coll=la-opinion-center
MAINSTREAM editorialists like to praise President Bush's immigration initiative as an expression of his pragmatic, bipartisan, "compassionate conservative" side, in presumed contrast to the inflexible, ideological approach that produced the invasion of Iraq. But far from being a sensible centrist departure from the sort of grandiose, rigid thinking that led Bush into Iraq, "comprehensive immigration reform" is of a piece with that thinking. And it's likely to lead to a parallel outcome.
Here are 10 similarities:
1. They're both ideas Bush had when he came into office. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote about his first Oval Office meeting with Bush, a few weeks into Bush's presidency, at which the president explained his "determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq." About the same time, Bush was meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox to try to hammer out an immigration deal that would combine a guest worker program with legalization of existing illegal Mexican immigrants. (This was all before 9/11, although in both cases Bush has claimed that 9/11 made essential what he wanted to do all along. Funny how that happens.)
2. They both have an idealistic basis. Bush was sympathetic to the way Middle East democrats had been frustrated by "realist" foreign policies, and he's clearly sympathetic to the problems of poor immigrants who come to the U.S. to work and feed their families, only to be forced to live "in the shadows." Those who have doubts about Bush's plans (e.g., Brent Scowcroft on Iraq) get little sympathy from him, however. They're seen not as prudent realists but as cultural imperialists, even racists: What, you think Iraqis are incapable of democracy? What, you think the immigrants from south of the border are any different from previous immigrants?
3. They both seek, in one swoop, to achieve a grand solution to a persistent, difficult problem. No "smallball!" The Iraq Project was going to begin the transformation of the Middle East, an area that had frustrated president after president. Similarly, "comprehensive" immigration reform would, as the name suggests, resolve in one bold bill the centuries-old immigration issue — "solve this problem once and for all," as Bush said last week.
4. Both envision a complicated, triple-bank-shot chain of events happening on cue. Iraqis were going to be grateful to their American liberators, come together in peace and give us a stable "ally in the war on terror," setting off a democratic domino effect in the region — a scenario that seems like highly wishful thinking in retrospect. Latinos, in the Bush immigration scenario, will be grateful to Republicans for bringing them out of the shadows, etc., ensuring a large, growing GOP Latino vote for decades to come. Meanwhile, a program of legal guest workers will somehow stop new illegal workers from crossing the border to join them.
5. Both depend crucially on pulling off difficult administrative feats. In Iraq, we had to build a nation in the chaotic vacuum of sectarian post-Hussein Iraq — which meant training a national army and police force from scratch with recruits who were often sectarian loyalists. "Comprehensive" immigration reform requires the government to set up an enforcement mechanism that can prevent millions of impoverished foreigners from sneaking across thousands of miles of unprotected borders — and prevent America's millions of self-interested employers from hiring them. Meanwhile, the overworked, incompetent federal immigration bureaucracy is going to efficiently sort out the 12 million illegals already here — "Non-Immigrants Previously in Unlawful Status," to use the official Prince-like euphemism — running background checks by the next business day and issuing each of them a new, "probationary Z-visa."
6. In both cases, the solution has failed before. The British failed to "stand up" democracy in Iraq. We failed to do the same in Vietnam and also failed to establish stable, trans-factional governing structures in Lebanon and Somalia. Likewise, the grand, bipartisan Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform of 1986 had promised, and failed, to establish an effective immigration enforcement mechanism.
7. In both cases, some Bush plan enthusiasts may not really mind a chaotic end result. Iraq war foes argue that some important neocon supporters of the Iraq war weren't really bothered by the prospect of Sunni-versus-Shiite warfare — even seeing divide-and-conquer advantages. Similarly, there's the suspicion that many supporters of Bush's immigration plan won't really be bothered if the enforcement parts of the law fail to stop the flow of new illegals. Employers, for one, would get additional inexpensive, willing workers.
8. In both cases, less grand, less risky alternatives are available. Bush could have kept Saddam Hussein boxed up while he planned regime change through other means and pursued the more manageable war in Afghanistan. ("Smallball" in 2002. Sounds good now!) Similarly, Bush could put enforcement mechanisms in place and make sure they work before he potentially stimulates a huge new wave of illegal immigrants by rewarding those illegals who've already made it across the border.
9. In both cases, Bush's sales pitch excludes these middle alternatives. With Hussein, it was war or capitulation. With immigration, we're told, the only choices are legalization or mass deportation.
