|
herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/12/2006 11:56:05 AM)
|
ShadowMster: Oh please, as I must have missed the news. What is this plan?
Apparently, you did miss the news.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml
quote:
We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on.
I will let you digest the parts in red. Here is one part of our plan that was recently completed:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/212C52D7-97FE-488E-A84A-16CF6429AC4F.htm
quote:
Iraq's government has taken control of its armed forces in a step hailed by US officials as a crucial milestone on the country's difficult road to independence.
General George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, said at a ceremony to mark the event on Thursday: "From today forward, the Iraqi military responsibilities will be increasingly conceived and led by Iraqis."
Casey and Nuri al-Maliki signed the document which puts the Iraqi prime minister in direct control of the country's military.
We are already moving into the next phase of the plan - getting their logistics infrastructure propped up so that they can sustain their combat forces. Once we complete that, we can start talking about how many troops we could start bringing home.
ShadowMster: We are loosing more and more men each day,
That is what happens in a war, you know that do you? People get killed. Look at World War II. We lost more people in that War than this one. In fact, we lost more people in two World War II battles than we’ve lost in Iraq the entire time we were there. Could you imagine people complaining about us “not having a plan” back then because more people were getting killed each day?
If we don’t do what we set out to do THERE, the networked enemies that we are dealing with over there will end up fighting us HERE. We may have some time. They would reestablish their Caliphates and Emirates starting with Iraq, then Afghanistan, then the other countries in that area. Then topple Israel. Then utilize their critical mass in Europe to turn that continent into a series of Islamic Caliphates and Emirates.
Remember, our pulling out of Iraq before we complete our campaign objectives will just be the beginning of a series of us pulling out. First out of Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Europe.
HENCE, what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is a necessary risk that we must take.
ShadowMster: the security forces are attacking each other.
Some of their forces are attacking each other. Many of these attacks in are perpetrated by IMPOSTERS with Iraqi Security force uniforms. This should not be a surprise to anybody. Terrorists have infiltrated some of their boys into the security forces ever since we started to stand the Iraqi military up. Despite the bad apples that do get through, they don’t represent the good Iraqis in their security force, and they definitely are not representative of the entire Iraqi military.
ShadowMster: Iraq police (as they are called) are divided arresting only the factions they don't represent.
Again, this is not entirely true. This would be like accusing our entire police force of beating blacks because of the Rodney King incident. (Yes, I’ve heard charges of our police being racist because of that incident.) Or this would be like accusing every single person in uniform of being baby killers, because of the accusations that flew around during the Vietnam War. Yes, even LAW ENFORCEMENT personnel have been accused of being baby killers. Starting to see the logical fallacy of your reasoning?
However, these reports of unfair practices don’t represent the action of their entire forces.
ShadowMster: Stay the course? I'm sure people on the titanic, as water flowed over the deck, continued to believe the ship would never sink.
INDUCTIVE FALLACY. You are comparing apples and oranges. We are staying the course in Iraq, just as we stayed the course in Post World War II Germany, where our allied forces were attacked by insurgents. They used many of the same tactics that the insurgents of Iraq are using. We stayed the course in Germany. Look at where they are at today.
Heck, look at where we are at right now thanks to a few good leaders insisting on our staying the course during the American Revolution.
ShadowMster: The lawlessness continues,
Northern Iraq:
http://www.theotheriraq.com
quote:
The people of Iraqi-Kurdistan invite you to discover their peaceful region, a place that has practiced democracy for over a decade, a place where the universities, markets, cafes and fair grounds buzz with progress and prosperity and where the people are already sowing the seeds of a brighter future.
Also, keep in mind that violence tends to peak during Ramadan. Every year since the invasion, violence peaked around this time of the year, just to taper off after the fact. Despite the negative attention, the vast majority of Iraq is moving forward.
ShadowMster: as do the bills that will be paid by from generations yet to be born of Americans.
You don’t get it. But this guy does:
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html
quote:
ORIGINAL: Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy— because everything is at stake.
ShadowMster: All because Sadaam didn't have WMD..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html
Washington Post - An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday.
As you were saying? Mustard and Sarin gas ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction.
