I was browsing some articles this afternoon and found some disturbing statistics quoted. Since it's a Democrat quoted in an anti-Bush critique, I'm not sure if they're overblown a bit (no insult towards Democrats intended; I'm overall opposed to Bush myself), since there's obviously some political motivation for making these statements.
quote:[Baltimore Mayor Martin] O'Malley said the Bush administration forced a $2.5 billion cut for homeland security efforts, congressional Republicans cut an additional $1 billion, and now Bush wants to eliminate 1,200 FBI agents.
The fuck? What happened to the "War on Terrorism"?
It's just for votes.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Story coming:
Well, see, when a Republican asks for 1 billion dollars, Democrats budget 10 billion dollars, and The Republican says "no, I only need 1 billion dollars," and he reduces the budget to the original 1 billion dollars, the Democrats go out and say that he cut the budget by 9 billion dollars.
It's a good trick, but one they use so often that it's easy to spot. When you hear that someone "cut" the budget, and it's a Democrat talking, 9 times out of 10 what really happened was that a reduction was made in the size of the INCREASE of the budget.
I think Republicans do this too, BTW. But the Democrats are better at it.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Wonderful. Now all you have to do is explain the FBI agents, and your wizardry of cloak and dagger will be done.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
ASSUMING that the Baltimore Mayor is presenting the truth accurately (remember Clendening's trigger lock fiasco?) - How does he know this stuff - you tell me...
Anytime there's a merger, or a reorganization, you have layoffs. Eliminating redundant positions. "Trimming the fat." Consolidation, whatever you call it, people are going to be fired.
There, that didn't even require a byzantine "Vast ight Wing Conspiracy."
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Who is Clendending?
PS -- you might want to rethink your post. O'Malley is not Glendening.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snay: Who is Clendending?
PS -- you might want to rethink your post. O'Malley is not Glendening.
Ag, G not C. My bad.
Not Glendening? Let's see... Maryland... Democrat... dim... sounds similar enough to me. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Okay, the idea of Republicans and Democrats twisting around the proposed funding numbers to blame the other side is certainly plausible, probably even likely. (Not to mention that the Congressmen are hardly a single bloc, or even two blocs... so there's all sorts of agendas flying around.)
However, the FBI agent cutback seems completely antithetical to everything that the Bush administration has been telling us for the past year and a half. I don't understand how lowering our vigilance can be a good thing...
I guess this goes back to Bush's attempts to juggle three separate issues, and each of his three policies are wholly incompatible.
1. International cooperation against terrorism. Requires multilateral effort. (Duh!)
2. Military policy, especially against Iraq. Also requires multilateral effort, and requires increased funding to support military activity.
3. Fostering economic recovery through tax cuts of dubious focus while simultaneously increasing spending and forcing the burden on state governments.
Anyone else see the contradictions here?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:The fuck? What happened to the "War on Terrorism"?
Hermann Goering would like to answer this one.
quote:"Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
The transcripts of the Nuremberg Trial. Woohoo. Drag up lots of political support, secure your reign, and shut the opposition up.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Which, of course, changes none of the facts of the current situation. Iraq still is developing nukes, beyond any reasonable doubt. What do you propose we do?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
All the more reason to fire a bunch of LEOs. Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Do? You don't do anything. Except continue to stomp on the closest convenient weakling. ie. Iraq. Bread and circuses, you have to love it.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Daryus, you feeling all right? Your answers are usually more useful than that.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"More useful" being defined as "not directly implying that Omega's opinion is the poo we all know it to be"?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No, "more useful" as defined as actually giving reasons WHY you think my opinions are poo, instead of just assuming that to be true without any apparent thought involved in reaching that conclusion. Daryus, man, you're great, but your post has little to do with reality OR the point I was trying to make. I'd love to see your opinions on what I actually said, though.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Iraq still is developing nukes, beyond any reasonable doubt.
I'm sorry, I seem to have missed that memo.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Never mind, found it. The FUN!
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...actually giving reasons WHY you think my opinions are poo..."
Precedent.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:It's just for votes.
No, Se�or Snay. It's a complete lack of a coherent and well thought out policy.
As stated by former Bush aide John DiIulio "the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis," in which everything--and I mean everything--[is] being run by the political arm.... There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus."
I guess I shouldn't say that Mr. Bush has no policy at all. His policy is two-fold.
1) Promoting the old Republican cure-all for everything that ails anything, supply-side economics;
and
2) Getting the guys who threatened his dad.
Plus there is an odd smattering of programs that are anti-environment.
Which, in a complex world, basicly gives us the hugely antagonistic ends of generating huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and then asking for more tax cuts for the wealthy, all while promoting and spending for "War On Terror" ** and an actual war in Iraq.
Put quite simply, something or somethings have to give. And once again under a Republican administration among those somethings are domestic programs for which there appears to be no policy. And now apparently giving ground in the confused mind of Mr. Bush are some of the much ballyhooed programs for Homeland Security.
Mr. Bush and the American people are finding out that the optimistic campaign promises that we can have it all were then, and remain now, completely wrong.
The problem with this thread is that neither of the two people who seem opposed to the opinions expressed by Mayor O'Malley do not challenge the truthfulness of the allegations.
One claims, with nothing in support, that it's a budgeting problem caused by the Democrats.
The other simply says Saddam is a bad man.
Like one of the great lines from "All the President's Men", it's a non-denial denial.
----
** Void in North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Iran and for members of Al Qaeda who are not U.S. citizens being held indefinitely in violation of Constitutional guarantees.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Doesn't have to do exactly with Bush, but there was a rather amusing website a couple of days ago that crashed on takeoff: Steve Jobs for President.
Anyway, I hate to sound smug, but I could tell right from the beginning that Bush had little in the way of a clear policy for most issues, and was generally trying to say whatever would get him the votes. Granted, most politicians do that anyway, but Bush took that whole thing to the extreme.
