Retrophisch

« LSU alumni in Afghanistan | Main | Switch of a different sort »

"Is it too much to ask, then, that France return the favor in liberating Iraq?"

Let's see.. is it too much to ask another country to put aside what it believes is wrong to declare war on another country for a bunch of jerry-rigged reasons that don't seem to hold much water and seem to change every few weeks?
Yeah, I'd say that was too much to expect...

I didn't realize that the US entering WWII was a "loan" -- one would think it was for the global common good. Delivering the second-largest oil supply into the hands of a bunch of theives and liars such as Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld doesn't seem like the common good to me...

Bush says he's all about making Iraq a democracy, and helping the Iraqi people but I think he summed up his limited thoughts a year ago when he said "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out".

And if you think he's going to be pouring money into Iraq on anything other than bombs and missles just look at the way his promises to Afghanistan have dried up and blown away.

The Bush administration scares me more than most any other group on earth. They're like some sort of quasi-Christian rich-boy Al-Qaeda.

How long will it take to put the US back together after 2004?...

I suppose that the fact that our troops are finding more and more evidence each day of banned weapons in Iraq, as well as proof Saddam has been supporting al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda clones/allies are just jerry-rigged reasons. I suppose that ridding the world of a despotic menace with WMDs at his disposal is not for the global common good.

I was unaware that charges of theft and perjury had been brought against President Bush, VP Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. Would you mind linking to those court documents? On the other hand, we have plenty of proof of such charges against, obviously, your favorite President, Mr. Clinton.

I would appreciate a link to the quote you allude to President Bush. I was unaware he had publicly made such a statement.

Which promises to Afghanistan that have "dried up and blown away" would those be? Last I looked, the United States still maintained a massive presence there, working with the new Afghani government to rid their country of the scum and villiany of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

"How long will it take to put the US back together after 2004?..." Well, I'm not sure. Let's see how long it takes us to put the country back together after the total inaction of 1992-2000.

And at least have the decency to share your name; even my friends and acquaintances who vehemently disagree with me use their names when commenting. Or are you a coward like those masked protestors in San Francisco?

"I suppose that the fact that our troops are finding more and more evidence each day of banned weapons in Iraq..."

And these would be what exactly? The only thing I've heard that's been actually found since the attack began is gas masks and suits to protect against chemical attack. Hardly damning evidence since they could be used to protect themselves from American weapons.

Yes, there were those rockets that were cited and were starting to be destroyed, but that was before Bush started his "re-election campaign".

"...as well as proof Saddam has been supporting al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda clones/allies..."

And this proof exactly? Link please to an actual news site worth its salt with facts.

"I suppose that ridding the world of a despotic menace with WMDs at his disposal is not for the global common good."

You know what? I agree with you here. Saddam is a bastard and should be taken care of, but there's a right way and a wrong way to do things. Attacking an entire state with thousands of tons of munitions, injuring and killing countless innocents to kill a handful of men... that doesn't seem right. Hell, even the pope is against Bush's ideas.

If ordinary people acted like Bush and Co. they could just start killing their neighbors and heck we wouldn't need those pesky police or courts what with their meddlesome laws and such any longer.

"I was unaware that charges of theft and perjury had been brought against President Bush, VP Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. Would you mind linking to those court documents?

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are so fucking dirty that, by their own "forget laws" rules, they should pre-emptively attack themselves and commit suicide. The world needs leaders -- people who can bring people together, lead -- not bullys who are mighty brave because they've never actually seen war themselves and have billions of dollars of arms to throw thousands of miles away.

"On the other hand, we have plenty of proof of such charges against, obviously, your favorite President, Mr. Clinton.

Actually, my favorite president would be Lincoln. Jesus, with your knee-jerk Clinton-lynching you sound like one of those Rush dittohead sheep...

"I would appreciate a link to the quote you allude to President Bush. I was unaware he had publicly made such a statement."

No problem, you can see his frat-house-boy chest beating in Time magazine at http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030331/wroad.html
It's nice to see the President of the United States treating war, a disgusting thing, with all of the deep thinking of a trip to the DQ drive-through.

"Which promises to Afghanistan that have "dried up and blown away" would those be?

I think perhaps those that are starving in Afghanistan could use some of the millions of dollars in aid that America promised back when the area was the "all the rage". Now that Afghanistan is saying "hey, um, about that food..." George seems to be saying ala Homer Simpson "Can't talk... War.".

