News Kerry To Push For Bush Impeachment

[SOS2008]

I'm very tired of the propaganda. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq has not made America safer.

 

[russ_watters]

'The word 'Terrorist' is very overused these days to the point it is, in keeping with it's historical roots, a label for anybody who holds a contrary point of view. One of the first to popularize the term was Hitler during WW2 when he described the British commandos as terrorists.
So before labelling people willy nilly as a terrorist perhaps it would be a good idea as a starting point to look at the definition of a terrorist.

As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives". This definition includes three elements:

(1) Terrorist activities are illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)

So far so good...

Now to most fair minded people that would mean the American forces fighting an illegal (as defined by the laws of the country they invaded and by the UN secretary general) war in Iraq are terrorists led by an arch-terrorist Bush. As they satisfy every condition listed above.

Come again? Illegal by Iraq's law? War falls under international law and Iraq was in constant violation of the treaty ending the 1991 war - that alone means the war never ended. Next, UN resolution 1441 (unanamously approved) threatens the use of force for non-compliance. The UN didn't follow through - the US did.

But let's get more basic: if the war was a violation of international law, why hasn't the UN acted on that? The general assembly isn't real fond of the US - getting charges through would be a piece of cake. No, the reason is that it wasn't a violation of international law.

Now, let's also look at the definition and compare it to the US's actions: "to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof..." The point of the war was to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein from power. The only coercion involved was prior to the war and it was to get him to start obeying international law. The US is now trying to keep order in Iraq. To ensure security for the population. We are not trying to coerce the population or the government to do anything - we aren't fighting either.

Most of our opposition's actions these days are directed against the Iraqi people and government for the purpose of coercing them into an Islamic government, or at the very least, simply to oppose the one being formed. That's why they are bombing civilians, police, polling places (during the election), and assassinating democratically elected leaders. Its textbook terrorism.

So Art - its you who is overusing the word.

Understandably many US contributors to this forum would object to their armed forces being called terrorists but please can we have less of this emotive term when speaking of the forces opposing America?

Yes, please - apply the definition evenly, Mr. Pot.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm very tired of the propaganda. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq has not made America safer.

Oddly enough, the complaint is inconsistant with the final statement as what you say is simply left-wing propaganda.

 

[Informal Logic]

Oddly enough, the complaint is inconsistant with the final statement as what you say is simply left-wing propaganda.

Yeah, it's just left wing propaganda -- Iraq was invaded because of links to Al 'Qeada/9-11, and if it was not for the war in Iraq, America would be in danger of attack by Saddam. In the meantime, the rest of the world has more respect and support for the US and the war, which along with Abu Graib, Guantamano Bay, etc. has caused the threat of terrorism to decrease.

So core Bush supporters continue to believe the trash talk, but it is not likely to help with swing voters. As stated in the "What's Wrong With The Republican Party" thread:

Iraq/Foreign Affairs – Aside from the ongoing death tolls, Americans did not appreciate being deceived about the war.

...I hope they [Republicans] continue to be delusional idiots and continue to ignore the polls.

 

[Pengwuino]

Yeah, it's just left wing propaganda -- Iraq was invaded because of links to Al 'Qeada/9-11, and if it was not for the war in Iraq, America would be in danger of attack by Saddam. In the meantime, the rest of the world has more respect and support for the US and the war, which along with Abu Graib, Guantamano Bay, etc. has caused the threat of terrorism to decrease.

Although Saddam didnt pose a threat to the US directly, violating many many UN sanctions and murdering his own people was a good thing? I've yet to hear an explnation as to why we should have allowed such activity to continue. And as I have heard exactly what you said abouta thousand times in aalmost the exact same words, ill respond in the exact same words. The world listens to falsified left-wing propaganda that attempts to undermine the US. But then again maybe that's laughable. Maybe newsweek did follow up and verified the supposed toilet incident and it turned out to true. Or maybe amnesty international is right when they compared Gitmo to the Russian gulag as I am sure millions of innocent people were murdered at Gitmo. But then again maybe the Red Cross was right when they demanded they shut down a few prisons because a few people were caught with their pants down (literally) although not a word when saddam did the same except 'a few people caught with their pants down' was 'a few hundred thousand people were shot'. But then again maybe the US is evil when it "mistreats" (as in, carefully carries every holy book with surgical gloves) holy books yet allow the Bible to be burnt and defecated on elsewhere (even in the states itself).

But I guess your completely right. We look like fools and are a horrible nation! How dare we get rid of a murderous corupt dictator giving millions of dollars in bribes to UN officials. How dare we...