ShadowMster: So, when Korea explodes a nuke, we "wait and see"
Nice try, but I am going to put this into proper time perspective. We go into Iraq and people accuse us of going “unilateral” and failing to work with our allies, failing to get a large agreement from the international community, for failing to get UN security council approval, etc.
Enter North Korea. We decide to work with our allies. Go through the UN. Work MULTILATERALLY, etc. It is obvious that we are “giving diplomacy a chance”. PRECISELY what you wanted us to do with Iraq.
You people wanted us to take a “wait and see” with Iraq. But when we finally do that with Iran and Korea, you harp at us for doing just that.
Which is it? “wait and see”, or “go right in?” You people are not satisfied with anything that this administration is doing. Your attitudes toward our actions in Iraq and Korea - two different approaches during the Bush Administration, and you guys still have to complain.
Oh, and we did have a “wait and see” attitude in Iraq. We did this for 12 years before dropping our shoes on them.
What makes you think that the North Koreans would have been stupid where the Iraqis were smart? Had we invaded them a few months ago, the North Koreans would have moved their nukes out of country. Then you people would be out in full force accusing the administration about “lying” about North Korea’s nuke program.
ShadowMster: but when Saddam vows over and over that he has nothing, we attack..
Between Iraq and North Korea, which country
1. Invaded its neighbors in the past 20 years?
2. Did we fight a war with in the early 90s?
3. Had a cease fire agreement with us after this war (No# 2)?
4. Did we spend 13 years on pressuring to dismantle his WMD programs?
NOTE: A cease fire is a temporary hold on a war pending discussion or the completion of certain agreed upon milestones. It is NOT a declaration of peace. Meaning, as soon as one side violates its part of the deal, the other side has every right to resume the war.
Second, he vowed that he had nothing, but WMD were uncovered after the invasion. You know, kind of like Libya denying its WMD program - before coming clean and showing us WMD that they claimed they did not have.
ShadowMster: Makes sense right?
Makes perfect sense when you include the complete set of facts. What you had was SPIN.
ShadowMster: The problem is we knew had had WMD, because the US sold them to him to use against the Kurds.
That is a MYTH. Saddam’s WMD program needed no help from the US. He started work on it long before the Iran Iraq War.
ShadowMster: Even white house sources have said that Iraq is now MORE of a haven for militants then before.
And you don’t see the brilliance of this plan, do you? Instead of fighting Islamic warriors in terrain hostile to our equipment (Afghanistan - ask the Soviet Union), we are fighting them in territory that is convenient for our advanced weaponry (Iraq). While the jihadists (sp) are filtrating to Iraq, the Afghani military is getting more competent. Once Iraq gets stable, and these knuckleheads realize that all is lost in Iraq, it would be too late to try to topple our efforts in Afghanistan.
These militants would have gone somewhere whether or not we invaded Iraq. If we did not go into Iraq, they would have gone to Afghanistan. And our task in dealing with them would have been harder.
ShadowMster: Say what you want about our former alley Saddam Hassain
Hind sight is perfect isn’t it? Would you let a friend assist someone who wanted to murder you, because he was your friend?
ShadowMster: (who used nerve gas we sold him to kill his citizens),
That is a MYTH. Saddam’s WMD program needed no help from the US. He started work on it long before the Iran Iraq War.
ShadowMster: at least he was feared enough to keep everything in check.
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp
quote:
Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.”
Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.”
This is a classic example of being lulled into a false sense of security. It would NOT have been better to leave him in power. Our not going into Iraq would saved thousands of lives NOW. But it would not save the hundreds of thousands that would die on our soil when it was our turn to be transformed into a bunch of Islamic Caliphates and Emirates.
ShadowMster: Now, after our failure
I don’t know what Iraq you are talking about, but the Iraq the troops talk about when they come home is a scandalously unreported success.
ShadowMster: (as much of the wolrd sees it),
Much of the world is getting second hand information from their media. The media is not presenting a fair and balanced look at what is happening in Iraq. In fact, this is one of the complaints our troops have about the media in that theater. In some instances, it has lead to the troops not trusting the journalists.
http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/media.htm
quote:
The insurgents are very media savvy. They blow something up every day, and that is what makes the news. The journalists have a term for it - the "daily bang-bang." Even if they wanted to report on something else, they still would have to report on the explosion of the day first.
