by the way, an awfull lot of democrats in the house and senate voted in favor of Bush. You can let your guard down now, the majority of both parties are now willing to see an attack take place.
of course the point is about iraq. we cannot afford a pointless war as we have much more pressing problems at home, nor is there indeed any reason to start such a war. as far as ideology goes, oh dear, that is such a cheap game, trying to instrumentalize that for lack of arguments, just like bush hasn't been able to come up with a single good argument up to this day for another equally stupid war like vietnam. to a large extent ideology is being instrumentalized like games played by children in kindergarten, mere name calling for the sake of hoping to undermine credibility through compartmentalizing. not that i think that too many voters are still falling for such cheap games anymore, these games are rather net contributors to the ever decreasing faith many people have in their politicians nowadays as evinced by numerous studies. as for congress, oh well, congress has always approved every dumb war this country has engaged in, there was never any reason to suspect that they wouldn't do so this time. Almost 40 years ago, Congress kowtowed to another president from Texas and approved the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution â based on the repeated lies of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara that Red patrol boats had attacked U.S. warships on a supposedly routine mission off North Vietnam, which the senior admiral in the Pacific had predicted months before would provoke exactly this type of response and result in an escalation of the Vietnam War. Only Sens. Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska stood tall and voted "nay." When Morse chillingly predicted we'd lose the war and LBJ would go down in flames, most members of Congress responded that they were patriotically backing the president in a time of crisis. They should also match what the ordinary folks who elected them are saying against the national polls' war chantey, "Let's Push With Bush Into Baghdad." Last week, I visited four states, and all of the hundreds of average Joes and Janes I spoke with were for U.N. inspectors returning and our tightening the choke leash on Iraq enough that nothing gets in or out without going through a U.S.-manned checkpoint. A Vietnam combat Marine told me: "Certainly Saddam is a tyrant and a threat to his neighbors. But so are the leaders of Syria, Iran, North Korea and, for that matter, Pakistan. All of our comrades who died in Vietnam and those of us who vowed 'never again' will now again watch another generation march off to war without the approval of the American people." "Who'll pay for it?" asks another citizen. "We all know it'll be our kids. They're the ones who will pay, as it has been since the Revolutionary War. Those who reap the rewards are of a different category." "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts" is here! One of America's most decorated soldiers, Col. David Hackworth, writes about the hopeless to hardcore transformation of the 4/39th Infantry Battalion and lays bare his most daring and legendary tour of duty. Col. David H. Hackworth, author of his new best-selling "Steel My Soldiers' Hearts," "Price of Honor" and "About Face," has seen duty or reported as a sailor, soldier and military correspondent in nearly a dozen wars and conflicts â from the end of World War II to the recent fights against international terrorism. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=29035 so, congress simply did what it's done so often, not, of course, that that should mislead anyone into thinking that there is any reason for this war, which of course there isn't, as the rest of the world sees very clearly, leaving us to pay the bill with money we do not have. now, i'm sure that poor colonel david hackworth, one of america's most decorated soldiers, who has seen duty or reported as a sailor, soldier and military correspondent in nearly a dozen wars and conflicts â from the end of world war II to the recent fights against international terrorism, will be the subject of derogatory activities, as of course a voice of reason cannot be allowed to stand tall without an attempt at undermining his credibility through some name calling or equally clever games, hehe. The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors. http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-19-02.html brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
I see, the Congress, Senate and American public have been duped by Bush. How can this be? According to your posts, he's completely deficient so as to make this impossible. But you don't call anyone names, right? Right, we need to blow out the entire legislature then. Then it must be Bush's skill at duping the entire free world. Amazing, isn't it?
what, spin master, i thought you'd taken off for your much deserved nappy? pray, do respond to this here: fruitcake, more like it, our slanderer, dissembler and spin master in chief, max. the job he was born for would have been assistant to mccarthy, seems like he missed his opportunity of a lifetime, there, or maybe work for some totalitarian regime somewhere for some kgb like association of good old boys just trying to have some fun. as i wrote earlier RE max and his conniving little dirty games vs rs7, or actually anybody else who doesn't share his lowlife warmonging tendencies: max, there you keep on playing your evil minded games... let's have a little less of your rather pathetic fact twisting and dissembling, if not to call it outright lying, as indeed rs7 has divulged way more of himself and his private history than could ever have been warranted by the rude and instrumentalized charges you have been directing at him with incredible pertinacity, of course, that didn't satisfy you, as you were never after the answers, your agenda was attacking his credibility through your little games and rhetorical questions... and, the point is, as you very well know but are disingenuously ignoring for your little character slandering ploy: having been, or not having been, in combat, cannot be proven or disproved on a board, but it is also thoroughly immaterial to the discussion at hand, because, genius, you do not need to have been a soldier let alone have been involved in warfare to be able to imagine death or mutilation on the one hand, or come to an educated assessment of strategic diplomatic, geopolitical and economic consequences of war on the other. so, for a change, let's get some facts from you for a change: i do wonder, though, what with max's insistence on delving into others private backgrounds just to shed some doubt on the material content of their messages, if the dear boy, now that we have verified his gender, is actually planning on applying for a tour of duty himself? or if he would prefer to be a couch potato warrior, getting his thrills from watching manipulated tv coverage of the war that makes it magically appear surgically precise and clean, with a remote control as his only weapon and a beer or two his only consolation for an opportunity missed on purpose to hmm, go kick some ass. but, then again, how could he prove his reply to us? oh dear. brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
have you fallen so low in your customary dissembling and spin spinning to claim that the uk, where tony does not have the population or even parliament behind him, and some crackpot countries like romania and one or two corrupt oil sheik regimes like qatar that depend on the usa to keep democracy at bay and the corrupt sheiks in power, that this great congregation is the entire free world, or even anywhere to 1% of the support we had during the gulf war? including the hefty financial contributions made by our erstwhile allies, with us only having to pay around 5% of the total costs, while this time around we're stuck with the bill pretty much ourselves? my oh my, you're really going strong, couch potato. next you'll claim you have the evidence, that not even W has, that saddam poses any threat to the usa, what? btw, the nobel peace prize for jimmy carter was a very clear signal from the nobel committee against bush's warmonging agenda re saddam, sthg that has never happened before in the long history of the nobel peace prize. brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
Oh, I seem to remember now . . . you do call people names. Are you "undermining credibility through compartmentalizing?" "Only Sens. Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska stood tall and voted "nay." When Morse chillingly predicted we'd lose the war and LBJ would go down in flames, most members of Congress responded that they were patriotically backing the president in a time of crisis." The good Senators were right, but not for the correct reason. LBJ ran Vietnam by committee and that and his general battle plan methodology doomed any chance of success. BTW, the peace demonstrations in this country contributed to a large percentage of US combat casualties.