10. In both cases the consequences of losing the grand Bush bet are severe. Bush himself is busy these days describing the debacle that his big Iraq bet has now made possible: a government "overrun by extremists on all sides … an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by Al Qaeda." Possibly "the entire region could be drawn into the conflict."
The equivalent disaster scenario on immigration would go something like this: "Comprehensive reform" passes. The 12 million illegals are legalized as planned. But the untested enforcement provisions prove no more effective than they've been in the past — or else they are crippled by ACLU-style lawsuits and lobbying (as in the past). Legal guest workers enter the country to work, but so do millions of new illegal workers, drawn by the near-certain prospect that they too, some day, will be considered too numerous to deport. Soon we have another 12 million illegals, or more. Wages for unskilled low-income American and immigrant workers are depressed. As a result, in parts of L.A., visible contrasts of wealth and poverty reach near-Latin American levels.
And, yes, the majority of the new illegals are from one country, Mexico — a nation with a not-implausible claim on large chunks of the Southwestern U.S. For the first time, a neighboring country will have a continuing hold on the loyalties — and language — of a majority of residents in some states, with the potential for Quebec-like problems, and worse, down the road.
Hey, stuff happens!
If both grand Bush plans fail, which disaster will be bigger? Iraq, obviously, at least in the sense that tens of thousands will have died. But we can retreat from Iraq. We won't be able to retreat from the failure of Bush's immigration plan because it will change who "we" are.
me: At least with the immigration legislation the Senate and House is debating the issue and there is public push back from our legislators even in the face of demonizing rhetoric from the administration and their supports (see http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070604-113526-7596r.htm "Sen. McCain said Monday that his fellow candidates who oppose the bill "would intentionally make our country's problems worse." Intentionally!). With Iraq the administration was able to act without any checks and the policy was worse for its lack of restraint.
-
When we rise in the morning and listen to the radio or read the newspaper, we are confronted with the same sad news: violence, crime, wars, and disasters. I cannot recall a single day without a report of something terrible happening somewhere. Even in these modern times it is clear that one's precious life is not safe. No former generation has had to experience so much bad news as we face today; this constant awareness of fear and tension should make any sensitive and compassionate person question seriously the progress of our modern world.
It is ironic that the more serious problems emanate from the more industrially advanced societies. Science and technology have worked wonders in many fields, but the basic human problems remain. There is unprecedented literacy, yet this universal education does not seem to have fostered goodness, but only mental restlessness and discontent instead. There is no doubt about the increase in our material progress and technology, but somehow this is not sufficient as we have not yet succeeded in bringing about peace and happiness or in overcoming suffering.
We can only conclude that there must be something seriously wrong with our progress and development, and if we do not check it in time there could be disastrous consequences for the future of humanity. I am not at all against science and technology - they have contributed immensely to the overall experience of humankind; to our material comfort and well-being and to our greater understanding of the world we live in. But if we give too much emphasis to science and technology we are in danger of losing touch with those aspects of human knowledge and understanding that aspire towards honesty and altruism.
Science and technology, though capable of creating immeasurable material comfort, cannot replace the age-old spiritual and humanitarian values that have largely shaped world civilization, in all its national forms, as we know it today. No one can deny the unprecedented material benefit of science and technology, but our basic human problems remain; we are still faced with the same, if not more, suffering, fear, and tension. Thus it is only logical to try to strike a balance between material developments on the one hand and the development of spiritual, human values on the other. In order to bring about this great adjustment, we need to revive our humanitarian values.
I am sure that many people share my concern about the present worldwide moral crisis and will join in my appeal to all humanitarians and religious practitioners who also share this concern to help make our societies more compassionate, just, and equitable. I do not speak as a Buddhist or even as a Tibetan. Nor do I speak as an expert on international politics (though I unavoidably comment on these matters). Rather, I speak simply as a human being, as an upholder of the humanitarian values that are the bedrock not only of Mahayana Buddhism but of all the great world religions. From this perspective I share with you my personal outlook - that:
Universal humanitarianism is essential to solve global problems;
Compassion is the pillar of world peace;
All world religions are already for world peace in this way, as are all humanitarians of whatever ideology;
Each individual has a universal responsibility to shape institutions to serve human needs.
Solving Human Problems through Transforming Human Attitudes
Of the many problems we face today, some are natural calamities and must be accepted and faced with equanimity. Others, however, are of our own making, created by misunderstanding, and can be corrected. One such type arises from the conflict of ideologies, political or religious, when people fight each other for petty ends, losing sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a single human family. We must remember that the different religions, ideologies, and political systems of the world are meant for human beings to achieve happiness. We must not lose sight of this fundamental goal and at no time should we place means above ends; the supremacy of humanity over matter and ideology must always be maintained.