For instance, what ever happened to Bush's goals of education reform? Fixing the Social Security issue? Reducing military deployments? Sure, the War on Terror (tm) has taken some precedence -- but a lot of this stuff has simply been forgotten in all the commotion.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Not forgotten. Shoved aside. Starting a war is a great diversionary tactic.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: For instance, what ever happened to Bush's goals of education reform? Fixing the Social Security issue? Reducing military deployments?
Except for the last, which would be inadvisable during wartime, these have been mentioned in recent Bush speeches, and Bush has sent initiatives to Congress to deal with them.
Unfortunately, there are still enough Democrats in Congress to obstruct action on them.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Really? How so?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Bluster and blathering. Filibusters, maybe.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Those Democrats are so sinister.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Politics as usual. Both sides do/have done this. Being the party out of power, though, the Democrats have the need/ability to do this. When you hold the majority, there's no need to delay your own progress, no need to filibuster.
And then there's always 'defectors':
quote:“They have concrete evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat, told reporters. “I became more convinced after this meeting.”
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
So you're saying there is no need to question the agenda set by the majority?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
There is always a need to question the agenda of the majority.
There is always a need to question the agenda of the minority, as well.
Those who fail to do both with the same level of intensity are lying to themselves.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, good, that clears that right up. See I was confused cause when you said
quote:Bluster and blathering. Filibusters, maybe.
it sounded to me like you thought it was a bad thing. It sounded like you were saying that the Democrats should follow along with whatever conservative agenda Mr. Bush and fellow Republican set without questioning that agenda at all.
But that's all cleared up, cause you weren't saying that at all.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
No, no. Bluster, blathering, and filibusters ARE bad things, no matter who does it.
They fall under the heading "obstructionism," rather than the hearing "debate."
I'm sure you're aware of the obvious differences between someone who is debating and someone who is just talking and talking for as long as their throat holds out, just to delay proceedings, just as you can tell the difference between someone who is actively engaged in a dialogue vs. someone chanting slogans in front of a Starbucks.
This should not be anything new to you. I've spoken before about my utter contempt for slogan shouters and the like. I feel that all protestors should either present a cogent argument, or shut up, because they are incapable of being more than a warm body to be counted, and they can do that well enough in silence.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Good, further clarification.
Those slogan shouters are bad. Why again are Democrats going to be simple slogan shouters for opposing Mr. Bush's conservative agenda?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't see how slogan-shouting in and of itself is all that bad -- at least, not under ideal circumstances. One of the points of a slogan is to try to capture as much meaning on a certain issue as possible and use that to attract other people's attention and gain their interest and support.
Unfortunately, circumstances are hardly ever ideal, and so I certainly understand the attitude against them. A lot of people try to just use the slogans themselves as their arguments, and use them in shouting matches with the opposite faction. Or else they simply latch on to the slogan without any understanding of the concept behind the slogan and its meaning and importance.
I don't think slogan-shouting is wrong under some circumstances -- provided there's something to back it up.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Iraq still is developing nukes, beyond any reasonable doubt."
The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders, and so far evidence in support of this accusation has been LACKING. As in: 100% absent. No amount of overblown republican rhetoric can hide that FACT, not this time. Unrestrained warmongering is NOT the act of a civilised nation pretending to hold diplomacy in the highest esteem. Not that it wasn't clear from the outset Bush and his cronies were pushing for war no matter WHAT the inspectors uncover, with or without a UN mandate.
Iraq does NOT present a danger.
Meanwhile, North Korea has virtually started a wholesale of its nuclear arsenal and forms a credible, REAL threat, yet is unhindered by the hawks from downtown DC. As in: not even talked down. Why? Strongly reinforces my suspicion the arguments given for military intervention in Iraq are blatant LIES.
Ahh, condensation.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: Good, further clarification.
Those slogan shouters are bad. Why again are Democrats going to be simple slogan shouters for opposing Mr. Bush's conservative agenda?
Actually, I don't believe I said that they are, or would. I've said that they could, that there are enough of them to be a hindrance, and that some of them are likely to have that inclination (especially those who voted for the war resolution who now say they oppose attacking).
They may be smarter than that, and there may be actual debate - but it probably won't be "public" per se, just on C-Span. Publicly, either it will be people making points (good) or the polite equivalent of "slogan shouting" (bad.) I'm not saying which until it happens.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Cartman's post - debate, if old and tired. Carman's picture - slogan shouting. AND old and tired.
He has also demonstrated an inability to grasp Resolution 1441 and its contents, including the FACT that the burden of compliance, that is accounting for EVERYTHING that the Un KNEW was there in 1998.
Everything else he says is so much a straw man that it could stand in for the Scarecrow of Oz.
Korea and Iraq - two different places, two different conditions, two different situations, requiring two different solutions.
At least Korea has a history of being a LITTLE open to dialogue.
But the condition of renegotiation has already been established: Cease nuclear development as they promised in 1994, readmit UN inspectors.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:�There�s a strong intelligence case that Iraq has not destroyed its weapons of mass destruction and is building the capability to use them,� said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House intelligence committee. �There�s a growing al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and I think the case can be made that there is a growing affiliation� between Baghdad and terrorist groups.
quote: Illustrating the problem was the recent discovery by U.N. inspectors, based on U.S. or British information, that Iraqis may have cleaned out a site the inspectors were about to visit. Describing that incident, a senior administration official said, �The minute you reveal the information, you risk making it untrue.�
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
But you were not talking about the war to begin with, you were talking about the Democrats being a hindrance to Mr. Bush's conservative domestic agenda. Which is neither here nore there.
I get stuck on the use of the word hindrance. Personally, I think the Democrats are not doing enough to act in opposition to Mr. Bush's conservative domestic agenda. Yet to say that Democrats are only doing so because they
quote:have the need/ability to do this
implies the base motives which are soley political. I couldn't agree less with that implication.