Backing out of his promises Bush was then off trying to bribe Turkey for billions and here's the kicker: Turkey demanded everything in writing because they've seen how the Bush administration screws people the morning after.

"Last I looked, the United States still maintained a massive presence there, working with the new Afghani government to rid their country of the scum and villiany of al-Qaeda and the Taliban."

Hey, nice Star Wars reference...
("...scum and villiany [sic]...")

Surprisingly enough, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs puts food, fresh water and shelter a bit before "M1 tanks".

"Well, I'm not sure. Let's see how long it takes us to put the country back together after the total inaction of 1992-2000."

Yeah, human rights, freedom of speech, unemployment, Bush is doing a great job.

"And at least have the decency to share your name; even my friends and acquaintances who vehemently disagree with me use their names when commenting."

My name is Jack and I am an average american.

I'll try to start at the beginning of all this Bush-bashing.
Jack, you have made it painfully obvious that you are so anti-Bush...or so anti-Republican - whatever - that it would be a waste of time to try to convince you otherwise.
But, you have made several empty claims that you might want to take a second look at.

Jerry-rigged reasons to attack Iraq. Here's just one jerry-rig for you: Fifteen days after Saddam agreed to the ceasefire, he violated it...and has remained in violation ever since. Period. No exceptions. No legal loop-holes. That is all - I repeat ALL - that was necessary to go back into Iraq and resume hostilities. Of course, many of the anti-Bush/anti-War factions can never seem to remember this little factoid.
Reference: UN Resolution 678 - http://www.caabu.org/press/documents/unscr-resolution-678.html

Your question about a country putting aside its beliefs to declare war...
If France believes that it is wrong to go after Iraq's regime after all the repeated and continuous violations of the UN resolutions that France holds sooo dear, then they are as lacking in the boule department as the UN.
No, liberating France was not a "loan" as you put it. It was a good deed. We Americans are like that, you know. Liberating the oppressed. No, not a loan, but it should be expected that after the US liberated them - twice - that they would support the US doing the same for the people of Iraq. And it is no great secret how many millions of dollars (comparatively speaking) that France stood to lose if Iraq went under. It is also well known that France also hosts a large number of Muslim citizens that would frown on France for supporting the war. Do I need to mention the intestinal fortitude France is known for when it comes to standing up to oppressive governments? They belly-up at the sound of a bullet entering the chamber.
As I was reminded, the US never asked France for a dime, a soldier, nor a rifle. The only thing that the US wanted was for France (and Germany, Russia, etc) to have the guts to stand behind what they had already approved. Nothing else was requested of them.

Come on, get off the dang "Blood for Oil" kick. This mantra has grown stale, and those that look up the numbers know that. The US is not interested in Iraqi oil income. Remember? France and Russia are the ones with the fat contracts. If oil were the driving reason, the US would be a lot more interested in working on Venezuela. You see...the US only imported between 6 and 8% of its oil from Iraqi wells in 2002. Conversely, the US got nearly 20% of its oil from Venezuela.

Afghani promises drying up and blowing away? Has the US left that country yet? No. Are we finished there, yet? No. There is, however, a new government in place - fragile as it may be. But we are still working on it. Feeding millions doesn't happen overnight. Yes, world attention has shifted to Iraq, and the United States is trying to feed those people, too. US soldiers are putting their lives on the line to protect the shipments of food.

Bush Administration appears to you as a what? Wow. Quasi-Christian? What church is that? I mean, I know Baptists are bad, but where does Quasi-Christian fall in the rankings.
Al-Qaeda? Sure is easy to throw insults around isn't it? Please explain how the Bush adminstration is a terrorist organization? Bush is acting under FULL AUTHORITY of UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. Remember that. I don't remember Al-Qaeda abiding by anything the UN has signed.
I don't see the Bush administration intentionally killing thousands of innocent civilians. I don't see Bush plotting to poison Jordan's water storage facilities.

Bush has stated over and over again - for those that care to listen with their ears - that democracy in Iraq is not his goal. It is desirable, yes. Bush wants the people of Iraq to have the type of government THEY want. That he DID say.
Quoting from Bush's speech to America and Iraq, dated 18 March, 2003:
"...we will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free...Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation".
Reference: http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_031803.htm

Before you make that comparison, get your head on straight and stop these emotional outbursts. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. I call Clinton a criminal (fact), a liar (fact), and dishonorable (fact). But I would not call him a terrorist - although many witnesses against him in the Whitewater investigations DID end up mysteriously...dead.