By far the greatest single danger facing humankind - in fact, all living beings on our planet - is the threat of nuclear destruction. I need not elaborate on this danger, but I would like to appeal to all the leaders of the nuclear powers who literally hold the future of the world in their hands, to the scientists and technicians who continue to create these awesome weapons of destruction, and to all the people at large who are in a position to influence their leaders: I appeal to them to exercise their sanity and begin to work at dismantling and destroying all nuclear weapons. We know that in the event of a nuclear war there will be no victors because there will be no survivors! Is it not frightening just to contemplate such inhuman and heartless destruction? And, is it not logical that we should remove the cause for our own destruction when we know the cause and have both the time and the means to do so? Often we cannot overcome our problems because we either do not know the cause or, if we understand it, do not have the means to remove it. This is not the case with the nuclear threat.
Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.
Broadly speaking there are two types of happiness and suffering, mental and physical, and of the two, I believe that mental suffering and happiness are the more acute. Hence, I stress the training of the mind to endure suffering and attain a more lasting state of happiness. However, I also have a more general and concrete idea of happiness: a combination of inner peace, economic development, and, above all, world peace. To achieve such goals I feel it is necessary to develop a sense of universal responsibility, a deep concern for all irrespective of creed, colour, sex, or nationality.
The premise behind this idea of universal responsibility is the simple fact that, in general terms, all others' desires are the same as mine. Every being wants happiness and does not want suffering. If we, as intelligent human beings, do not accept this fact, there will be more and more suffering on this planet. If we adopt a self-centred approach to life and constantly try to use others for our own self-interest, we may gain temporary benefits, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even personal happiness, and world peace will be completely out of the question.
In their quest for happiness, humans have used different methods, which all too often have been cruel and repellent. Behaving in ways utterly unbecoming to their status as humans, they inflict suffering upon fellow humans and other living beings for their own selfish gains. In the end, such shortsighted actions bring suffering to oneself as well as to others. To be born a human being is a rare event in itself, and it is wise to use this opportunity as effectively and skillfully as possible. We must have the proper perspective that of the universal life process, so that the happiness or glory of one person or group is not sought at the expense of others.
All this calls for a new approach to global problems. The world is becoming smaller and smaller - and more and more interdependent - as a result of rapid technological advances and international trade as well as increasing trans-national relations. We now depend very much on each other. In ancient times problems were mostly family-size, and they were naturally tackled at the family level, but the situation has changed. Today we are so interdependent, so closely interconnected with each other, that without a sense of universal responsibility, a feeling of universal brotherhood and sisterhood, and an understanding and belief that we really are part of one big human family, we cannot hope to overcome the dangers to our very existence - let alone bring about peace and happiness.
One nation's problems can no longer be satisfactorily solved by itself alone; too much depends on the interest, attitude, and cooperation of other nations. A universal humanitarian approach to world problems seems the only sound basis for world peace. What does this mean? We begin from the recognition mentioned previously that all beings cherish happiness and do not want suffering. It then becomes both morally wrong and pragmatically unwise to pursue only one's own happiness oblivious to the feelings and aspirations of all others who surround us as members of the same human family. The wiser course is to think of others also when pursuing our own happiness. This will lead to what I call 'wise self-interest', which hopefully will transform itself into 'compromised self-interest', or better still, 'mutual interest'.
Although the increasing interdependence among nations might be expected to generate more sympathetic cooperation, it is difficult to achieve a spirit of genuine cooperation as long as people remain indifferent to the feelings and happiness of others. When people are motivated mostly by greed and jealousy, it is not possible for them to live in harmony. A spiritual approach may not solve all the political problems that have been caused by the existing self-centered approach, but in the long run it will overcome the very basis of the problems that we face today.
On the other hand, if humankind continues to approach its problems considering only temporary expediency, future generations will have to face tremendous difficulties. The global population is increasing, and our resources are being rapidly depleted. Look at the trees, for example. No one knows exactly what adverse effects massive deforestation will have on the climate, the soil, and global ecology as a whole. We are facing problems because people are concentrating only on their short-term, selfish interests, not thinking of the entire human family. They are not thinking of the earth and the long-term effects on universal life as a whole. If we of the present generation do not think about these now, future generations may not be able to cope with them.