As far as the war goes, no, I too doubt there will be a debate. Congress could rescind the War Powers Act, but I think that unlikely. Mr. Bush has made up his mind to attack Iraq and no one else can persuade him otherwise. And debate in these forums is rather pointless.
You seem to think that Mr. Bush has proven his point of the danger of Iraq.
I find Mr. Bush to be an accomplished misstator of the truth and I frankly don't believe much of what he has to say. Ironic that, since he was supposed to bring honor and intergrity back to the White House. When it comes to attacking Iraq Mr. Bush is nothing short of obsessive, and I think that he finds "evidence" to support his own agenda.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I haven't heard of any "proof" that al-Qaeda is working with or in Iraq so far, but I honestly wouldn't be too surprised in some ways. Assuming that the al-Qaeda operatives would be looking for a place to go outside of Afghanistan rather than just digging in and taking cover, Iraq might seem like a logical place given its long defiance against the western nations.
On the other hand, one thing I've been learning from my political science class this term is that Hussein has a history of keeping the control of military power to himself -- basically, of doing his dirty work himself. Obviously he could be wrong (and he's aware of that), but my professor has argued that Hussein wouldn't want to give up the control of WMD's. But then again, simply granting them safety would probably not be out of the question for him either.
At this point, for most of us it's just speculation. Maybe some intelligence people and the high-ups in the government know more (as Bush has been claiming for months now despite refusing to present evidence).
On the issue of Korea... I'm really kind of split on that. On one hand, it seems that the DPRK is basically trying to get attention and recognition for itself -- it's a diplomatic ploy. However, given that their main export is missile technology, it's a very small step to start exporting nukes. I have hopes that the crisis can be resolved diplomatically -- but frankly that problem is of Bush's making anyway.
Does anyone realize that when the Bush administration published that report on US strategies that laid out the principles of "preemptive strikes" back in September, the only country mentioned by name in the entire report was North Korea? (And not even Iraq.) One a basic level I can't blame them one bit for getting paranoid, regardless of the history or politics. Combined with Bush's oh-so-charming "Axis of Evil" label, it serves to put unnecessary pressure from the wrong angle and is only exacerbating the problem instead.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: I haven't heard of any "proof" that al-Qaeda is working with or in Iraq so far, but I honestly wouldn't be too surprised in some ways. Assuming that the al-Qaeda operatives would be looking for a place to go outside of Afghanistan rather than just digging in and taking cover, Iraq might seem like a logical place given its long defiance against the western nations.
Yup. And the fact that Saddam is completely secularist, and has killed many, many, many Muslims just makes their teaming up even more logical!
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Iraq still is developing nukes, beyond any reasonable doubt.
Well, clearly the International Atomic Energy Agency knows far less than you do. Can you free up some time in your schedule to take over the inspections in Iraq for them?
quote:Mohamed El Baradei, the head o f the International Atomic Energy Agency, spoke just after Mr Blix to state categorically that his teams had found "no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme". He also made a more direct plea for time.
"Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to continue its natural course," Mr El Baradei told the council. "With our verification system now in place, barring exceptional circumstances and providing there is sustained, proactive cooperation by Iraq, we should be able in the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapon programme.
"These few months in my view would be a valuable investment in peace because it would help us avoid a war," he said.
Come on, Tom, Omega knows full well that with a name like that, Mohamed El Baradei is probably a Muslim and therefore in on it, after all they all are, everyone knows that. . .
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Should we be watching out for Holocaust II: The Mohammedans' Turn?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Actually, I heard that the whole Iraq thing was just a very comlicated practical joke being played on Blair by everyone. Bush is going to let him make a very solemn announcement that we are now at war and then all the world's leaders will step out from behind startigically placed curtains and laugh at him.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Yup. And the fact that Saddam is completely secularist, and has killed many, many, many Muslims just makes their teaming up even more logical!
You make it sound as though you believe Al-Qaeda is the ONLY Muslim Fundie group out there, and/or that Saddam hasn't been linked to any other terrorist organization, muslim fundie or otherwise.
It also makes it sound as though you believe that a person who kills SOME members of a huge, diverse group, can't ally himselves with OTHER members of that group.
These, of course, are too silly for words.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:I haven't heard of any "proof" that al-Qaeda is working with or in Iraq so far, but I honestly wouldn't be too surprised in some ways. Assuming that the al-Qaeda operatives would be looking for a place to go outside of Afghanistan rather than just digging in and taking cover, Iraq might seem like a logical place given its long defiance against the western nations.
Logical place to hide, lets see the US was already talking tough with Iraq shortly after Sept. 11. Would you find it logical to hide at the next logical target of US wrath? Myself I would hide somewhere safer than that.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: These, of course, are too silly for words.
Yet you persist in replying with equally silly words.
quote:It also makes it sound as though you believe that a person who kills SOME members of a huge, diverse group, can't ally himselves with OTHER members of that group.
OK, so there's no reason he can't - but that's not the same as saying he HAS. And just because he, in fact, HAS (ooh, look I can capitalise words too!) it doesn't follow that he's therefore responsible for the actions of ALL Islamic terrorist groups. Or that said groups should instantly support him just because OTHER groups have.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:You make it sound as though you believe Al-Qaeda is the ONLY Muslim Fundie group out there, and/or that Saddam hasn't been linked to any other terrorist organization, muslim fundie or otherwise.
Last I heard, it was members of Al Qaeda who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Which, also last I heard, seems to be the events we want to avenge.