good god, this is so incredible it's almost funny. success in propping up the evil government in south vietnam? peace movement contributing to a large percentage of us combat casualties, as opposed to it playing an important role in ending the most imbecilic war happily nodded off by congress this country has ever engaged in, at incredible cost to an entire generation? dear boy, do rapidly check into a mental asylum of your choice, while you still have any choice, that does seem highly indicated, particularly as time seems to be running out rather quickly at the rate you're going. brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
oh god, there are so many countries it isn't even funny. japan, 2nd largest economy in the world, has the highest private savings of the industrialized world, money freely available to go on spending sprees with, an absolutely incredible infrastructure, health care fully comparable to what is available in the usa, and pension coverage, basically no crime or drugs, very little obesity because people there actually have enough money to buy proper food for themselves and their families, excellent education, and, despite the massive economic problems they've had the last 10 or so years, an incredibly high standard of living, with lower work hours per month / white collar worker than the us. walking through tokyo is an experience of sheer wealth not easily forgotten, but the same goes for kobe, kyoto, etc. very much most of the above would also apply to the 3rd largest economy in the world, germany, actually many of the arab oil sheiks go to germany for their annual health check up, germany also has more immigrants than any other european country per capita, also switzerland, every single country in scandinavia and several others more. as i wrote earlier: as far as the poor go, where we have 20 % of our children living in poverty, there are 20 countries way ahead of us, with a much smaller percentage of their children living in poverty. as far as benefits go, compared to the most highly developed countries in the world, we are one of the very few that doesn't have medical and pension coverage for all it's citizens. in the us, again unlike many other highly developed countries where the trend is the other way around, the normal white-collar employee has been working longer hours for the same pay with fewer benefits as compared to 30 years ago. according to juliet schor's "the overworked american" (1992), "if present trends continue, by the end of the century americans will be spending as much time on their jobs as they did back in the nineteen twenties"âbefore the eight-hour day became standard. according to the ILO, the international labor organization of the un, workers in the usa are putting in more hours than anyone else in the industrialized world, counter to the trend in other industrialized nations, where the number of hours worked annually fell during the 1990s, and with no monetary reward for increased work in the usa vs many other highly developed nations. in 1973 the average new college grad earned $14.82 an hour, which is actually $1.17 per hour more than you earned 25 years later, while the latter practically have zero job security and much fewer benefits any more. there are many differences between japan and the usa, but one major difference is that the japanese could spend if they wanted to, as one of the nations with the largest private savings per capita, whereas we couldn't even if we wanted to. ------------------------------------ Staying poor in America The poor in the United States are less likely than the poor in other countries to leave poverty from one year to the next. On average, about 28.6% of the poor in the United States escape poverty each year. The share of the poor leaving poverty in the other countries ranges from 29.1% in the United Kingdom to 43.7% in the Netherlands. The poor in the United States are also more likely than the poor in other countries to fall back into poverty once they make it out. http://www.epinet.org/webfeatures/s...hots010110.html as for saddam, we can very easily do what we've done with many others, contain them through deterrence. absolutely no need for a war that has us internationally isolated, and for which we don't have the money. because, after all: The threat from Iraq is exaggerated. Other despotic countries have or are seeking weapons of mass destruction (Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia), have invaded their neighbors (Syria, Libya, and North Korea), and even used chemical weapons (Libya in Chad during the 1980s). Moreover, Iraq's military has been devastated by the Gulf War and a decade of sanctions. Americans should ask why the United States -- half a world away -- is more concerned about the Iraqi threat than are Iraq's neighbors. http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-19-02.html and, as ever: brent scowcroft, national security advisor to presidents gerald ford & george bush senior: Don't Attack Saddam It would undermine our antiterror efforts http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110002133
Here's what David Horowitz, who helped to organize the first campus demonstration against the war at Berkeley in 1962, had to say years later: "Every testimony by North Vietnamese generals in the postwar years has affirmed that they knew they could not defeat the United States on the battlefield, and that they counted on the division of our people at home to win the war for them. The Vietcong forces we were fighting in South Vietnam were destroyed in 1968. In other words, most of the war and most of the casualties in the war occurred because the dictatorship of North Vietnam counted on the fact Americans would give up the battle rather than pay the price necessary to win it. This is what happened. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, and tens of thousands of Americans, is on the hands of the anti-war activists who prolonged the struggle and gave victory to the Communists."