Compassion as the Pillar of World Peace
According to Buddhist psychology, most of our troubles are due to our passionate desire for and attachment to things that we misapprehend as enduring entities. The pursuit of the objects of our desire and attachment involves the use of aggression and competitiveness as supposedly efficacious instruments. These mental processes easily translate into actions, breeding belligerence as an obvious effect. Such processes have been going on in the human mind since time immemorial, but their execution has become more effective under modern conditions. What can we do to control and regulate these 'poisons' - delusion, greed, and aggression? For it is these poisons that are behind almost every trouble in the world.
As one brought up in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, I feel that love and compassion are the moral fabric of world peace. Let me first define what I mean by compassion. When you have pity or compassion for a very poor person, you are showing sympathy because he or she is poor; your compassion is based on altruistic considerations. On the other hand, love towards your wife, your husband, your children, or a close friend is usually based on attachment. When your attachment changes, your kindness also changes; it may disappear. This is not true love. Real love is not based on attachment, but on altruism. In this case your compassion will remain as a humane response to suffering as long as beings continue to suffer.
This type of compassion is what we must strive to cultivate in ourselves, and we must develop it from a limited amount to the limitless. Undiscriminating, spontaneous, and unlimited compassion for all sentient beings is obviously not the usual love that one has for friends or family, which is alloyed with ignorance, desire, and attachment. The kind of love we should advocate is this wider love that you can have even for someone who has done harm to you: your enemy.
The rationale for compassion is that every one of us wants to avoid suffering and gain happiness. This, in turn, is based on the valid feeling of '1', which determines the universal desire for happiness. Indeed, all beings are born with similar desires and should have an equal right to fulfill them. If I compare myself with others, who are countless, I feel that others are more important because I am just one person whereas others are many. Further, the Tibetan Buddhist tradition teaches us to view all sentient beings as our dear mothers and to show our gratitude by loving them all. For, according to Buddhist theory, we are born and reborn countless numbers of times, and it is conceivable that each being has been our parent at one time or another. In this way all beings in the universe share a family relationship.
Whether one believes in religion or not, there is no one who does not appreciate love and compassion. Right from the moment of our birth, we are under the care and kindness of our parents; later in life, when facing the sufferings of disease and old age, we are again dependent on the kindness of others. If at the beginning and end of our lives we depend upon others' kindness, why then in the middle should we not act kindly towards others?
The development of a kind heart (a feeling of closeness for all human beings) does not involve the religiosity we normally associate with conventional religious practice. It is not only for people who believe in religion, but is for everyone regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation. It is for anyone who considers himself or herself, above all, a member of the human family and who sees things from this larger and longer perspective. This is a powerful feeling that we should develop and apply; instead, we often neglect it, particularly in our prime years when we experience a false sense of security.
When we take into account a longer perspective, the fact that all wish to gain happiness and avoid suffering, and keep in mind our relative unimportance in relation to countless others, we can conclude that it is worthwhile to share our possessions with others. When you train in this sort of outlook, a true sense of compassion - a true sense of love and respect for others – becomes possible. Individual happiness ceases to be a conscious self-seeking effort; it becomes an automatic and far superior by-product of the whole process of loving and serving others.
Another result of spiritual development, most useful in day-to-day life, is that it gives a calmness and presence of mind. Our lives are in constant flux, bringing many difficulties. When faced with a calm and clear mind, problems can be successfully resolved. When, instead, we lose control over our minds through hatred, selfishness, jealousy, and anger, we lose our sense of judgement. Our minds are blinded and at those wild moments anything can happen, including war. Thus, the practice of compassion and wisdom is useful to all, especially to those responsible for running national affairs, in whose hands lie the power and opportunity to create the structure of world peace.
World Religions for World Peace
The principles discussed so far are in accordance with the ethical teachings of all world religions. I maintain that every major religion of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism - has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings. All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.
All religions agree upon the necessity to control the undisciplined mind that harbours selfishness and other roots of trouble, and each teaches a path leading to a spiritual state that is peaceful, disciplined, ethical, and wise. It is in this sense that I believe all religions have essentially the same message. Differences of dogma may be ascribed to differences of time and circumstance as well as cultural influences; indeed, there is no end to scholastic argument when we consider the purely metaphysical side of religion. However, it is much more beneficial to try to implement in daily life the shared precepts for goodness taught by all religions rather than to argue about minor differences in approach.
There are many different religions to bring comfort and happiness to humanity in much the same way as there are particular treatments for different diseases. For, all religions endeavour in their own way to help living beings avoid misery and gain happiness. And, although we can find causes for preferring certain interpretations of religious truths, there is much greater cause for unity, stemming from the human heart. Each religion works in its own way to lessen human suffering and contribute to world civilization. Conversion is not the point. For instance, I do not think of converting others to Buddhism or merely furthering the Buddhist cause. Rather, I try to think of how I as a Buddhist humanitarian can contribute to human happiness.
