[Edited by remember on 07-16-2004 at 09:06 AM]
well ,I don't think communism is a good way at all.
and I think the victory of the north vietnamese was just a bump in history.
the americans could have won,if there was anything to win.
again,I think there wasn't a real objective there.
and I posit the theory that if "american" and our allies buisnessmen would stop doing buisness with and loaning money to these communist experiments ,they would fail all on there own.
I don't think communism as propaganda offers the incentive that capitalism does.
I have seen the "rules of engagement" that came out in 1985,and the hands being tied on the american war machine to win;it did the troops in and the war.council members drew up those rules.
and inherently anyone,especially with arsenals could be dangerous,what I mean is that they could have been defeated if we waged economic warfare on these countries before they were even strong enough to become a threat.
but history and the powers that be didn't do that,instead they made money supplying them with money and weapons.
one of the other groups spawned by those that created the council in foreign relations was "the institute of pacific relations" which was condemed and eventually forced to close its doors in the 60's because all the members(people) were communist and they were the arm that perpetuated the viability of these pacific rim nations.
what my gripe is with is the establishment that gives this administration credibility and has for every other since roosevelt.
they in their many forms have supplied us with enemies ,and they in their many forms have supplied us with the will(propaganda) and weapons to fight them.
at a great profit to themselves and anybody going along with them.
and saddam was excused for what he was doing by us "to fight communism" realpolitik
but he was helped to stay in power by us.
before and after he gassed those kurds.
right after, don rumsfeld was reagans special ambassador to iraq,when he gave him more money and weapons.'83-84'
richard perle as un ambassador blocked the UN censure of Iraq for the gassing of the kurds.
saddam's iraq had 17 un resolutions against him.
isreal has 35,why don't we invade isreal(rhetorical)
saddam bought his stockpiles of anthrax in 1988 from a company in rockville maryland.with gov't approval.
congress stepped in the following year ,banning such sales.
saddam asked US ambassador april gilespie if the US had any problems with his invasion to kuwait,and was told that was not our buisness,it was an arab matter.
his reason for doing so were:
that kuwait had once been a part of iraq
the kuwaiti's were using "slant drilling" techniques to drill frow kuwait into oilfields under iraq.
only after pleas from kuwait did we have a problem.
as much as i'm glad to see for the iraqi's ,that saddam is gone,it just reeks of hypocrisy,that the very people that helped create him ,now say he is so bad.they must take this country down too,to get rid of him.
and the reports state no connection to al-queda and saddam
save minor interactions.
if that was a basis for guilt
we should be bombing the CIA,because they supplied more weapons to both saddam and the mujahadin,taliban,etc.
and yeah,I am going out on limbs with my conclusions ,because this isn't a court of law and I can.
but I'm not trying to exaggerate or imbellish anything.
and today we are building up the gov'ts of turkmenistan and uzbeckestan;both of which are oppressive and with a little help could be our enemies tomorrow.(but there is that pipeline going through there)$$$oil$$$
don't even want to start on the alliance and american money going to putin and the resurgence of the kgb and mafioso/oligarchs that are running russia.
now that will be a threat.
also not a good place to be an honest journalist.
what is it going to take for them to sell of their stockpiles to the highest bidder?
Originally posted by remember
[Edited by remember on 07-16-2004 at 09:06 AM]
That's the most intelligent thing you've ever posted.
During WW2 we were allied with Russia, only because we had to.
Even then we saw what would become a tug-o-war.
Now that we crippled Russia (economicly) we can't let them alone to fend for themselves.
Aid is sent mainly to keep their economy from becoming any worse and to help them secure thier nuclear arsenal, this is our responsibility. You can't have two bullies on the same block.
In reagards to Iraq.
I've been saying that you have to take the total situation and come to an overall conclusion.
Just to say that we once supported Saddam, (we all know it was because of Iran), that we have to supprot him now is ludicrous.
Saddam has become a larger threat to world satabilty in the shot term than Iran is now, or for that matter N.Korea.
So referrencing past experiences doesn't encapulate him.
I never heard this statement,"and saddam was excused for what he was doing by us "to fight communism" realpolitik".
He wasen't fighting communist.
You could try to in-dirctly tie The USSR to the problems with Iran back in the 80's as a plot to de-stabilize the mid-east.
Slantdrilling on part of Kuwait is only speculation heard around the water cooler. There is no positive proof of it being done. Saddam, at his arraingment never once mentioned this, Why? He used it as an excuse to invade.
"and the reports state no connection to al-queda and saddam
save minor interactions".
What is a minor interaction? sending notes? making phone calls? moral support? giving financial assistance?
"we should be bombing the CIA,because they supplied more weapons to both saddam and the mujahadin,taliban,et"
This comment from you comes much closer to Treason, than anything I've heard from the administration.
You have a problem with Bush, so be-it. At least he is acting steadfastly instead of flip-flopping.
If the Rules of Engagment change it is not because of his doing, it is due to the liberal influences. The liberals will allow terrorist to attack us once again. Thanks for nothing, we don't want to infringe on your rights.
As for the "Patriot Act".
This is not an admendment, so a 2/3 vote from congress will not save it from being reviewed by the Supreme Court, as should be done.
They have the authority to void parts if they see a conflict with the "Bill of Rights" or cause.
They haven't, at this time, said that the "Act" as an whole is in question, but parts will be reviewed, as they already have.
There is a distinction between Legislative Laws and Admendments. The Supreme Court has the absolute authority to overturn all legislative laws.
Precedence is created by the Supreme Court, not used by them.
Looking to move into distant corner of Canada to service oil and kerosene burners in the winter and cut down trees in summer...
precedence is both created and used by them;supreme court.
to say we were helping saddam to hurt iran ,doesn't explain the aid we gave iran at the same time.
the scenerio was to aid them both,so as to let them fight each other,and decapacitate each other.
the iran-contra scandal wasn't about iraq.these same characters helped/hurt everyone,and follow the money.
and no one said we should support saddam,now or before.
the reason for the debate was ,
"Whether this invasion was necessary on the timeline it happened ,as was the case made by this administration as a reason for not leting the inspectors have more time."
after all, the inspectors were in there (on the UN nickel),and could have stayed indefinately.
(not to say the US troops on the doorstep wasn't the reason saddam became so amiable)
and that that is a possible reason that is real ,to get the thing overwith,and send everybody home)
if that was the plan?
saddam was in a box.he wasn't going to jeopardize his little kingdom.he hadn't attacked the US or supported terrorists that had.(save a few people the may have seeked shelter there,to retire)
and even as a murderer of his people and a tyrant,politically ,he was safe.he had nothing to gain.
he was already selling oil to halliburton(90's)and others.
and grooming his kids to take over.no plans to commit suicide..
and saying things isn't treason.
doing things is.
that is an example of fascist creep in the mindset of political discourse.a prerequisite for real creep.
nothing I say is treasonous,and I'm not doing buisness with enemies.
and saddam did claim that as one of his reasons during the hearing;so it was reported.I wasn't there.
and remember ;
there is absolutely no proof that I'm not the world fastest camelracer!
because i've never raced a camel.maybe if I ever try it there would be proof that I suck.but that proof doesn't exist now.so I can claim whatever.
and the diplomats in that region,all had the overriding concern that the area and its oil were important to keep from being controlled by the soviets.back in the 50's -80's
hence ,everything done in the name of stopping/slowing communist expansion was excused.
and any nationalist is labeled a marxist .
but the relationship with lenin and stalin and kruschev ,etc.
all had "official" diplomatic dimensions to them.
but there was a lot going on that would upset the applecart of a nice little patriotic bunch of people just looking out for those that can't do it for themselves.
the aspects i'm bringing up is that the very personalities that relate to these foreign gov'ts,one year as ambassador for the US,and the next year for annaconda copper,or exxon, or the united fruit co.
is a conflict of intrest.
and all told that is it.
my only gripe is actually with the media.
it is natural for people to act in their best intrests.
but the fourth estate was charged with the mission of finding news and disseminating it that it should be useful in the shaping of attitudes,for the expression of a free society.
and now we find ourselves with the content of the "truth" changes depending if you watch,read,hear, your information about the same things from different places.
and they all claim to be true.
and now you have faith in the congress to effectively be the instrument to uphold "whats right".
I guess you like their medicare bill.that is them looking out for people.
we'll see how that works out.
the bugs may be worked out for that one too.
maybe they will be able to negotiate drug prices someday?
the healthcare in maine,spurred that bill on.and the constitutionality for a healthcare provider(state of maine)to negotiate for drug prices.passed the supreme court.if the federal gov't was looking to spend our tax dollars more efficiently,they could barter their medicare/medicaid money as leverage,since they would control @ 52% of the market.evrybody would have cheaper drugs.
but there is the intrests of the most profitable industry to think about.
that spends as much on lobbying as research;that spends as much on marketing as research.
thats the kind of congress sitting now.
bill frist's family buisness is HCA.
run by his father and brother.
the largest medicare provider in the country.
several years ago they were fined by the gov't for 1.4 billion. with a B.for fraud.
how much do you have to steal,before you get fined 1.4 billion?
Precedence is set by either a lower court, and or followed by lower courts, but the Supreme Court sets precedence and does not use it to rule or make opinions as it relates to law.
Your compasion for Saddam is admirable, and sickning.
The UN inspectors were doing absolutly nothing, by thier own admission they were being blindfolded and mis-lead by the, then Iraq govt. David Kay acts if though they were effective, ironicly he was in charge during most of this running around with your head-cut-off game. He wants to only quantify his own arss!
I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember the Iran Hostage situation, along with the removal of the Shaw. This is what compeled us to condone Saddams behavior.
We, as a nation work in our best interest, as we should.
As to the speculation of salntdrilling from Kuwait into Iraq. You come back with,
"and saddam did claim that as one of his reasons during the hearing;so it was reported.I wasn't there".
Who reported this? A #1 reason not to take everything you hear to heart.
His excuse was that the Kuwaities made fun of Iraq's women. That was the only reference to his decision to invade at the arraingment.
He did say that about 14 yrs ago though.
We dealt with communism, the goal was to stop them from expanding, bottom line.
You are trying to micro-analyze peoples thought processes, and if it doesn't fit into your realm of thinking then they must be collaboraters against the free peoples of America.
Some may call this paranoia.
I hate liberals, but I don't accuse them of Treason!!! Does nuclear secrets and China ring a bell?
Nuclear secrets. Chinese monks. Cash changing hands. Presidential election.
That is one hot trail!
precedence is created when a court makes a ruling as examples for later.
the lower the court ,the less it counts.
the supreme court sets predence when it agrees and disagrees with various arguements.
our legal system is based and executed on the use of precedence ,in that it must be examined.
it is not binding to any decision.unless it is a lower court.the supreme court takes into account precedence set by any and all similar cases,everytime ,they decide on something.
at least they are supposed to.and seemingly ,they do.
maybe ,thats what you said.
and I have no liking for saddam.but he is a part of the story,not as a person,as a "player" and "played".
I'm not "over-analyzing" these things.I'm barely even getting into the details.
I think I hear what your saying ;and I do remember the hostages being taken.
what I'm getting at is that there was so much going on behind the scenes back then,that puts what happened into perspective.
for people that became aware of the iranians like that ,think it came out of nowhere.unprovoked.
it is a similar thing to what is happening today.
but Iran is something I know a little about.at least a little slice from back in the fifties.when mosadeg was asassinated.
I know a former asst.ambassador to iran,that was in the room(1953) while much of the intrigues ,that are mischaracterized by pundits everyday.
the decisions are made by "ranking" people.personalities are very important to understand in; looking at history.
and buisnessmen/kings and the politicians that represent them are in those meetings,not public anything.
the pavlavi family was put in by the british,for oil.(1920's)
they sold out the people,making money for themselves and being puppets of the west.
by the 40's-50's,a leader mosadeg moved up,and in 1952/3? was democratically elected.ousting the shah and his family(the father of the one thrown out in 1979)
the cia,appoints to cause revolt,kill mosadeg.
for :the anglo-arabian oil co.(a british co.)
and standard oil intrests.
and a few others...james mooney of general motors was in the embassy,periodically.
this guy,was one of the "striped-pants"set who was "convieniently"out of the country that weekend.so they could claim they had no involvement,when they returned.
norman schwarzkopf's dad;a col. and NJ state trooper. was brought in to coordinate the buying/paying of the rebel merceneries.to carry out the deed.
in returns the pavlavi's.
more pillaging the states wealth,
causing such anti-american hatred that the radical anti-american fundementalist factions had breeding grounds that led to the islamist revolution of 1979.
and after that revolution the bushes and friends were involved in banking with banks like BCCI,and others,,
while they were defrauding the american banking system
both jeb and niel bush even got themselves in trouble for that,at least their banks.george sr. was involved,but got off.
taxpayer bailout of 500 billion dollars.
and since both democrats and republicans got caught with their hands in the cookie jars,no real investigation followed.
some of those same iranians,ghorbannifar, also became the buyers of weapons from ollie north and friends.
if you don't look in depth at what was happening,how are you to u8nderstand what is happening now?
and if you are you looking for "cause and effect" the events don't make logical sense,because of the personal relationships involved.
and I don't have to know all the transactions,to know it was not the "official" version.
after decades ,everything gets more settled out as to what actually happened.usually after the "players"die.so no actions can be taken.
so to think that what is told you is likely to be the truth,(even when it doesn't make sense),is wierd.
to not suspect there being more to the story,is naive.
and to guess prematurely....is novelty.
and the inspectors may not have had a chance,but they were cheaper.
the troops haven't had any luck finding anything either(and I don't doubt saddam hid stuff,that hasn't been found.the guy owned a country,I'm sure he had "toys"like everybody else.big deal!).and if they back up..
saddam may be gone,but who is going to replace him?
they had better avoid civil war.
or will this new guy,(isn't he chalabi's brother's nephew)become the next saddam?
nobody knows what is going to happen.
so I can't knock it.
and you can't say it worked.
but the whole decision to go to iraq at all or now; is a question outside of the outcome of iraq.in the war on terror.
if this administration was fighting terror,why this "day-trip" to nationbuilding.why bother?
since even if someone were to give the administration the benefit of doubt,their evidence of terrorist collaboration is poor at best.
and the connection to 9-11 is worse than a conspiracy theory.
so why didn't they concentrate on afghanistan,with a fine tooth comb ;to get osama.
they are still just bopping around.
why not demand to go into pakistan?
the war on terror isn't in iraq.
and the blowback from our actions remains to be seen.
and those who reported on allegations of slant drilling were cbs,pbs,npr,madelaine albright,april gilespie,among others.
still to me it is hearsay,but obviously of more weight than a remark about women.
one of the key reasons was that iraq considered kuwait to be part of their territory.
going back to the split-up of the ottoman empire after WWI by the british.
even just to say,he took it "for the money" would be OK.
to think his only stated reason was a stereotype of their women,I would rethink where YOU heard that as a serious source of information.
[Edited by remember on 07-18-2004 at 08:31 PM]
I believe the reason to go into Iraq is a complex one.
But G.W. never said that Iraq had, or has direct ties to Bin-Laden.
Anyone can try to explain the decision for war in Iraq, but unless they were in the loop they'll never really know.
So we have to try and conclude ourselves why we went.
The American people are well known for not wanting to get involved in such a way, and the terrorist know it, as well as the Dictators. We as a nation have to get more intune with the world and how situations can affect us.
By staying on the side lines and playing politics we will get bit in the arss, as we saw on 9/11.
The politicians have to tell us what we want to hear, that is how we are. So by saying that we haven't found WMD's isn't a cause for retreating from our objective.
And our objective is to stand tall against the terrorist, not let down our gaurd. Wars are not won by bombing directly, but by removing the will of the enemy to take us on, bombing and killing is just an medium to that end.
There are definitly other nations that require our attention, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc, but poiltics dictate the actions.
The reason we don't go into Pakistan is that we can't.
First they are a nuclear power. Second, we don't want Musharraf to lose power due to our actions. Third, they are a balancing power in the region.
The consequences of doing this would pale to the situation in Iraq.
By going into Iraq we accomplished various goals, and oil isn't one of them, if it were we would be paying .39 a gal.
Our actions have shown the fanaticals that we will fight, that we will not tolerate a man such as Saddam forever, and that we, as a nation, will do what it takes too safeguard the worlds oil reserves.
People can nit pick, second guess and curse the president, but at least he stood up to them. We can't say that about others.
The leftist will, if in power, cowar down and submit and make this great nation look weak.
History writes history.