 

[Burnsys]

Although Saddam didnt pose a threat to the US directly, violating many many UN sanctions and murdering his own people was a good thing? I've yet to hear an explnation as to why we should have allowed such activity to continue. And as I have heard exactly what you said abouta thousand times in aalmost the exact same words, ill respond in the exact same words. The world listens to falsified left-wing propaganda that attempts to undermine the US. But then again maybe that's laughable. Maybe newsweek did follow up and verified the supposed toilet incident and it turned out to true. Or maybe amnesty international is right when they compared Gitmo to the Russian gulag as I am sure millions of innocent people were murdered at Gitmo. But then again maybe the Red Cross was right when they demanded they shut down a few prisons because a few people were caught with their pants down (literally) although not a word when saddam did the same except 'a few people caught with their pants down' was 'a few hundred thousand people were shot'. But then again maybe the US is evil when it "mistreats" (as in, carefully carries every holy book with surgical gloves) holy books yet allow the Bible to be burnt and defecated on elsewhere (even in the states itself).

But I guess your completely right. We look like fools and are a horrible nation! How dare we get rid of a murderous corupt dictator giving millions of dollars in bribes to UN officials. How dare we...

How dare you to give millons in aid, military training, intelligence data and hellicopters to saddam when he was using chemical weapons on his own people and on the iranians??

When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq52.pdf

Absolutly the use of chemical weapons was not the cause of the invasion of irak becouse rumsfeld himself keep aiding saddam in the 80 when he knew he used chemical weapons. and don't even try to bring the "he was a cruel dictator" becouse US supports right now a lot of other cruel dictators... even givin them weapons and money...

 

[SOS2008]

I'm very tired of the propaganda. The invasion of Iraq was not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq has not made America safer.

On CNN Tonight:

DOBBS: My next guest says the United States must immediately secure our nation's borders in order to prevent another terrorist attack in this country. Robert Pape says completing a partial border fence along our 2,000-mile border with Mexico would cost, by his estimate, about $6 billion. That, he says, is the same as paying for U.S. military operations in Iraq for just about a month.

Robert Pape is the author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." For the book, he compiled the first data base of every suicide attack in the world since 1980. Robert Pape is associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago and joins us here in New York tonight. Good to have you with us.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

DOBBS: And that idea is also attached to the religious drive of these radical Islamists, particularly obviously in Iraq, where we're now focused. You also put forth some startling numbers. In terms of the suicide attacks that have occurred over the course of the first attacks against Saddam Hussein, do we have those statistics up? And if not, I'll just -- we'll just -- do we have those? Let's take a look at those. The nationality of --

PAPE: These are actually al Qaeda.

DOBBS: -- of al Qaeda suicide attackers, their origins. I think many people would not be surprised, given what has transpired in this country on September 11th, to find that most are from Saudi Arabia, followed by Morocco. These are -- this is extraordinary. Why that breakdown in your judgment?

PAPE: What the vast majority of suicide terrorist attacks have in common is not religion, but a clear secular strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. Al Qaeda fits this pattern, not perfectly, but quite strongly. You see, what that table shows is that overwhelmingly, al Qaeda suicide terrorists, the 71 who actually died to fulfill Osama bin Laden's attacks since 1995, come overwhelmingly from Sunni countries where we've stationed tens of thousands of American combat forces, and actually, quite few from the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran. If you look at that chart, you'll see that Iran -- an Islamic fundamentalist country with 70 million people, three times the population of Saudi Arabia, three times the population of Iraq, has never produced a single al Qaeda suicide terrorist.

DOBBS: And the reason for that you posit is that there is no occupation of Iranian...

PAPE: There's no occupation and no threat of occupation. Iran is not just simply a big state. It's a big state with a fairly large army, and an army that hasn't been defeated by a previous war, as Iraq was, or under American heavy-duty economic sanctions for a long period of time.

DOBBS: Implications for your studies U.S. policy in the Iraq, in the Middle East going forward?

PAPE: So long as tens of thousands of American combat troops remain in the Persian Gulf, we should expect anti-American suicide terrorism to continue. In Iraq, before America's invasion in March 2003, there was not a single suicide terrorist attack in Iraq's history. Since then, it's been growing, and will likely continue to grow as long as our forces are there.

DOBBS: The economics that you are recommending in terms of putting absolute border security for our southern border, our northern border, for our ports, the economics are overwhelmingly in favor of your recommendation?

PAPE: Absolutely. We should recognize that even if we reverse policy and begin to withdraw forces from the Persian Gulf, that's going to take years to turn that supertanker around. As a result, we need to expect that anti-American suicide terrorism is going to grow, and toughening border securities, especially with a fence, much like the fence that the Israelis have built on the West Bank, would be an excellent investment.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/06/ldt.01.html

 

[BobG]

Although Saddam didnt pose a threat to the US directly, violating many many UN sanctions and murdering his own people was a good thing? I've yet to hear an explnation as to why we should have allowed such activity to continue.

Why do you label SOS's comment as left-wing propaganda, but then make no effort to refute what she said? Instead you shift the topic to Iraqi liberty, as if that should take priority over the safety of American lives.

Our priority should have been protecting Americans - eliminating Bin Laden and real terrorist threats - not liberating Iraqis.

From our point of view, our main concern regarding Iraq should have been whether or not Iraq was a threat to Middle East peace. As long as sanctions were working, we had time to concentrate on organizations that presented a more immediate threat. In fact, considering the prime motivation for WMD in both Iraq and Iran was fear of each other, there was even a possibility a long term solution could have been worked by mutual inspections in both countries.

More importantly, Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda roam free around the Afghanistan-Pakistan border four years after we invaded Afghanistan to kill them. Pakistan's support for our war against Bin Laden could almost be considered a success story. Prior to the Afghanistan invasion, Pakistan could have expected to be number two on the list of countries that the US would invade in pursuit of Al-Qaeda. Instead, the leader of Pakistan supports our efforts to track down Al-Qaeda along the border in spite of his own citizens' threats to end his life for doing so. A pre-emptive invasion of Iraq just makes support for the US that much more unpopular in Pakistan - and considering that support was at least partially given because Pakistan didn't want to be country #2, a huge commitment in Iraq actually reduces the urgency of Pakistan's commitment.

 

[Art]

So far so good...

Glad that meets with your approval. So if an international court rules the war illegal you will then agree that America's actions constitute terrorism? Right?

But let's get more basic: if the war was a violation of international law, why hasn't the UN acted on that? The general assembly isn't real fond of the US - getting charges through would be a piece of cake. No, the reason is that it wasn't a violation of international law.

The UN have acted on it in so much as the secretary general has said it was illegal which is a pretty damning indictment. As to why they haven't imposed penalties such as sanctions etc is fairly obvious - because America is too powerful. Because both Britain and America have permanent seats on the security council with vetos etc.. etc... Plus the American government refused to sign up to the UN treaty allowing the UN to preside over allegations of war crimes against member countries. (Very farsighted of them as it turns out).There are moves however to have Blair charged in europe over this illegal war which could be interesting.

Now, let's also look at the definition and compare it to the US's actions: "to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof..." The point of the war was to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein from power.

Dictatator or not he was the head of the government. I don't see where this definition says it only applies to democratic governments (or despots allied to the USA)

The only coercion involved was prior to the war and it was to get him to start obeying international law.

Some people would think cruise missiles and bombs raining down would constitute coercian.

The US is now trying to keep order in Iraq. To ensure security for the population.

And where did the disorder originate? Oh yes - Americas illegal invasion.

We are not trying to coerce the population or the government to do anything - we aren't fighting either.

I don't know what to say

Most of our opposition's actions these days are directed against the Iraqi people and government for the purpose of coercing them into an Islamic government, or at the very least, simply to oppose the one being formed. That's why they are bombing civilians, police, polling places (during the election), and assassinating democratically elected leaders. Its textbook terrorism.

There are several factions fighting in Iraq. Some as you say (mainly foreigners) are trying to take advantage of the current instability to further their aims. Many however are Iraqis fighting to liberate their country in the same way the French resistance in WW2 attacked members of the Vichy government, colloborators, infrastructure and the invasion forces. Was this terrorism too in your book? If not please explain the difference.

So Art - its you who is overusing the word. Yes, please - apply the definition evenly, Mr. Pot.

Yes Mr Kettle I absolutely agree the definition should be applied evenly. That was the whole point of my mail. I am not defending people in Iraq who attack civilians; in fact my personal definition of terrorism is anybody who attacks soft civilian targets or is somewhat blase about collateral civilian damage when attacking military targets. Attacking military, both regulars and irregulars, I call war. So from my viewpoint I see acts of war and acts of terrorism on both sides. Going back to the central thrust of my argument I do not believe it is right for you to label everybody who disagrees with your administration's views, with the emotive label of Terrorist.

 

[russ_watters]

On CNN Tonight:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/06/ldt.01.html

Interesting, but what does he make of the fact that terrorism existed before the 1991 Gulf war and was perpetrated largely by Iran?

 

[russ_watters]

So if an international court rules the war illegal you will then agree that America's actions constitute terrorism? Right?

No. Please reread the definition you posted - not every illegal act is an act of terrorism. Terrorism has specific characteristics.

The UN have acted on it in so much as the secretary general has said it was illegal which is a pretty damning indictment.