While pointing out the fundamental similarities between world religions, I do not advocate one particular religion at the expense of all others, nor do I seek a new 'world religion'. All the different religions of the world are needed to enrich human experience and world civilization. Our human minds, being of different calibre and disposition, need different approaches to peace and happiness. It is just like food. Certain people find Christianity more appealing, others prefer Buddhism because there is no creator in it and everything depends upon your own actions. We can make similar arguments for other religions as well. Thus, the point is clear: humanity needs all the world's religions to suit the ways of life, diverse spiritual needs, and inherited national traditions of individual human beings.
It is from this perspective that I welcome efforts being made in various parts of the world for better understanding among religions. The need for this is particularly urgent now. If all religions make the betterment of humanity their main concern, then they can easily work together in harmony for world peace. Interfaith understanding will bring about the unity necessary for all religions to work together. However, although this is indeed an important step, we must remember that there are no quick or easy solutions. We cannot hide the doctrinal differences that exist among various faiths, nor can we hope to replace the existing religions by a new universal belief. Each religion has its own distinctive contributions to make, and each in its own way is suitable to a particular group of people as they understand life. The world needs them all.
There are two primary tasks facing religious practitioners who are concerned with world peace. First, we must promote better interfaith understanding so as to create a workable degree of unity among all religions. This may be achieved in part by respecting each other's beliefs and by emphasizing our common concern for human well-being. Second, we must bring about a viable consensus on basic spiritual values that touch every human heart and enhance general human happiness. This means we must emphasize the common denominator of all world religions – humanitarian ideals. These two steps will enable us to act both individually and together to create the necessary spiritual conditions for world peace.
We practitioners of different faiths can work together for world peace when we view different religions as essentially instruments to develop a good heart - love and respect for others, a true sense of community. The most important thing is to look at the purpose of religion and not at the details of theology or metaphysics, which can lead to mere intellectualism. I believe that all the major religions of the world can contribute to world peace and work together for the benefit of humanity if we put aside subtle metaphysical differences, which are really the internal business of each religion.
Despite the progressive secularization brought about by worldwide modernization and despite systematic attempts in some parts of the world to destroy spiritual values, the vast majority of humanity continues to believe in one religion or another. The undying faith in religion, evident even under irreligious political systems, clearly demonstrates the potency of religion as such. This spiritual energy and power can be purposefully used to bring about the spiritual conditions necessary for world peace. Religious leaders and humanitarians all over the world have a special role to play in this respect.
Whether we will be able to achieve world peace or not, we have no choice but to work towards that goal. If our minds are dominated by anger, we will lose the best part of human intelligence - wisdom, the ability to decide between right and wrong. Anger is one of the most serious problems facing the world today.
Individual Power to Shape Institution
Anger plays no small role in current conflicts such as those in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the North-South problem, and so forth. These conflicts arise from a failure to understand one another's humanness. The answer is not the development and use of greater military force, nor an arms race. Nor is it purely political or purely technological. Basically it is spiritual, in the sense that what is required is a sensitive understanding of our common human situation. Hatred and fighting cannot bring happiness to anyone, even to the winners of battles. Violence always produces misery and thus is essentially counter-productive. It is, therefore, time for world leaders to learn to transcend the differences of race, culture, and ideology and to regard one another through eyes that see the common human situation. To do so would benefit individuals, communities, nations, and the world at large.
The greater part of present world tension seems to stem from the 'Eastern bloc' versus 'Western bloc' conflict that has been going on since World War II. These two blocs tend to describe and view each other in a totally unfavourable light. This continuing, unreasonable struggle is due to a lack of mutual affection and respect for each other as fellow human beings. Those of the Eastern bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Western bloc because the Western bloc is also made up of human beings - men, women, and children. Similarly those of the Western bloc should reduce their hatred towards the Eastern bloc because the Eastern bloc is also human beings. In such a reduction of mutual hatred, the leaders of both blocs have a powerful role to play. But first and foremost, leaders must realize their own and others' humanness. Without this basic realization, very little effective reduction of organized hatred can be achieved.