2004? The Demos can forget about it if (err....WHEN) Saddam is removed from power. Once that is done, Bush will blow the smoke off of his six-shooter, straighten his cowboy hat, and say, "Ok, UN, she's all yers!".
Oh yeah. Demos better hope no more Al-Qaeda officers are located. All these busts are adding fuel to the re-election for Bush.

As for WMD? Those "rockets" you spoke of were a violation. Period. The fact that Saddam was in the process of destroying them has absolutely no bearing at all. It was a violation of the ceasefire and those UN resolutions to have them in the first place. Why did he ONLY begin destroying them ONCE the inspectors found them? I can guarantee you that he would not have come forward with them had they not been found. Yeah. That Saddam has a lot of integrity. A real honest guy.
Technically, the chem-warfare suits prove nothing. Both sides of the war debate can use their presence in their own argument. That is too easy. Also, the fact the no WMD have been found yet cannot be used as any type of argument. The military re-invasion of Iraq is rather pre-occupied with the task of removing the regime. Anyone with half a brain has to admit that in an area the size of California cannot be searched top to bottom for WMD in two weeks. If they are there, they WILL be found.

You want proof that Saddam supported Al-Qaeda? Be patient. Everything the government knows is not for public consumption. I, having worked in the intelligence arena, can vouch for that. Those things labelled "HUMINT", "ELINT", "COMINT", so on and so forth, require extreme protection from the general public. Revealing their sources simply to appease all the nay-sayers would/could endanger lives, resources, and international relations. When the government claims that they have the proof and does not provide it to every demanding person, there must be a reason. You may be right. Maybe they don't have it. But then, I may be right, and they do. Neither you nor I can say either way. But not having it placed in your grubby paws is no reason to automatically assume that it does not exist. Question? Yes. Assume? No.

I really have to chuckle at your pitiful implication that Bush is out to kill thousands of innocents just to get a few men. Ever hear of the Iraq Elite Republican Guard? Ever hear of the Fedayeen? That's a whole heckuva lot more than just a few men.
Iraq has one of the larger ground-pounding militaries in the world. And with reports that ERG units had been placed in the regular units to "steel" their moral (read "hold a pistol to their head to make them fight"), there's a whole lot of resistance that has to be removed before the US can even think of taking out Saddam. Once again, it might pay to think before making this kind of implication.

Awww....the Pope is against Bush. Imagine that. The Demo's love to throw this one back. But, the Pope is against abortion, too. Demo's support it. Selective listening, don't you think? Throwing in the Pope is pointless, here, because the Demo's only invoke the Pope when it suits them. Nice try though. But it won't work.

If ordinary people acted like Bush...killing their neighbors... ROFLMAO! Please see my above statement about the US acting with full authority under UN Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. Oh yeah...isn't it "international approval" that the Demo's and nay-sayers whine consistently about? It's there. They just don't want to accept it.

Hmmm...you provided absolutely no proof that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are "so [edited] dirty". So, there's no need to go there. Except maybe to remind you that you - again - failed to provide proof of your claim.

Favorite president is Lincoln. The man that ended slavery...only as a LAST RESORT to try to keep his country together. Lincoln did not want to end slavery of his own will. But that's another story.

I find it humorous that non-conservatives like to accuse those conservatives that disagree with them as being "Rush's ditto sheep". A very convenient (albeit worn-out) slam, simply because that oh-so-dispicable Rush happens to be a conservative.

About Bush trying to bribe Turkey. SCOFF! Even the Turkish ambassador to the US admits that Turkey saw that the US needed their bases and used that US need against the US in multiple attempts to extort billions from America. Bush's oh-so-hated administration was the side that said, "No.". The US was willing to make some concessions to Turkey, but Turkey kept pushing the envelope trying to suck more and more of my tax dollars to benefit their little hole-in-the-wall country. Get your facts straight!

If you were able to contain your hatred for the few minutes necessary to read this, then maybe you will change some of your opinions. But I doubt it, Jack.
I never said that Bush's administration was perfect. But I - and most Americans - agree that those men are doing one heckuva job. Get off the hate-speech and get onto the facts.

Oh yeah. I'm an average American, too. And an average veteran, too. Bush has my salute any time. Can't say the same for the likes of Clinton and Carter, though.

blah blah blah...
an open mouth, a closed mind...
further posts would prove pointless.

Good bye and best wishes to you.

-j

Jack,

Here's a mantra you might want to adopt for your life.
"Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

Regards,
Rick,
an average american, son of a career Air Force veteran.