A speech made by the secretary general is as meaningless as a speech made by any other politician: its all rhetoric. What matters (again) is the actions. The UN has a general assembly, a world court, and (if necessary) war crimes tribunals. None have made so much as a peep because there is nothing to peep about. Futhermore, Anan is under some pretty heavy fire himself right now - I wonder how he'd have reacted if he didn't need to be defending himself against corruption charges.

Dictatator or not he was the head of the government. I don't see where this definition says it only applies to democratic governments (or despots allied to the USA)

The word "dictator" was not the key to that sentence. Taking down a foreign government is generally not an act of terrorism, its an act of war. Wars, even illegal ones, are not usually acts of terrorism: ie, very little of what Germany or Japan did in WWII was considered terrorism.

Some people would think cruise missiles and bombs raining down would constitute coercian.

Some people clearly confuse "terrorism" and "war".

And where did the disorder originate?

You're changing the subject.

There are several factions fighting in Iraq. Some as you say (mainly foreigners) are trying to take advantage of the current instability to further their aims. Many however are Iraqis fighting to liberate their country in the same way the French resistance in WW2 attacked members of the Vichy government, colloborators, infrastructure and the invasion forces. Was this terrorism too in your book? If not please explain the difference.

Some is terrorism and some is not. As the definition says quite clearly, terrorism is a type of tactic.

... in fact my personal definition of terrorism is...

Why even bother to post the real definition if you're just going to make your own up anyway? Jeez, you're not even being subtle about it: you just came right out and said that you refuse to use the objective definition you just posted. But hey, just for kicks, let's have a look at your personal definition:

...anybody who attacks soft civilian targets or is somewhat blase about collateral civilian damage when attacking military targets.

Well, in that case you just referred to just about every military act by anyone, ever, except the West's actions in Iraq in 1991 and today and Afghanistan in 2002. The US and her allies went to absolutely unprecidented extremes to protect civilians in both wars. To the point of putting our own soldiers at severe risk. Many Americans died rather than risk killing civilians.

Going back to the central thrust of my argument I do not believe it is right for you to label everybody who disagrees with your administration's views, with the emotive label of Terrorist.

Only one of us is doing that. Look in the mirror. Drop your "personal definition" and start following the real definition.

 

[vanesch]

I don't think it is fair to call American soldiers "terrorists". Guys in deep sh*t is closer to reality. I'm sure that Dubya Bush wanted to do something "good" by invading Iraq (for the correct definition of "good": good for his buddies, good for his popularity, good for the US, good for the Iraqi people, good for Israel, in general, good for the world according to his views). I think most people in the world would agree that removing an evil dictator and replace it by a blossoming democracy was a positive evolution, if there would not be any price to pay. So a bit of lying in order to mobilise to do "good" was allowed for, wasn't it ?

He screwed up dearly and that was obvious from the start to about everybody in the world except him and his followers, that things wouldn't go as he promised (and maybe, probably, even believed himself). "Screwed up" in the sense of: not reaching his goal with his plan. Now, instead of admitting so, he (and his followers) STILL claim that it was "the right thing to do", and that's where things become miserable. It was NOT the right thing to do because IT DIDN'T WORK ! It doesn't really matter whether in the end it was "legal" or not. It's a mess! It was a very predictable mess.

Nevertheless, that doesn't make Bush a terrorist like Ossama, who wants to do only "good" according to HIS, EVIL definition of "good", which is to stink out all those heathen whiteskins out of holy Arab land. If I have to choose, according to MY definition of "good" I prefer Dubya's definition over Ossama's definition. Only, Dubya screws up, Ossama doesn't.

 

[Art]

No. Please reread the definition you posted - not every illegal act is an act of terrorism. Terrorism has specific characteristics.

Etc, etc,etc... This part of your post simply exemplifies your inablity to look at things with an open mind.

Why even bother to post the real definition if you're just going to make your own up anyway? Jeez, you're not even being subtle about it: you just came right out and said that you refuse to use the objective definition you just posted. But hey, just for kicks, let's have a look at your personal definition: Well, in that case you just referred to just about every military act by anyone, ever, except the West's actions in Iraq in 1991 and today and Afghanistan in 2002. The US and her allies went to absolutely unprecidented extremes to protect civilians in both wars. To the point of putting our own soldiers at severe risk. Many Americans died rather than risk killing civilians. Only one of us is doing that. Look in the mirror. Drop your "personal definition" and start following the real definition.

And this part exemplifies why. You take every edict, press release, opinion and posture that the Bush administration hands out without question and propogate their terminalogicalinexactitudes. Whereas some of us actually think for ourselves. We look at the facts and make our own minds up rather than starting with someones elses conclusion and working backwards to justify it.

 

[SOS2008]

Our priority should have been protecting Americans - eliminating Bin Laden and real terrorist threats - not liberating Iraqis.

Agreed. And America is not safer, because now we are in a poor position to address other situations in the world.

Interesting, but what does he make of the fact that terrorism existed before the 1991 Gulf war and was perpetrated largely by Iran?

The study/data is based on anti-American suicide terrorism, which has only occurred in countries where there has been occupation/intervention. The point is that occupation/intervention INCREASES terrorism of this kind.

If I have to choose, according to MY definition of "good" I prefer Dubya's definition over Ossama's definition. Only, Dubya screws up, Ossama doesn't.

Agreed about comparison to a terrorist (Osama) but not in regard to the unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq is not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq does not make America safer. Saying otherwise is propaganda.

 

[Pengwuino]

The invasion of Iraq is not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq does not make America safer. Saying otherwise is propaganda.

Ironically, your entire statement is simple left-wing propaganda. The fact that none of us are omnipotent or at the least, are directors of any major national defense agency, makes us rather ill informed to make such broad statements. Of course, however, some peopel seem to feel they know definitive facts about the entire world based on a CNN article or something Newsweek inked up on a piece of paper.

 

[Pengwuino]

And this part exemplifies why. You take every edict, press release, opinion and posture that the Bush administration hands out without question and propogate their terminalogicalinexactitudes. Whereas some of us actually think for ourselves. We look at the facts and make our own minds up rather than starting with someones elses conclusion and working backwards to justify it.

Really? The last time i saw a democrat try to source something or use logic in regards to a conversation or didnt act hypocritical... well.. hmm.. who was president at that time...

I mean come on, your the ideology that almost stumbled over your own two feet when Dan Rather gave some falsified BS and you guys took it as the holy grail. Then of course, throw in a newsweek article and your pretty much in lala land believing anything anti-Bush that happens to come out of any hole in the ground.

 

[russ_watters]

The study/data is based on anti-American suicide terrorism, which has only occurred in countries where there has been occupation/intervention.

And only after 1991? I consider that to be a vast oversimplification of the problem. Sure, its easy for him to make the case that our presence is the important factor if he limits the scope of his investigation to terrorism related to our presence.

We have a significant number of troops in dozens of countries and the only terrorism we see is perpetrated by people who call themselves Muslims. Ie, when was the last time a German, South Korean, or Japanese strapped a bomb to his chest and blew up a restaraunt in one of those countries?

The point is that occupation/intervention INCREASES terrorism of this kind.

That's it? Isn't that a self-evident and therefore useless point? Of course terrorism increases when we go near terrorists. Bee stings increase near bees nests too. But then comes logical leap from the corellation (bee stings happen near bees nests) to causation: going near bees nests creates bees. Then, of course, the fallacious course of action that leads to: stay away from bees nests and there won't be any bees. Have people forgotten the 1980s, when Iran was on its terrorism binge? I went on a trip to Europe in ~'84 and in most countries they had armed military guards with machine guns outside the American Express office for fear of Iranian terrorism.

He uses the Tamil Tigers as an example of a Marxist terrorist group - well fine, they are terrorists because of Marxism. That doesn't mean that Islamic terrorists aren't terrorists because of the way they view Islam - especially when the politics and religion are so inter-mixed in a religious theocracy.

If you don't believe that Bin Laden is motivated first and foremost by religion, ask him. He'll tell you (he has on many, many occasions).

The guy discounts Iran, but again, Iran was for quite a while the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. The fact that they have calmed down probably directly goes against his thesis: our presence near Iran has them afraid enough to not want to piss us off (see: Libya, Syria).

 

[Burnsys]

Ironically, your entire statement is simple left-wing propaganda. The fact that none of us are omnipotent or at the least, are directors of any major national defense agency, makes us rather ill informed to make such broad statements. Of course, however, some peopel seem to feel they know definitive facts about the entire world based on a CNN article or something Newsweek inked up on a piece of paper.

But Pengwuino! We can read some department of defence document declasified by the FOIA act...

Let me read some for you:

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].


http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

 

[Pengwuino]

And exactly how does that make the US unsafe right now? I mean come on... that's from over 2 decades ago... and hey wait a second... i thought Iraq never used chemical weapons :-/.

Thanks for the article, it pretty much shows the entire left-wing's views as a bunch of lies and propoganda.

 

[Art]

Really? The last time i saw a democrat try to source something or use logic in regards to a conversation or didnt act hypocritical... well.. hmm.. who was president at that time...

I mean come on, your the ideology that almost stumbled over your own two feet when Dan Rather gave some falsified BS and you guys took it as the holy grail. Then of course, throw in a newsweek article and your pretty much in lala land believing anything anti-Bush that happens to come out of any hole in the ground.

Err Pengwuino as I've mentioned in several of my postings I am from europe. The US Democratic party doesn't campaign here. However I have had the pleasure of many visits to the USA both business and pleasure and found the vast majority of Americans to be very decent folk. One notable exception was during my first visit to California. I was out for dinner with a business colleague and his wife when the subject came up of the differences between capitalism with a safety net as practiced in much of europe and capitalism without as practiced in California. My colleagues wife informed me that the reason there were destitute people on so many street corners holding up cardboard placards saying "Will work for food" was "a vindication of American freedom. We allow people to choose to live like that" she said proudly. And incredibly she wasn't joking. She actually believed these poor people had made a career choice to be broke and destitute.

 

[Pengwuino]

Art... well ill help you out here since your not from the US. California is the closest thing to a socialist country as you can get. Capitalism is almost all but discouraged around here. We have an EXTENSIVE welfare system in California that these people out on the street corners with their fold-up signs can take full advantage of (I know, both my parents have around 40 years of experience in social services, ie welfare). We also have an extensive health care network for the poor. Although I can't account for a few of the eastern states, I would seem California to have the largest "safety net" in the country as you put it. Your colleagues wife was, although it sounds absolutely crazy, completely right in her discription of how it is here.

We have a very large illegal immigrant population as well and its actually a big problem. However, these peopel take up a lot of jobs... and many of them receive government payments (as insane as that sounds as htey are here illegally). There is absolutely no reason in my mind as to why the poor people that you describe could not do what illegal immigrants do and go out and get a freaken job. The only thing stopping them is that hell, stand on a corner for one day and be passed up by probably a good 10,000 cars and your bound to make more money that day then going out and picking grapes or strawberries.

So as assanine as it may seem, their actions are one of the huge ironies of being a free america.

 

[Informal Logic]

And only after 1991? I consider that to be a vast oversimplification of the problem. Sure, its easy for him to make the case that our presence is the important factor if he limits the scope of his investigation to terrorism related to our presence.

We have a significant number of troops in dozens of countries and the only terrorism we see is perpetrated by people who call themselves Muslims. Ie, when was the last time a German, South Korean, or Japanese strapped a bomb to his chest and blew up a restaraunt in one of those countries? That's it? Isn't that a self-evident and therefore useless point? Of course terrorism increases when we go near terrorists. Bee stings increase near bees nests too. But then comes logical leap from the corellation (bee stings happen near bees nests) to causation: going near bees nests creates bees. Then, of course, the fallacious course of action that leads to: stay away from bees nests and there won't be any bees. Have people forgotten the 1980s, when Iran was on its terrorism binge? I went on a trip to Europe in ~'84 and in most countries they had armed military guards with machine guns outside the American Express office for fear of Iranian terrorism.

He uses the Tamil Tigers as an example of a Marxist terrorist group - well fine, they are terrorists because of Marxism. That doesn't mean that Islamic terrorists aren't terrorists because of the way they view Islam - especially when the politics and religion are so inter-mixed in a religious theocracy.

If you don't believe that Bin Laden is motivated first and foremost by religion, ask him. He'll tell you (he has on many, many occasions).

The guy discounts Iran, but again, Iran was for quite a while the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. The fact that they have calmed down probably directly goes against his thesis: our presence near Iran has them afraid enough to not want to piss us off (see: Libya, Syria).

Why do you keep arguing various points that are not even made? The simple statement has been made that the war in Iraq was not a war on terror, and that the war in Iraq did not make America safer. If you want to refute that, knock yourself out.

 

[Huckleberry]

I was at the Naval Academy under Clinton and in the Navy under Bush, though I left before the Iraq war. People at the Academy were very much against Clinton. Motivation was high after 9/11, but I don't remember specific feelings toward Bush.

I was only speaking of the general sentiment that I was familiar with among the enlisted. Officers and enlisted personell have very different responsibilities and viewpoints.

 

[Informal Logic]

Really? The last time i saw a democrat try to source something or use logic in regards to a conversation or didnt act hypocritical... well.. hmm.. who was president at that time...

I mean come on, your the ideology that almost stumbled over your own two feet when Dan Rather gave some falsified BS and you guys took it as the holy grail. Then of course, throw in a newsweek article and your pretty much in lala land believing anything anti-Bush that happens to come out of any hole in the ground.

If anyone watched MSNBC with Brian Williams and his recent interview with Clinton, it showed Clinton's great speaking ability, intelligence, good reasoning and logic, as well as reviewed how he was acquitted, etc. It makes one realize what an idiot Bush is in comparison, and only made me feel more respect for Clinton. Here is a link, though unfortunately it is only a portion of the entire interview.

http://transcripts.msnbc.com/id/8064203/

You can keep trying to justify Bush's policies, but in the end it is his lies/incompetency that are being exposed--not the other way around.

 

[Art]

Art... well ill help you out here since your not from the US. California is the closest thing to a socialist country as you can get. Capitalism is almost all but discouraged around here. We have an EXTENSIVE welfare system in California that these people out on the street corners with their fold-up signs can take full advantage of (I know, both my parents have around 40 years of experience in social services, ie welfare). We also have an extensive health care network for the poor. Although I can't account for a few of the eastern states, I would seem California to have the largest "safety net" in the country as you put it. Your colleagues wife was, although it sounds absolutely crazy, completely right in her discription of how it is here.

I'm not an expert but I thought under the CalWorks (welfare to work) system people had to work to be eligible for benefit. The minimum hours set by federal legislation is between 20 and 25hrs per week (depending on an individual's circumstances) whereas nearly all the counties in California have introduced a minimum of 32 hours. BTW, WTW sounds fine to me but I don't see why you say California is the most socialist state in America on the basis of this?

We have a very large illegal immigrant population as well and its actually a big problem.

Why is it a problem? Aren't they the ones who staff the minimum wage jobs that real Americans wouldn't do?

However, these peopel take up a lot of jobs... and many of them receive government payments (as insane as that sounds as htey are here illegally).

Are you sure? If the government finds they are in the USA illegally do they not deport them?

There is absolutely no reason in my mind as to why the poor people that you describe could not do what illegal immigrants do and go out and get a freaken job.

Is it possible they have tried but can't. Sometimes it can be difficult to find a job when one is 'of no fixed abode'.

The only thing stopping them is that hell, stand on a corner for one day and be passed up by probably a good 10,000 cars and your bound to make more money that day then going out and picking grapes or strawberries.

How does standing there make money? I did not see any of these poor unfortunates either asking for or receiving alms from passersby.

So as assanine as it may seem, their actions are one of the huge ironies of being a free america.

Well that makes at least two of you in California who think that is a good thing

 

[vanesch]

Agreed about comparison to a terrorist (Osama) but not in regard to the unnecessary and illegal invasion of Iraq.

You misunderstood me if you thought for a second I wanted to justify that! The invasion was motivated by lies and was as such unnecessary and "illegal". However, if Bush's idea of a rapid blitz krieg, overhauling Saddam's statue, and having Iraqi children waving American flags to the good liberators handing out sweets from their tanks turned out to be true (as seen in documentaries of the US liberating Europe in 1945), well, one should have to have admitted that the invasion was unjustified and illegal, but that in the end, something "good" happened (no matter what were the initial motivations, lies etc). But if you know only a little bit Arab mentality, then you know that Arab children will never wave American flags in these cases. So this was doomed to fail from the outset. I simply don't understand how Dubya could have been so mis informed. This could maybe have worked in an Asiatic, European or African country. But not with Arabs: they have a too deeply nested hatred wrt the west in general, and Israel (and hence the US) in particular.

The invasion of Iraq is not a war on terror, and the war in Iraq does not make America safer. Saying otherwise is propaganda.

That's true, and it is strange that, at this point, one can still claim the opposite. In the beginning, one could eventually have thought that they knew what they were doing and that the initial propaganda and lies were somehow to justify an intelligent operation that would turn out to be positive in the end, even if justified with all the wrong arguments. But when one looks at the situation NOW, I think it is clear that this wasn't the case.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'm not an expert but I thought under the CalWorks (welfare to work) system people had to work to be eligible for benefit. The minimum hours set by federal legislation is between 20 and 25hrs per week (depending on an individual's circumstances) whereas nearly all the counties in California have introduced a minimum of 32 hours. BTW, WTW sounds fine to me but I don't see why you say California is the most socialist state in America on the basis of this?

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/california_169.htm

Calworks is not the California welfare system. Its kinda like Workforce connection... but well.. no its not actually. Workforce "attempts to find suitable applicants for suitable employers", ha! My fathers currently a supervisor at Workforce and he thinks its a total joke. But anyhow, where was I... no calworks is not the social welfare system in California. Pretty much in California, you walk into a welfare office and they give you a check regardless of actual employment (or citizenship amazingly...). I'll go find out what's hte proper name for the agencies responsible for this.

Why is it a problem? Aren't they the ones who staff the minimum wage jobs that real Americans wouldn't

Its a problem because we have no idea whose walking into our borders and since we're finding known terrorists walking across in the last few years... it kinda is a national security issue. Along with the fact that do take a lot from our system without paying much into it and filling emergency rooms everytime they get a scratch.

IRT: Aren't they the ones who staff the minimum wage jobs that real Americans wouldn't

For one, no, they arent getting paid minimum wage, they are unfortunately getting paid below that. Americans also do very much enjoy taking minimum wage jobs as there's probably thousands of them available all over for the taking. What your htinking of is the farm and agriculture jobs. There is unfortunately a huge myth surrounding the idea that Americans will not take these jobs. Theres no evidence or logic to say that's at all true. I mean americans are garbage men... sewer treatement workers... construction crews... etc etc. Its just a silly myth that a bunch of peopel around here are trying to get people to believe in. In fact, my godfather is a foremen at a ranch so he pretty much lives out in the Ag field and he says maybe around 25% are illegal aliens, that's all.

Are you sure? If the government finds they are in the USA illegally do they not deport them?

haha you'd think so right! You'd think that if someone is breaking the law, they would face some sort of penalty but this is the great state of California which doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground. In the last few years, there have been multiple attempts in the California legislature and with public referendums to give drivers licenses to Illegal Aliens. No, i am not exagerating, i am not mixing words, it says on the stupid voting ballot "Initiative to give illegal immigrants drivers licenses". I have absolutely no idea what is going on in this state but we are almost to a point where we are not even allowed to deport people. I believe 25% of the prison population is illegal immigrants... none are deported... they just continue to take up around $40,000/year/convinct of tax payer money. Gotta love this insane state.

Is it possible they have tried but can't. Sometimes it can be difficult to find a job when one is 'of no fixed abode'.

No, this is not the case for most people. Although maybe you and I think of a job as going and gettng an application, filling it out, submitting it, going in for an interview, etc etc; there are still many many jobs where you can just walk on and do work and get paid such as, hey, Agriculture! It'd be below minimum wage but hey, its more then nothing. Add to that the numberous shelters and soup kitchens... at some point, you should have enough money for some thing. Unfortunately however, too many of these people are alcoholics so they end up buying alcohol with their money.

How does standing there make money? I did not see any of these poor unfortunates either asking for or receiving alms from passersby.

When you see someone with a "will work for food" or whatever sign... think about it, out of the thousands of people who drive by each day... do you think any of them really have a job for them? Its obvious they need money so people inevitably just give them a buck or 2 because I don't think anyone will come up to oen and think "crap, i don't have a job for him... i guess I am of no use".

Well that makes at least two of you in California who think that is a good thing

I didnt suspect there were many people who don't think economic freedom is a good thing. People come from rags to riches, homeless to millionaire, etc etc in this country. There is nothing in the definition of living in America that prevents someone from coming out of the dumpsters. We have a member of this forum who use to be homeless that could testify that homeless people arent exactly the unfortunate forgotten hard-working martyrs so many people put them up to be.

 

[2CentsWorth]

Here are some of the blogs that are talking about this memo:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/6/3/131436/1179
http://www.bigbrassblog.com/bba.html
http://lastleftb4hooterville.blogspot.com/2005/06/downing-street-its-not-just-for.html

The second site has a link to Congressman John Conyers who "is calling on American citizens to sign on to a letter to the President that demands a response to questions originally posed by Conyers and 88 other members of Congress in a similar letter dated May 5, 2005." If you go to his link it redirects you because they are "receiving ten emails a minute." Interesting, and it remains interesting that the media still isn't reporting on this very much.

 

[SOS2008]

You misunderstood me if you thought for a second I wanted to justify that! The invasion was motivated by lies and was as such unnecessary and "illegal". However, if Bush's idea of a rapid blitz krieg, overhauling Saddam's statue, and having Iraqi children waving American flags to the good liberators handing out sweets from their tanks turned out to be true (as seen in documentaries of the US liberating Europe in 1945), well, one should have to have admitted that the invasion was unjustified and illegal, but that in the end, something "good" happened (no matter what were the initial motivations, lies etc). But if you know only a little bit Arab mentality, then you know that Arab children will never wave American flags in these cases. So this was doomed to fail from the outset. I simply don't understand how Dubya could have been so mis informed. This could maybe have worked in an Asiatic, European or African country. But not with Arabs: they have a too deeply nested hatred wrt the west in general, and Israel (and hence the US) in particular.



That's true, and it is strange that, at this point, one can still claim the opposite. In the beginning, one could eventually have thought that they knew what they were doing and that the initial propaganda and lies were somehow to justify an intelligent operation that would turn out to be positive in the end, even if justified with all the wrong arguments. But when one looks at the situation NOW, I think it is clear that this wasn't the case.

Thanks for the clarification, and well said.

 

[SOS2008]

Ironically, your entire statement is simple left-wing propaganda. The fact that none of us are omnipotent or at the least, are directors of any major national defense agency, makes us rather ill informed to make such broad statements. Of course, however, some peopel seem to feel they know definitive facts about the entire world based on a CNN article or something Newsweek inked up on a piece of paper.

At least I follow the news, and provide sources/links in what I post--you should try it some time.