If, for example, the leader of the United States of America and the leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics suddenly met each other in the middle of a desolate island, I am sure they would respond to each other spontaneously as fellow human beings. But a wall of mutual suspicion and misunderstanding separates them the moment they are identified as the 'President of the USA' and the 'Secretary-General of the USSR'). More human contact in the form of informal extended meetings, without any agenda, would improve their mutual understanding; they would learn to relate to each other as human beings and could then try to tackle international problems based on this understanding. No two parties, especially those with a history of antagonism, can negotiate fruitfully in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and hatred.
I suggest that world leaders meet about once a year in a beautiful place without any business, just to get to know each other as human beings. Then, later, they could meet to discuss mutual and global problems. I am sure many others share my wish that world leaders meet at the conference table in such an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding of each other's humanness.
To improve person-to-person contact in the world at large, I would like to see greater encouragement of international tourism. Also, mass media, particularly in democratic societies, can make a considerable contribution to world peace by giving greater coverage to human interest items that reflect the ultimate oneness of humanity. With the rise of a few big powers in the international arena, the humanitarian role of international organizations is being bypassed and neglected. I hope that this will be corrected and that all international organizations, especially the United Nations, will be more active and effective in ensuring maximum benefit to humanity and promoting international understanding. It will indeed be tragic if the few powerful members continue to misuse world bodies like the UN for their one-sided interests. The UN must become the instrument of world peace. This world body must be respected by all, for the UN is the only source of hope for small oppressed nations and hence for the planet as a whole.
As all nations are economically dependent upon one another more than ever before, human understanding must go beyond national boundaries and embrace the international community at large. Indeed, unless we can create an atmosphere of genuine cooperation, gained not by threatened or actual use of force but by heartfelt understanding, world problems will only increase. If people in poorer countries are denied the happiness they desire and deserve, they will naturally be dissatisfied and pose problems for the rich. If unwanted social, political, and cultural forms continue to be imposed upon unwilling people, the attainment of world peace is doubtful. However, if we satisfy people at a heart-to-heart level, peace will surely come.
Within each nation, the individual ought to be given the right to happiness, and among nations, there must be equal concern for the welfare of even the smallest nations. I am not suggesting that one system is better than another and all should adopt it. On the contrary, a variety of political systems and ideologies is desirable and accords with the variety of dispositions within the human community. This variety enhances the ceaseless human quest for happiness. Thus each community should be free to evolve its own political and socio-economic system, based on the principle of self-determination.
The achievement of justice, harmony, and peace depends on many factors. We should think about them in terms of human benefit in the long run rather than the short term. I realize the enormity of the task before us, but I see no other alternative than the one I am proposing - which is based on our common humanity. Nations have no choice but to be concerned about the welfare of others, not so much because of their belief in humanity, but because it is in the mutual and long-term interest of all concerned. An appreciation of this new reality is indicated by the emergence of regional or continental economic organizations such as the European Economic Community, the Association of South East Asian Nations, and so forth. I hope more such trans-national organizations will be formed, particularly in regions where economic development and regional stability seem in short supply.
Under present conditions, there is definitely a growing need for human understanding and a sense of universal responsibility. In order to achieve such ideas, we must generate a good and kind heart, for without this, we can achieve neither universal happiness nor lasting world peace. We cannot create peace on paper. While advocating universal responsibility and universal brotherhood and sisterhood, the facts are that humanity is organized in separate entities in the form of national societies. Thus, in a realistic sense, I feel it is these societies that must act as the building-blocks for world peace. Attempts have been made in the past to create societies more just and equal. Institutions have been established with noble charters to combat anti-social forces. Unfortunately, such ideas have been cheated by selfishness. More than ever before, we witness today how ethics and noble principles are obscured by the shadow of self-interest, particularly in the political sphere. There is a school of thought that warns us to refrain from politics altogether, as politics has become synonymous with amorality. Politics devoid of ethics does not further human welfare, and life without morality reduces humans to the level of beasts. However, politics is not axiomatically 'dirty'. Rather, the instruments of our political culture have distorted the high ideals and noble concepts meant to further human welfare. Naturally, spiritual people express their concern about religious leaders 'messing' with politics, since they fear the contamination of religion by dirty politics.
I question the popular assumption that religion and ethics have no place in politics and that religious persons should seclude themselves as hermits. Such a view of religion is too one-sided; it lacks a proper perspective on the individual's relation to society and the role of religion in our lives. Ethics is as crucial to a politician as it is to a religious practitioner. Dangerous consequences will follow when politicians and rulers forget moral principles. Whether we believe in God or karma, ethics is the foundation of every religion.