Now if you want to carry on a global anti-terror campaign, not something that Mr. Bush seems bent on doing, you have to address Pakistan and Saudi Arabia before Iraq because the 9/11 terrorists came from, and were trained in religious schools, in those locations. The current "terror" problem lies not with secular Iraq, but with ultra-fundamentalist Islam.
quote:2) Combating Terrorism
The administration has argued at great length that a U.S. invasion and "regime change" in Iraq would mark the greatest success in the war against terrorism so far. Why this is so has never been made entirely clear. It is said that Saddam's hostility toward the United States somehow sustains and invigorates the terrorist threat to America. Saddam's elimination would thus greatly weaken international terrorism and its capacity to attack the United States.
There simply is no evidence that this is the case. If anything, the opposite is true. From what we know of al Qaeda and other such organizations, the objective of Islamic extremists is to overthrow any government in the Islamic world that does not adhere to a fundamentalist version of Islam. The Baathist regime in Iraq does not qualify; thus, under al Qaeda doctrine, it must be swept away, along with the equally deficient governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
It follows that a U.S. effort to oust Saddam Hussein and replace his regime with another secular government � this one kept in place by American military power � will not diminish the wrath of Islamic extremists, but rather fuel it.
Attacking Iraq does nothing to combat terrorism or to bring to justice the people who were behind the attacks on New York and Washington. It will neither address the root causes of terrorism eminating from ultra-fundamentalist Islam, nor will it address the practical causes of terrorism such as disaffected Muslim youth turning to violence and seeing the United States as the cause of all evils in the world. Even more practical and immediate, it will not address the conflict in Isreal which is a motivating factor for some of the anti-American terror.
Instead it will incite more anti-American feeling in the overall pan-Islam world and drive moderates into the fundemental camp.
Brought to you by George W. Bush.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Now if you want to carry on a global anti-terror campaign, not something that Mr. Bush seems bent on doing, you have to address Pakistan and Saudi Arabia before Iraq
No, you don't.
Listen, the ONLY reason we, or anybody, are nice to Saudi Arabia is by virtue of the fact that they're sitting on the largest oil deposits in the world, and thereby have much influence over oil prices. Oil, like it or not, is the driving force behind the world economy, and thusly stability of its price is necessary.
Now suppose that, all of a sudden, the country with the SECOND largest oil reserves in the world were under the influence of the US.
What would that mean to Saudi Arabia?
It would shake their control over the oil prices. It would mean that we (all of us) wouldn't have to cozy up to them any more. It would mean that we would have a huge amount of economic leverage (not to mention a newfound political and military advantage, since we wouldn't need Saudi Arabian bases any more) to throw around in order to pressure Saudi Arabia (and other nearby nations) to clean up their acts.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
So basically imperialism is bad, except when there's a subsume-one, subsume-a-second-free deal going?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
The UN is an Empire?
Face it, if it were about Empire-building, it would have happened already.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'm sure you said US, not UN in your previous post. But that's no doubt my crazy biased eyes again.
Anyway, the point remains that you are essentially saying that:
"This war is all about oil".
So everyone was right then?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
That's a great argment there Rob. And here I thought the war was about terror. Thanks for the correction.
[ February 04, 2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
"Bush wants to eliminate 1,200 FBI agents."
And they think Saddam is barbaric?
or
After that cut, how many aliens will slip through our nets, when we have our panties down?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
And of course, Jay, there's only ONE WAY to fight terror.
Except that there isn't. Different situations require different solutions, something you folks seem to have a lot of time understanding with your panacea proclamations. (alliteration!
Some battles must be fought in the military arena. Some can be fought in the political and/or economic arena.
The battle in Iraq has been being fought in the political and economic arena for over a decade now, with little, if any, change. So the military arena is called for.
The battle in the other middle Eastern countries have not been fought yet, but holding a strong position in Iraq makes it easier to fight a better fight in the political and economic arena, thereby reducing the probability of having to re-enter the military one.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
So again, just so I've got your argument, you say that we should go for the "smack down" approach. Any bully that shows up and does something that we don't like gets smacked down.
Question is, how does this address the root cause of the bullies in the first place? It seems to be to be a great way to create more bullies from the disaffected populations that created the bullies to begin with.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Nope, you still don't have it, because you're still insisting on saying "any" and "all." Gawd, it's like talking to Omega!
Try re-reading the first half of my post.
I'm saying "this" In THIS instance, force is needed, and that IMNSHO, use of force in THIS instance will begin to set up conditions in which the rest of the area can be changed, WITHOUT the need to resort to force.
And there is clearly a need for regionwide change, because as I've noted before, saying "Iraq has the best human rights record in the Middle East" is basically saying "This is the least foul pile of dung and vomit."
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Yes I keep saying "any" because this alleged war we are already in is about terror and not about Iraq. If you want to make the war on Iraq about terror then you have much more than a long way to go.
I doubt had 9/11 not happened, even though Mr. Bush might have wanted to attack Iraq in his little heart, he would not have been able to because the public would be even less on his side than they are now. The issue since September has been terrorism.
Fine.
United States policy about an all inclusive topic like terror should not be put togehter in such a piecemeal manner as you advocate. Mr. Bush's own black and white rhetoric eschews your advocation to attack this terrorist while leaving that terrorist alone.
I say again that there needs to be created a policy that deals with the root causes of terrorism. Iraq is not a root cause of terrorism, and attacking that country will do next to nothing to address the issue of terrorism.
There is one very simple question you seem not to have answered yet Rob and that is what is this "war" all about.
The issue can not, after September, be solely about Iraq.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Two wars, not one.
1st War: War on terrorists and their backers. Iraq backs terrorists, possibly including Al-qaeda, and is therefore a targit, albeit a minor player. It is also a "baby step."
2nd War: War against Iraq, for violating, repeatedly, UN resolutions which state very clearly that Iraq MUST do certain things, or face harsh reprisals. Iraq having not done these things to anyone's satisfaction.
Have you studied Venn diagrams? This is a case of intersecting sets.
Therefore the war can be about BOTH these things.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
At this juncture, it might be interesting to note that Israel isn't to great either when it comes to following UN resolutions and the US hasn't exactly been keeping up with its UN bills...