Western reporters operate under severe restrictions. Beginning in February of this year, after two members of a CNN crew were killed on the way back from covering a story in Hillah, most security organizations recommended to their media clients to stay locked down in their hotels and let Iraqis gather the footage and do the reporting. You'll notice that it is rare to see a Western reporter on the scene of a story. Most do stand-ups - NBC always has the roughly pyramid shaped Babylon Hotel in the background, while CNN uses a blue mosque.
I was in Hillah the day the crew was killed, and it was an awful day. All of us felt terrible and I certainly can't fault anyone for increasing security after that tragedy. However, while they are working very hard, no Iraqi has been a journalist for much more than a year. And prior to May 2003, there were severe penalties for speaking freely, so Iraqis don't even have the advantages of a cub reporter in the USA.
While Iraq is improving for Iraqis, it is an extremely unpleasant place for Westerners. I've traveled in about thirty countries, and Iraq is about as tough as it gets for a Westerner. Everyday food is pretty bad, and the bad food is awful. It is difficult to get exercise. You are being targeted for death by the insurgents by virtue of where you are born. Social lives, aside from hanging around with your immediate neighbors, are virtually non-existent. Telephone calls to your family are tough to make. I'm not a journalist, but I can see where it doesn't take too long to lose your perspective on the good side of things.
A small percentage of reporters are actively slanting the story. I don't want to take anything away from the majority of journalists who, as I have said, are extremely brave and doing work under extremely adverse circumstances. However, some percentage - ten percent, twenty percent, thirty percent€ it is difficult to say - is actively slanting their coverage.
For instance, I was at a party one night, chatting with a producer from one of the major networks who I had just met. After about five minutes of normal, mundane conversation, it came out that I am a Republican. She said "You Nazi!" and proceeded to go off on me for about twenty minutes.
Of course, this doesn't color her reporting.
Another woman at that same party, a freelancer for several major magazines, said "The entire goal of my reporting here is to make sure George W. Bush is not re-elected."
Pardon me and many others for REFUSING to be suckered by the insurgents and media into thinking that Iraq was a “bad” move.
ShadowMster: no one fears us -- after all, look at Korea.. We yell stop.. They go.. and what do we do? The same thing, almost verbatim, that we did with Iraq. Only this time, the world seems more united behind us (even if they don't trust us or respect us).
If you are indicating that this is because of Iraq, Keep in mind that the Koreans have been doing this since 1994. We went the diplomatic route with them. Did not work. It turned out that they took what we sent them and started to bring their nuke program to maturity. Iraq tested us throughout the 90s. The North Koreans double crossed us in the 90s. Osama Bin Laden did not fear us in the 1990s. NOTE: We did not invade and remain in Iraq when all of this was happening.
If we failed to go into Iraq, North Korea would still have detonated its nuclear bomb. After all, they’ve been working on their program since the 1990s. The Iranians would still be working on theirs. Only this time, the Iraqis would have been working on theirs as well. Nuclear armed Iraq right next to nuclear armed Iran. YEAHH . . . OOOHHHKAY! No thanks. Going into Iraq was still a good decision.
ShadowMster: Oh, wait.. Korea doesn't have oil. and lets not forget the Bush family (and Chaney) is in Oil.
If this were true, we would have invaded countries on this side of the globe. We get most of our oil from the Western Hemisphere.
Second, Bush Sr, Clinton, and Bush Jr, all received lucrative oil deals from Saddam. All three administrations rejected his offer. If it were just about oil, they would have simply accepted these offers. As a businessman and a holder of an MBA, President Bush would know that invading a country in lieu of simply accepting a lucrative oil deal does not make good business sense.
ShadowMster: The bush faily and the Saudi royal family go way back (as does the Bin Laudin family).
I am going to use two anti Bush articles to prove the SPIN behind this..
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml
quote:
In 1979, Bush’s first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden’s, in Arbusto.
So, a relative of Osama Bin Laden was involved with a business venture with George Bush. There are millions of business ventures like this. It happens allot in the business world. You know, joint business ventures and the like.
Note: Osama Bin Laden is the terrorist. NOT HIS FAMILY.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm
quote:
At the same time that the elder Bush counsels his son on the ongoing war on terrorism, the former president remains a senior adviser to the Washington D.C.-based Carlyle Group. That influential investment bank has deep connections to the Saudi royal family as well as financial interests in U.S. defense firms hired by the kingdom to equip and train the Saudi military.
As I suspected. What appears to be a former president reaping the benefits you would have reaped had you been the senior advisor to the Washington D.C. based Carlyle Group.
ShadowMster: We will never find him until he has already passed on. After all, if we did, we could not justify billions and billions to a "War" efffort.
When Bin Laden slips OUTSIDE of Afghanistan, there is nothing we could do in Afghanistan itself to capture Bin Laden. Does not matter if we have a million troops, or just 10. Not much our troops can do to secure Bin Laden’s capture if he is not even in Afghanistan.
Even if we do capture him, the War on Terrorism would not be over. It will still go on. If you listen to President Bush’s speeches starting days after 9/11, you would know that this is not JUST about Bin Laden.
ShadowMster: "We are wat war, your either with us or against us."
If you harbor terrorists bent at destroying us and you fail to take any course of action to neutralize these terrorists then you are an accomplice to efforts to inflict harm on us.
ShadowMster: And if your against us, will will arrest you under the patriot act,
If they are terrorists plotting attacks on U.S. soil, they Patriot Act makes for their arrests easier. After all, the terrorists are against us.
ShadowMster: hold you without trial in Cuba,
Considering that they were doing things like shooting at our troops when they got captured, it is only fitting that we hold these illegal combatants in custody until the war is over. That way, they can’t do things like shooting at our forces - or plotting attacks against U.S. Citizens.
ShadowMster: tap your phones (without due process),
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
quote:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
1801 (a)(1):
quote:
(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
They are not just snooping on ANY conversation that takes place. Just conversations from people in the US to members of Al-Qaeda overseas. Calls from Al-Qaeda members to the United States are monitored.
I don’t know about you, but if someone is plotting an attack on the U.S., or may be doing so, and is calling a cell member in our borders, I sure as hell would want the government to be monitoring them.
ShadowMster: tax the hell out of you,
WRONG PARTY. Bush wants to keep the tax cuts permanent. The Democrats are calling to roll back many people’s tax cuts.
ShadowMster: and take your civil liberties all the telling you it is in the name of freedom.
From the Patriot Act itself:
quote:
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS- It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, including Arab Americans, Muslim Americans, and Americans from South Asia, must be protected, and that every effort must be taken to preserve their safety;
(2) any acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans be condemned; and
(3) the Nation is called upon to recognize the patriotism of fellow citizens from all ethnic, racial, and religious backgrounds.
ShadowMster: Who cares if Bill Clinton got a blow job inthe oval office. Hell, my only disapointment was the fact she was so average looking. At least JFK had Ms. Monroe, a women by all accounts made both Hillary and Monica look like a dog.. (then again, that's not really that hard a thing to do right?)
AGAIN, it is not about Bill Clinton getting a blow job in the oval office. It is about his encouraging people to break the law. Perjury and Obstruction to justice. That is no small matter, especially if it is the PRESIDENT trying to hamper the wheels of justice.
ShadowMster: Read an interesting article from Lou Dobbs on CNN.. His advice, switch parties to Independent,, even if you don't vote that way.. Give the politicans a wake up call.
I would rather read an article written by Tammy Bruce:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/10/29/85246.shtml
quote:
The president and I hold dramatically divergent views on a number of social issues of importance to me, and yet for the 3,000 people who died on September 11th, abortion rights and same-sex civil unions mean absolutely nothing to them now.
These issues, while important to me and ones on which I will continue to speak out about, are luxuries in the face of a world war where the enemy is a stateless savage who hunts children and cuts off people’s heads.
One theme she is getting across is that people need to get over their ideological blindness enough to see the danger that we are in. Then vote with logic instead of pure ideology.
|
|
|
|