Such human qualities as morality, compassion, decency, wisdom, and so forth have been the foundations of all civilizations. These qualities must be cultivated and sustained through systematic moral education in a conducive social environment so that a more humane world may emerge. The qualities required to create such a world must be inculcated right from the beginning, from childhood. We cannot wait for the next generation to make this change; the present generation must attempt a renewal of basic human values. If there is any hope, it is in the future generations, but not unless we institute major change on a worldwide scale in our present educational system. We need a revolution in our commitment to and practice of universal humanitarian values.
It is not enough to make noisy calls to halt moral degeneration; we must do something about it. Since present-day governments do not shoulder such 'religious' responsibilities, humanitarian and religious leaders must strengthen the existing civic, social, cultural, educational, and religious organizations to revive human and spiritual values. Where necessary, we must create new organizations to achieve these goals. Only in so doing can we hope to create a more stable basis for world peace.
Living in society, we should share the sufferings of our fellow citizens and practise compassion and tolerance not only towards our loved ones but also towards our enemies. This is the test of our moral strength. We must set an example by our own practice, for we cannot hope to convince others of the value of religion by mere words. We must live up to the same high standards of integrity and sacrifice that we ask of others. The ultimate purpose of all religions is to serve and benefit humanity. This is why it is so important that religion always be used to effect the happiness and peace of all beings and not merely to convert others.
Still, in religion there are no national boundaries. A religion can and should be used by any people or person who finds it beneficial. What is important for each seeker is to choose a religion that is most suitable to himself or herself. But, the embracing of a particular religion does not mean the rejection of another religion or one's own community. In fact, it is important that those who embrace a religion should not cut themselves off from their own society; they should continue to live within their own community and in harmony with its members. By escaping from your own community, you cannot benefit others, whereas benefiting others is actually the basic aim of religion.
In this regard there are two things important to keep in mind: self-examination and self-correction. We should constantly check our attitude toward others, examining ourselves carefully, and we should correct ourselves immediately when we find we are in the wrong.
Finally, a few words about material progress. I have heard a great deal of complaint against material progress from Westerners, and yet, paradoxically, it has been the very pride of the Western world. I see nothing wrong with material progress per se, provided people are always given precedence. It is my firm belief that in order to solve human problems in all their dimensions, we must combine and harmonize economic development with spiritual growth.
However, we must know its limitations. Although materialistic knowledge in the form of science and technology has contributed enormously to human welfare, it is not capable of creating lasting happiness. In America, for example, where technological development is perhaps more advanced than in any other country, there is still a great deal of mental suffering. This is because materialistic knowledge can only provide a type of happiness that is dependent upon physical conditions. It cannot provide happiness that springs from inner development independent of external factors.
For renewal of human values and attainment of lasting happiness, we need to look to the common humanitarian heritage of all nations the world over. May this essay serve as an urgent reminder lest we forget the human values that unite us all as a single family on this planet.
I have written the above lines
To tell my constant feeling.
Whenever I meet even a 'foreigner',
I have always the same feeling:
'I am meeting another member of the human family.,
This attitude has deepened
My affection and respect for all beings.
May this natural wish be
My small contribution to world peace.
I pray for a more friendly,
More caring, and more understanding
Human family on this planet.
To all who dislike suffering,
Who cherish lasting happiness -
This is my heartfelt appeal.
http://www.dalailama.com/page.62.htm
-
That would have been a good post to start a thread and discussion from, posted here it seems more like an attempted thread-jacking.
I would contrast the Dalai Lama's school of thought - let's slow change/technological advancement, through collective action (seems unlikely) - with Bob Wright's - the idea that there is an arrow of history - but really while both schools of thought would not lead to Iraq; neither does either really seem to connect well with this thread.
-
Well, Bill, I felt like it was appropriate. There is no attempted threadjacking. The article reflects a position on world events, including Iraq, that I believe in. Anytime is a good time to read such words of wisdom.
-
I still don't see the South Africa connection. I do understand the Sudan/OBL connection or at least the Sudan/Salafism/OBL connection but I don't know where I would put South Africa in that equation.
Sudan was bombed because of the Irag/OBL/Sudan link.
South Africa plays a role in it showing that even a country like South Africa which had little power was able to by pass resolutions and embargos. These things never worked on SA for roughly 25 years and after 12+ on Saddam they were not working. To think they would start to work is foolish, action needed taken now or later. The only thing time would have brought would be more power to Saddam and countries like France, Russia, and Germany caving in even more on resolutions without holding Saddam to them.