I submit that the US *should* invade Iraq to enforce UN resolutions, and shortly afterward, invade Israel and itself to keep things fair Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
One can't help but wonder how many UN resolutions Iraq would have broken if it had a Security Council veto. Call me crazy, but I have this hunch that'd it be marginally lower.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:1st War: War on terrorists and their backers. Iraq backs terrorists, possibly including Al-qaeda, and is therefore a targit, albeit a minor player. It is also a "baby step."
2nd War: War against Iraq, for violating, repeatedly, UN resolutions which state very clearly that Iraq MUST do certain things, or face harsh reprisals. Iraq having not done these things to anyone's satisfaction.
So, while we recognize that there countries with greater ties to terrorism and Al Qaeda than Iraq, oh, countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we need to continue to ignore these and other countries at the present time. Not paying attention to the fact that these are countries where the disaffected Muslim youths come from and countries that have the religious schools that train these youths to hate the United States.
We need to ignore these countries not because with regards to terrorism Iraq is a more pressing matter, but because we just need to go after Iraq first. That makes war number 1 something more of a training wheels war or as you say, a "baby step" war. Kind of the same way Afghanistan was a practice war, only now that we've left that country to the warlords, it turns out not to have been very good practice. As such, clearly its time to move on to Iraq.
I love the concept of a "baby step" war. It leaves all the important stuff to grow and get worse while we go after the little things. With any luck, once we go after the Iraq and leave it in shambles, the disaffected youth being trained to hate the United States in those other countries will suddenly see how wrong they are and love us because we are really nice.
War number 2 is also just as specious. That Iraq must do certain things is true. Does getting Iraq to do those things require a war, I do not think so. I'm more worried about North Korea, which we know now has nuclear weapons and, thanks to the horrible foreign policy of Mr. Bush, it has restarted its nuclear program.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Only a drooling idiot would make the completely unfounded assumption that we are "ignoring" events and activities in other countries while we focus on Iraq.
You are not a drooling idiot.
Please restate your statement.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Fine, I'll just assume that all those troops in the Gulf are there to deal with the countries that cause problems of terror and not Iraq.
Watch out Pakistan!
And simply put, much the same way Mr. Bush is sacrificing domestic programs, and maybe even FBI agents, to give tax breaks to SUV driving rich people in his deficit dominated budget, you can't have it all in the "war on terror"�. If you spend your time, effort and money in Iraq, then things are not being done elsewhere.
[ February 05, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:whether or not Saddam has given succor to al-Qaida, the Bin Ladenist forces around the world have identified his cause with their own. In Kurdistan they fight, at least "objectively" on Saddam's side. In their propaganda, they speak absurdly of an intervention against Saddam as "an attack on a Muslim country," as if regime change could alter the confessional makeup of the country (which incidentally has many non-Muslims and Christians and used to have an immense Jewish population). But why should one suppose that Saddam's defeat would increase the appeal of al-Qaida and, even if we knew this to be true in advance, why should it make any difference?
quote:Let me cite two of Bin Laden's recent pronouncements. After the slaughter of Australian holiday-makers in Bali a few months ago, a statement was issued by al-Qaida that justified the mass murder on the grounds that Australian troops had assisted in East Timor's transition to independence. Bin Laden had many times venomously criticized this Australian involvement before Sept. 11, so whether he is dead or alive the point is made: The Aussies brought this on themselves by helping a mainly Christian minority regain its independence from a mainly Muslim state. No doubt this same thought helped to swell the ranks of al-Qaida in Indonesia itself, where Islam sometimes makes a good fit with local chauvinism. The conclusion would appear to be this: The wise course would have been to leave the East Timorese to the tender mercies of the Indonesian oligarchy, since to involve oneself on their side was to risk Bin Laden's ire. Is this what the recruiting-poster peddlers really want us to conclude?
quote:if the administration were suddenly to decide that the risk of intervention in Iraq was too great, after all this preparation, then we could be sure that Bin Laden's recruiting sergeants would make this cowardice and weakness a central point in their propaganda appeal.
quote:But to argue that nothing can be done lest it incur the displeasure of the second group is to surrender without a fight, and then to get a fight anyway. American support for elections and for women's rights would infuriate the second group just as much as American action against Saddam. There is, to put it very mildly, no pleasing some people. Nor should there be. Self-respect as well as sound strategy demands that we make the enemy worry what we will do, and not waste away worrying what he may think of us.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Let's look at these quotes one at a time.
quote:whether or not Saddam has given succor to al-Qaida, the Bin Ladenist forces around the world have identified his cause with their own.
Yes, it turns out that both Saddam and Bin Laden hate the United States. That is, as we all know, newsworthy at this point.
quote:In their propaganda, they speak absurdly of an intervention against Saddam as "an attack on a Muslim country," as if regime change could alter the confessional makeup of the country (which incidentally has many non-Muslims and Christians and used to have an immense Jewish population).
Since it used to have a large Jewish population, well then.
I don't doubt that Al Qaeda considers Iraq a Muslim country. Correct me if I'm wrong but having many non-Muslims and Christians does not detract from the fact that the vast majority of people in Iraq are of the Muslim faith. Adn I don't doubt that in Al Qaeda's twisted logic that it would put the United States slightly above Iraq on the "we hate them and want to kill them right now" list. If the United States were out of the picture, I would think that the more secular Mulsim states would be getting much more attention from the fanatics like Al Qaeda than they are getting at the present time.
quote:But why should one suppose that Saddam's defeat would increase the appeal of al-Qaida and, even if we knew this to be true in advance, why should it make any difference?
Because it is beyond foolish not to deal with the root causes of the issue. The "smack down" of the bully approach means that the social, political and religious conditions are there to create any number of bullies. So we smack the next one down, another grows, we smack that one down. This could go on for a very long time.
quote:Bin Laden had many times venomously criticized this Australian involvement before Sept. 11, so whether he is dead or alive the point is made: The Aussies brought this on themselves by helping a mainly Christian minority regain its independence from a mainly Muslim state. No doubt this same thought helped to swell the ranks of al-Qaida in Indonesia itself, where Islam sometimes makes a good fit with local chauvinism. The conclusion would appear to be this: The wise course would have been to leave the East Timorese to the tender mercies of the Indonesian oligarchy, since to involve oneself on their side was to risk Bin Laden's ire. Is this what the recruiting-poster peddlers really want us to conclude?
That's a rather specious argument. Countries act in their best interest, and anyone even near their right mind would never claim otherwise. Yet when it comes to terrorism, countries can not not carry out humanitarisn missions because of threats of retaliation. To do so would be to hand over foreign policy to the terrorists.
And yet saying so does in no way means that a country like the United States can do whatever it wants to do and have it be ok with the rest of the world. The United States is an arrogant country with the attitude that it can do just about anything and have just about everything it's way. Take our energy usage for example. We use more energy than anyone else in the world. We say that we want to stop using so much oil and creating so much polution, and then we go out and give huge tax breaks to business people that buy huge SUV's. One has to wonder what's wrong with us.
In another quote the artcle says:
quote:There is, to put it very mildly, no pleasing some people.
That's true enough. The fanatics will find fault with just about anything. But there is clear right and wrong and the United States often talks a good game and then does what it wants to do.
You do what is best, what is humanitarian, and what is plainly evident in the ideals of being a city on a hill. You act within the ideals of a shining beacon to the rest of the world of what the world can be. You do not act as a shining example of coroprate greed, act like the American economy means more than anything else in the world, or act like preemptive strikes and nuclear using weapons are fine and what The United States of America is all about.
I recall the movie "A Beatiful Mind" where a character agrued that the best all around is what is best for the individual and what is best for the group. The United States has to learn that at some point. Do what is right and good, and there are fewer excuses for fanatics like Bin Laden. Do what is right and good and you address at least some of the core issues that create Bin Ladens.
Still, as I have said before, Islam is going to have to deal with the fanatics acting in the name of all of them. That is not something that the United States or Australia can do for them. But we can help in ways we are not currently looking at. Invading Iraq and "securing" the oil fields is not going to help secular Islam deal with the problem.
quote:if the administration were suddenly to decide that the risk of intervention in Iraq was too great, after all this preparation, then we could be sure that Bin Laden's recruiting sergeants would make this cowardice and weakness a central point in their propaganda appeal
This one is just stupid. We have to attack Iraq because of Mr. Bush's horrible, stupid, name-calling diplomacy and foreign policy. Afterall, Saddam wanted to hurt his dad. You tell that to the families of the people that are killed in the conflict.
quote:But to argue that nothing can be done lest it incur the displeasure of the second group is to surrender without a fight, and then to get a fight anyway. American support for elections and for women's rights would infuriate the second group just as much as American action against Saddam. There is, to put it very mildly, no pleasing some people. Nor should there be. Self-respect as well as sound strategy demands that we make the enemy worry what we will do, and not waste away worrying what he may think of us.
I'm not really sure what this one means, but I dealt with the issues above.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Take our energy usage for example. We use more energy than anyone else in the world. We say that we want to stop using so much oil and creating so much polution, and then we go out and give huge tax breaks to business people that buy huge SUV's.
For the record:
We use more energy than anyone else in the world. However, we also produce more in terms of the energy used than anyone else in the world does. We have the most efficient production systems in the world. If you gave all the energy we use to any other country, they could not utilize it with anything approaching the efficiency with which we do things.
Your "tax cut for the rich" argument is both old and thoroughly debunked. I have already shown the IRS statistics which show that the top 50% pay 96% of the taxes, and the top 1% pay 17%. Only the wealthy remain to give tax breaks TO. The poor pay little or no taxes, so there is little or nothing to give them back.
The top consumers of SUV's are not "businessmen," but middle class families.
Additionally, you continue to misstate the size of the already existing coalition against Iraq. Stop.
Example:
quote:Statement of the Vilnius Group Countries For the record: 5 February 2003, Wednesday.
Statement by the Foreign Ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in response to the presentation by the United States Secretary of State to the United Nations Security Council concerning Iraq:
Earlier today, the United States presented compelling evidence to the United Nations Security Council detailing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, its active efforts to deceive UN inspectors, and its links to international terrorism.
Our countries understand the dangers posed by tyranny and the special responsibility of democracies to defend our shared values. The trans-Atlantic community, of which we are a part, must stand together to face the threat posed by the nexus of terrorism and dictators with weapons of mass destruction.
We have actively supported the international efforts to achieve a peaceful disarmament of Iraq. However, it has now become clear that Iraq is in material breach of U.N. Security Council Resolutions, including U.N. Resolution 1441, passed unanimously on November 8, 2002. As our governments said on the occasion of the NATO Summit in Prague: "We support the goal of the international community for full disarmament of Iraq as stipulated in the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. In the event of non-compliance with the terms of this resolution, we are prepared to contribute to an international coalition to enforce its provisions and the disarmament of Iraq."
The clear and present danger posed by the Saddam Hussein's regime requires a united response from the community of democracies. We call upon the U.N. Security Council to take the necessary and appropriate action in response to Iraq's continuing threat to international peace and security.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
it is beyond foolish not to deal with the root causes of the issue.
The root cause is that these people are stupid, and refuse to learn the tennants of their own religion. Just what do you suggest we do about that?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I suggest we spell it "tenets." It's a start. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Ah, the joys of sinus infections. Thanks. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
So it's a cold that causes you to use double letters where only one belongs?
You are the logic king!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I don't believe I said that.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
In this case, as painful as it is, I have to agree w/ Omega. He didn't say that. He said it was a sinus infection that causes him to type double letters where only one belongs.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, and Slovakia. Saddam must really be worried now.
But seriously, that was a great non-answer answer.
quote:The root cause is that these people are stupid, and refuse to learn the tennants of their own religion.
Simplistic.
quote:Just what do you suggest we do about that?
Assuming that all terrorists are Muslim and religious, I'm not sure, how about we attack Iraq?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, and Slovakia. Saddam must really be worried now.
not to mention us and Spain and whichever over countries signed the letter supporting you (but whose main purpose was to piss off the Franco-German Axis- which it did immensly )
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
"If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
how about we attack Iraq?
Or how 'bout we attack Iraq to keep a known mass-murderer from getting his hands on ways to kill even more people?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
So, now we're going for the moral angle. And here I thought that conservatives didn't want the United States acting as the policeman for the world.
You do understand that for foreign policy to work it has to be constant. Once we go after Saddam for being a bed fellow, we have to go after others. Oh, North Korea comes to mind. Not to mention all the mass murders in Africa that we have hardly lifted too much of a finger to stop.
And it also avoids the question. Is attaking Iraq the solution to the problems of terror? I sure do not thing so. But it seems to me like that's all you and Mr. Bush have.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
THE solution? No, but what little reason we have to think it can hurt is greatly outweighed by the reasons to do it anyway.
As for the mass-murderers in Africa, well, there IS a difference. For what it's worth, we didn't stomp any of them in wars that they started, then allow their continued existence only so long as they played nice. Not that I necessarily agree that that's a GOOD reason for the difference, of course, but if the UN is crying over our trying to enforce a treaty that was actually broken, how much support would we get for invading countries that never signed such treaties?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
France out of Ivory Coast!
The mass-murderers in Africa? Oh, you mean that little business that went on in those countries with a 10,000- strong UN peacekeaping force armes with all sorts of weapons, that ran away as soon as they got shot at?
Come to think of it, we went and bombed the Serbs without UN approval, either... "Once we go after Milosiveich for being a bad person, we have to go after others..."
Of course, those were both policy decisions of the Holy Bubba...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:No, but what little reason we have to think it can hurt is greatly outweighed by the reasons to do it anyway.
Let me know when you've joined the Army to go and fight in King George's War. And let me know when you've added up the number of women, children and non-conbatants who will most likely die in King George's War, then we'll talk more about little reasons.
quote:If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us.
-George W. Bush
"Little reasons" is arrogance.
quote:As for the mass-murderers in Africa, well, there IS a difference.
That's not what you said in you let's get Saddam for moral reasons argument.
You said,
quote:[o]r how 'bout we attack Iraq to keep a known mass-murderer from getting his hands on ways to kill even more people?
Which makes the United States quite the world policeman.
It was nice to see how both of you said nothing about North Korea. Kim Jung Il starves his own people according to Mr. Bush. I'd say that makes him a mass murder. He has weapons of mass destruction. He has deals with terrorists and exports missiles. They claim the right to a first nuclear strike against the United States.
So, if mass murders and evil people are bad, when are we going to war over there?
Speaking of policy decisions of Clinton, he got them to shut down their nuclear program. Mr. Bush calls Kim Jung Il a "pygmy" and the nuclear program is back up and running.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:It was nice to see how both of you said nothing about North Korea. Kim Jung Il starves his own people according to Mr. Bush. I'd say that makes him a mass murder. He has weapons of mass destruction. He has deals with terrorists and exports missiles. They claim the right to a first nuclear strike against the United States.
I think the main problem with attacking the DPRK is that they may actually win or at least cause sufficient casualties to force a stalemate. Remember, the South Korean capital is only about 30km south of the CMZ, and well within artillery range. Which means heavy civilian casualties in a friendly nation. Not good.
As for the Africans, the problem is most of them were elected. It's just after that they've proved to be megolomanical nutters (Thinking of Mugabe here...). The big problem there was that there wasn't any tradition of democracy so people just resorted to the usual ways of business. And of course with the aid money coming in, which after all is so easy to misplace with a little creative accounting... (not all African leaders, obviously, but quite a few.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I think the main problem with attacking the DPRK is that they may actually win or at least cause sufficient casualties to force a stalemate."
So, we have a moral obligation to police the globe, but only in puny countries that we know we can beat easily?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, that's how we enforced the 'Pax Britanica'. We just payed off anyone who may have been too powerful . Apart fromn the Boers. But we won against them in the end as well.
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Why would it be a problem, btw, that many of the worst African despots were elected? After WWII, the US has demonstrated a clear pattern of attacking democratically elected leaders and defending nondemocratically elected ones. (Are there any exceptions to that, really?)
Come to think of it, WWII also featured the US fighting for various monarchies and military juntas against two originally democratically elected/nominated dictators, plus one mixture of a military junta and a divine emperor. So the last time the US actually defended democracy (as in fighting on the side of a democratically structured republic) was... when? The Civil War? 1812?
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Well, not 1812, as the UK was more democratic than the French Empire. The Civil War also was against a democracy.
As for the African despots, the problem isn't so much that they were elected, it's that they don't like giving up power and frequently use the position for personal gain at the expense of their people.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Bluster and blathering. Filibusters, maybe.
quote:Feb. 12 � Senate Democrats continued their filibuster Wednesday blocking a vote on President Bush�s nomination of Miguel Estrada to the federal appeals bench. Senate Democratic Whip Senator Harry Reid vowed that Estrada �will never be a federal judge� unless he answers additional questions about his legal views and the White House turns over confidential memos he wrote while serving as a top Justice Department litigator in the Clinton administration.
quote: Daschle and top Judiciary Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont want Estrada to turn over memoranda he wrote while working for the Solicitor General�s office at the Justice Department, saying those documents will reveal how Estrada thinks. The Justice Department has refused to release the memos. Seven former solicitors general � who served both Republican and Democratic presidents � have written to Leahy urging him to not seek the Estrada memos. �We relied on frank, honest, and thorough advice from our staff attorneys, like Mr. Estrada,� the seven said. �Our decision-making process required the unbridled, open exchange of ideas � an exchange that simply cannot take place if attorneys have reason to fear that their private recommendations are not private at all, but vulnerable to public disclosure.�
Newly re-elected Mary Landrieu (D-LA), claims that her Hispanic supporters "misunderstood" a campaign ad in which she said she'd vote YES on Estrada.
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Republicans are usually the first to fap madly away at the timeless perfection of the constitution, so I can't see why they have a problem with the Senate performing its constitutionally-mandated task as a check on the Executive's power to appoint the Judiciary. Fighting nascent tyranny, undoubtably, the same as constitutionally-protected militias might. God knows, it boggles the mind that the legal framework of a quarter-millennium-old document could ever be used as a set of political monkey-bars today. Who could ever have predicted that?
Live free or die! Yee-haw!
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"After WWII, the US has demonstrated a clear pattern of attacking democratically elected leaders and defending nondemocratically elected ones. (Are there any exceptions to that, really?)"
A quick recap:
IRAN 1953 CIA directs overthrow of elected left-leaning government, installs Shah.
INDONESIA 1965 Army coup assisted to an unknown degree by CIA; left-leaning elected government toppled; between 250,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost.
CHILE 1973 CIA-backed coup ousts elected leftist president; rightist dictator installed.
TURKEY By means of repetitive coups the US-backed army has ousted the democratically elected parties for several times.
GREECE 1947-49 Supports and directs extreme right in civil war.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 CIA directs war against leftist Huk Rebellion.
PUERTO RICO 1950 Nationalist insurrection challenges American occupation; US command operation puts down rebellion.
KOREAN WAR 1950-53 Joins South Korea and other allies to fight China and North Korea.
GUATEMALA 1954 CIA directs exile invasion and overthrow of leftist government; military junta installed.
LEBANON 1958 US occupation ends under UN Observer Group.
VIETNAM WAR 1960-75 Fought South Vietnam rebels and North Vietnam forces; 1-2 million killed.
CUBA 1961 CIA-directed "Bay of Pigs" invasion.
LAOS 1962 Green Berets active in training, military buildup, support of rightist forces during guerrilla war.
PANAMA 1964 Control of Panama Canal Zone challenged; rioting against US forces.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops invade during election as pre-emptive action against leftist rebellion or communist government.
GUATEMALA 1966-67 Command operation; Green Berets aid in combat against leftist rebels.
CAMBODIA 1969-75 War against leftist forces; intense bombing; up to 2 million killed.
OMAN 1970 US directs Iranian invasion in support of Omani government against Marxist "Dhufar rebellion."
LAOS 1971-73 US directs South Vietnamese invasion.
ANGOLA 1976-92 CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Advisors aid government forces against leftist rebels.
NICARAGUA 1981-90 US directs guerrilla exile invasion ("Contra war") against revolutionary government; US forces plant mines.
LEBANON 1982-84 Marines help police negotiated evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization; US forces combat Muslim and Syrian fighters in support of Christian government.
HONDURAS 1983-89 Military bases established for US-backed "Contra war" with Nicaragua.
GRENADA 1983-84 US troops topple pro-Cuban government.
LIBYA 1986 Air strikes against nationalist government with terrorist links.
BOLIVIA 1986 Operation Blast Furnace; US troops and Bolivian police face peasant resistance in cocaine-producing regions.
IRAN 1987-88 Intervention on side of Iraq in war against Iran.
Hmm... post-eighties interventions are fairly innocent by comparison:
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops restore order after civil unrest spurred by Hurricane Hugo.
PHILIPPINES 1989 Armed US aircraft support constitutional government against failed coup.
PANAMA 1989-90 Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 US soldiers; more than 2,000 people killed.
GULF WAR 1990- Operation Desert Storm drives Iraq out of Kuwait; 200,000+ killed. No-fly zone ongoing; periodic bombing.
SOMALIA 1992-94 US-led United Nations occupation during civil war.
YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 US troops in NATO operation to enforce sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro.
BOSNIA 1993-95 Operation Deny Flight patrols civil war no-fly zone; air combat, Serbs bombed.
CROATIA 1995 American and NATO forces attack Bosnian Serb airfields prior to Croatian offensive.
SUDAN 1998 Pharmaceutical factory bombed; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Bombing of Islamic fundamentalist military camps; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa.
YUGOSLAVIA 1999 US aircraft play the key role in heavy NATO air strikes against Serbian forces in Kosovo.
COLOMBIA 2000 Special Forces anti-rebel battalions, supply combat aircraft.
MACEDONIA 2001 US forces in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest partially disarm Albanian rebels.
AFGHANISTAN 2001 In retaliation for terrorist attacks in US, forces attempt ouster of Afghanistan's Taliban government, attack bases linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: Republicans are usually the first to fap madly away at the timeless perfection of the constitution, so I can't see why they have a problem with the Senate performing its constitutionally-mandated task as a check on the Executive's power to appoint the Judiciary.
Don't have a problem with them performing their duty, if that's all it was.
But here's the thing.
Landrieu likely got re-elected because of that promise, given the closeness of her election.
Leahy, who is saying that the questions aren't being answered? I am told that he didn't submit any of these questions during the Judicial Committee hearings, which he was a part of. They have a procedure. He didn't follow it.
The Democrats are asking that Estrada turn over private files which NO solicitor general, Liberal of Conservative, has ever done, and which the past solicitors have written in to protest, saying that it could DAMAGE the judicial process. (This last being a BAD thig, and AGAINST the separation of powers.)
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Regarding Miguel Estrada, member of that poor oppressed group, the arch-conservatives...four words: Start A New Thread.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)