1. They're both ideas Bush had when he came into office. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote about his first Oval Office meeting with Bush, a few weeks into Bush's presidency, at which the president explained his "determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq." About the same time, Bush was meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox to try to hammer out an immigration deal that would combine a guest worker program with legalization of existing illegal Mexican immigrants. (This was all before 9/11, although in both cases Bush has claimed that 9/11 made essential what he wanted to do all along. Funny how that happens.)
Actually the US goal of removing saddam was started under Clinton. How soon you forget Clinton signing the "Iraqi Liberation Act".
Hammer out a deal? Ya right. The most that can be talked about generalities The meeting was never about making decisions or going into some details because that power does not go to the executive branch. Congress has ultimate say over what "deals" are done.
-
"I have, therefore chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax American enforced on the world by American weapons of war.... I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children - not merely peace in our time but peace in all time." - President John F. Kennedy
"World peace through nonviolent means is neither absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed. Thus we must begin anew. Nonviolence is a good starting point. - Martin Luther King
"America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating.
- Zbigniew Brzezinski
-
WRL Homepage • WRL Programs • WRL Literature • WRL Actions • WRL Employment • About WRL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Military
$727 billion:
• Military Personnel $136 billion
• Operation & Maint. $249 billion
• Procurement $111 billion
• Research & Dev. $70 billion
• Construction $10 billion
• Family Housing $4 billion
• DoD misc. $6 billion
• Retired Pay $52 billion
• DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
• NASA (50%) $9 billion
• International Security $10 billion
• Homeland Secur. (military) $31 billion
• Exec. Office of President $1 billion
• other military (non-DoD) $1 billion
• plus ... anticipated supplemental war spending requests of $20 billion in addition to $141 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan wars already incorporated into figures above
Past Military,
$461 billion:
• Veterans’ Benefits $85 billion
• Interest on national debt $376 billion (80% est. to be created by military spending)
Human Resources
$748 billion:
• Health/Human Services
• Soc. Sec. Administration
• Education Dept.
• Food/Nutrition programs
• Housing & Urban Dev.
• Labor Dept.
• other human resources.
General Government
$295 billion:
• Interest on debt (20%)
• Treasury • Government personnel • Justice Dept.
• State Dept.
• Homeland Security (17%)
• International Affairs
• NASA (50%)
• Judicial
• Legislative
• other general govt.
Physical Resources
$116 billion:
• Agriculture
• Interior
• Transportation
• Homeland Security (17%)
• HUD
• Commerce
• Energy (non-military)
• Environmental Protection
• Nat. Science Fdtn.
• Army Corps Engineers
• Fed. Comm. Commission
• other physical resources
Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,387 billion
MILITARY: 51% and $1,228 billion
NON-MILITARY: 49% and $1,159 billion
HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED
urrent military” includes Dept. of Defense ($585 billion), the military portion from other departments ($122 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($20 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*
The Government Deception
The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really spent, see the large chart (top).
Source:Washington Post , Feb. 6, 2007,
from Office of Management and Budget
These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 17, 2007, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.
*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.
MORE WAR MONEY
Cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
(billions of dollars)
U.S. Gov’t Accounting Office report, “Global War on Terrorism,” 7/18/06, www.gao.gov/new.items/d06885t.pdf (thru 2006); 2007 & 2008 numbers from current U.S. Budget; *Our FY2008 projected supplemental funding is based on estimates in the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments report by Steven Kosiak, 2/6/07, www.csbaonline.org, and because of the Administration’s past underprojections
MORE DEATHS
• More than 34,000 Iraqi civilian deaths in 2006 — twice as many as in 2005 — and 37,000 injured 1
• More than 12,000 Iraqi security forces killed since 2003 1
• More than 3,900 U.S. military and “coalition” forces dead with more than 38,400 U.S. military and coalition forces wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 2
• Twice as many Afghani deaths in 2006 — 4,400 (including 1,000 civilians) — compared to 2005 3
LESS SECURITY
“Rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position.”4
“It’s a very candid assessment . . . stating the obvious,” according to
one intelligence official.
1 UN report, 1/16/2007;
2 icasualties.org;
3 Human Rights Watch report (AP, 1/30/07);
4 A key finding of the National Intelligence Estimate, a 2006 report from 16 U.S. government spy agencies (“Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Hurting U.S. Terror Fight,” Washington Post, 9/24/06)
FEWER FRIENDS
A poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries show the global view of the U.S. role in world affairs is deteriorating.
• 73% disapprove of U.S. role in Iraq
• 68% believe that the U.S. military presence in the middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents
• 49% believe the United States plays a mainly negative role in the world
source: BBC World Service poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm