Republicans and Democrats were responsible up until around the beginning of 2004. Then, things started getting a little tough. Democrats are no longer responsible. Just ask them.
Hope this clears things up a little!
Thanks for your help!
I'm going to have to agree with you, if what you are saying is that those who are not in support of the war are not responsible for supporting and therefore perpetuating the war.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Nah, all of those quotes were taken from a single article from December 18th, 1998, as reasoning, before he ordered action on the Democratic People's Republic of Iraq.
...
That's the transcript I posted. to be fair... read the entire transcript and recall the context of the time and place in history. It was after the Gulf War and Hussein had been disrupting U.N. Weapons Inspectors by denyin them access to certain facilities. Those facilities (that Hussein had closed off) were the ones destroyed by U.S./British joint airstrikes. There were (mostly Conservative pundits) that complained that these tactics were a 'Wag The Dog' tactic to divert media/public attention away from the Monica Lewinsky circus.
...
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat on this and just want the truth to be put out there for people to read and evaluate on their own... to come up with their own conclusions.
This is why you don't see me posting single comments without including the accompanying full transcript from whence it was taken.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm going to have to agree with you, if what you are saying is that those who are not in support of the war are not responsible for supporting and therefore perpetuating the war.
Actually, what I said is that Republicans and Democrats supported the war initially. And as is the case during any military conflict involving the United States, we were unable to withdraw and return home within 15 minutes of arrival. Therefore, Democrats no longer support the war. That's really as complicated as it ever gets.
Though I don't believe anyone is supporting an eternal war in Iraq.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
...
That's the transcript I posted. to be fair... read the entire transcript and recall the context of the time and place in history. It was after the Gulf War and Hussein had been disrupting U.N. Weapons Inspectors by denyin them access to certain facilities. Those facilities (that Hussein had closed off) were the ones destroyed by U.S./British joint airstrikes. There were (mostly Conservative pundits) that complained that these tactics were a 'Wag The Dog' tactic to divert media/public attention away from the Monica Lewinsky circus.
...
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat on this and just want the truth to be put out there for people to read and evaluate on their own... to come up with their own conclusions.
This is why you don't see me posting single comments without including the accompanying full transcript from whence it was taken.
I'm well aware of the time and place. I'm also well aware of why President Clinton decided to do what he did, and the reasoning behind it. But, why would President Clinton attack a country he claimed had WMDs, but didn't?
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Actually, what I said is that Republicans and Democrats supported the war initially. And as is the case during any military conflict involving the United States, we were unable to withdraw and return home within 15 minutes of arrival.
Thanks for the clarification. Right. So whomever supported the war at any time is responsible for that support, no matter what political affiliation. I agree.
Therefore, Democrats no longer support the war. That's really as complicated as it ever gets.
Nice little segue. So, are we in agreement that when people support something, they are responsible for that choice of support? And when they withdraw that support, they are then no longer responsible for supporting that thing?
Though I don't believe anyone is supporting an eternal war in Iraq.
Maybe not an eternal one, and yet I hear support of the war being rationalized and justified all the time, still. I'm not saying that's right or wrong--that's for each person to decide for themselves. Because ultimately, we are each fully and 100% accountable to ourselves and to life for what we commit to and support, just as for what we choose not to support.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Nice little segue. So, are we in agreement that when people support something, they are responsible for that choice of support? And when they withdraw that support, they are then no longer responsible for supporting that thing?
No, what I'm saying is... If you're a responsible representative of the United States, hold yourself accountable for the decisions you make. Don't pass the buck when things get tough as a result of a decision you personally were responsible for making. Attempting to mask political decisions because of future political aspirations becomes rather nauseating.
You may be speaking of the American public. I'm speaking about American representatives in congress.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
I'm well aware of the time and place. I'm also well aware of why President Clinton decided to do what he did, and the reasoning behind it. But, why would President Clinton attack a country he claimed had WMDs, but didn't?
...
Because it was a suspecion. Hussein denied U.N. Weapons Inspectors access to these facilities. The penalty for that was destruction of those suspected facilities. Whether we knew or not that weapons research, development, manufacture, distribution or storage was going on behind those locked doors was something only Hussein knew and he wasn't letting anyone else know the truth.
Clinton was doing what every President in that case should have done... inspection denied, huh? Well, tell the inspectors to run for cover because the Air Force is going to used their 2,000 pound laser guided munitions to crack that lock. Bush Sr. would have done the same thing and so SHOULD have Bush Jr. Weapons Inspections, economic sanctions and No-Fly Zones instituted by George H.W. Bush were working and Hussein had to pay the price for thwarting access... a complete leveling of the facility in question. BOOM! If there was something to hide in there... it ain't there any more.
...
I don't see a good arguement for NOT leveling those facilities.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
No, what I'm saying is... If you're a responsible representative of the United States, hold yourself accountable for the decisions you make. Don't pass the buck when things get tough as a result of a decision you personally were responsible for making. Attempting to mask political decisions because of future political aspirations becomes rather nauseating.
You may be speaking of the American public. I'm speaking about American representatives in congress.
My view on accountability is that people are accountable for what they do--to life. It goes far beyond our hands as people. So while we can see by looking around that there are numerous people that do weaselly acts in the world, I am comforted knowing people live the consequences of their weasellyness in every moment. They live with lies, contradictions, falsity, etc. These people may try to pass the buck, but really they cannot, because they just ARE accountable and life takes care of them. Payback. In my mind that people are dodgy is irrelevent. They are as good as taken care of. And still, I can understand people wanting to also hold them accountable on a human to human level--I'd expect no less, and this is part of the overall accountability payment at this point in time.
In terms of what I refer to, I am talking more about each individual, but that also includes anyone at any level of government. Accountability is simple, really. So if someone honestly recognizes a mistake and owns it they become free to move on with new behaviour that is fueled by the productive change, and they get the consequences of that. If people make a mistake, act weaselly and try to duck and weave for that mistake, they will be trapped in that place until they are able to move through that. For some people, they learn to tolerate living in an inner prison. It's not the life for me, that's for sure. Contrary to the weaselly methods, I seek to clarify and free/liberate myself in each moment. To each their own, I guess.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
...
Because it was a suspecion. Hussein denied U.N. Weapons Inspectors access to these facilities. The penalty for that was destruction of those suspected facilities. Whether we knew or not that weapons research, development, manufacture, distribution or storage was going on behind those locked doors was something only Hussein knew and he wasn't letting anyone else know the truth.
Clinton was doing what every President in that case should have done... inspection denied, huh? Well, tell the inspectors to run for cover because the Air Force is going to used their 2,000 pound laser guided munitions to crack that lock. Bush Sr. would have done the same thing and so SHOULD have Bush Jr. Weapons Inspections, economic sanctions and No-Fly Zones instituted by George H.W. Bush were working and Hussein had to pay the price for thwarting access... a complete leveling of the facility in question. BOOM! If there was something to hide in there... it ain't there any more.
...
I don't see a good arguement for NOT leveling those facilities.
The only thing hiding in the facility were innocent civilians. Not a very digestible thought. Right? This is hiliarious... It was OK for Clinton to authorize the bombings of buildings in which he had no idea of the contents.
Dead U.S. servicemen are not points on a scoreboard. If ONE soldier is killed based on a political whim of our leaders... that is too many.
...
It was immoral for U.S. foriegn policy to allow the Viet Nam War to continue to rage for years, after military planners said there was not chance of a declared victory. Washington politicians kept the war going because they did not want to be in office during the first war that was 'lost' by our military. So, they kept it going... civilians controlling the battlefield... just as it is happening today. Let let the civilians (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) run the first phase... and the Democratic representatives in the House run it from here. And the ones who pay the price are the guys in the Kevlar and BDUs in that desert shithole.
I just find it pretty naseauting that the Democrats who in large voted for this war, are now running on an anti-war campaign. How convenient. Now they are pandering to the voters trying to convince them they are the party of peace. What a crock. They are using the lives or american servicemen overseas as their own political fodder. Sick
The only thing hiding in the facility were innocent civilians. Not a very digestible thought. Right? This is hiliarious... It was OK for Clinton to authorize the bombings of buildings in which he had no idea of the contents..
...
That's on Hussein. The cease fire agreements called for unrestricted access to any and all facilities in Iraq. Hussein's defiance was a direct violation of those agreements and he was well aware of the consequenes. And if innocent civilians are hiding in there... how innocent are they? Why are they hiding? What were they hiding? What is innocent about that?
And speaking of innocent civilians... are technicians and chemical engineers that are developing chemical weapons systems considered to be "Innocent Civilians"? What makes them any different from uniformed soldiers?
I bet Bush would be thrilled if he were afforded the same simplistic assessments of his actions.
...
He was afforded that before he went on his power trip and blew it. He had the backing of most Americans and our allies to enforce the cease fire agreements that George H.W. Bush had put into place in 1991. Weapons Inspectors were allowed BACK in Iraq and weren't finding anything just prior to the 2003 invasion. George W. Bush's big mistake was to invade with ground forces, instead of re-engaging the Weapons Inspections with the same punative consequences for denying access. If Hussien did not allow access and an Air Strike was called in to bust the door open, it would have been the right thing to do. I believe the vast majority of Americans and our allies would STILL be supporting him, had the taken the path set by his Dad... I know I would have. Weapons Inspections, Economic Sanctions and No-Fly Zones were effective tactics to contain Hussein. The invasion only detoured us on our fight against Global Terrorists be taking our focus off of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I just find it pretty naseauting that the Democrats who in large voted for this war, are now running on an anti-war campaign. How convenient. Now they are pandering to the voters trying to convince them they are the party of peace. What a crock. They are using the lives or american servicemen overseas as their own political fodder. Sick
While I don't disagree with you, I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that the Republicans would be doing the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. Secondly, Bush provided false information, so I think it is a valid excuse that they were mislead and may or may not have voted differently if they were given better intelligence/information.
While I don't disagree with you, I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that the Republicans would be doing the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. Secondly, Bush provided false information, so I think it is a valid excuse that they were mislead and may or may not have voted differently if they were given better intelligence/information.
No argument. The Republicans would do the same thing. No doubt. Its just the endless cycle of bullshit from our one party system masquerading as a two party system.
Powell, Bush and everyone else spread misinformation. The Democrats voted for war ont he misinformation. But whose fault was it? History will tell. But Bush was the one at the helm, so he will be held accountable, ultimately. I think history will bear out, that Bush did not deliberately mislead. He negligently mislead. If anyone deliberatley mislead, it was probably Cheney.
I just find it pretty naseauting that the Democrats who in large voted for this war, are now running on an anti-war campaign. How convenient. Now they are pandering to the voters trying to convince them they are the party of peace. What a crock. They are using the lives or american servicemen overseas as their own political fodder. Sick
...
Because of the mis-handling of the War by civilian politicians in the Bush Administration... the War is now going to be placed in the incompetent hands of the civilian politicians on Capitol Hill.
This is the NIGHTMARE of Viet Nam... the War under the command and control of numb-nut, fuck faced politician scum sucking assholes who are more worried about their re-election campaigns than the safe return of our soldiers.
And it's NOT just Democrats... it's both Democrats and Republican civilian fucks. To politiize this by blaming one side or the other, you are doing exactly what is needed for this thing to fail. No nation that has been divide has ever succeeded. You should be naseauted by all of our politicians... not just the ones with the (D) next to their names. The ones with the (R)s are just as responsible for allowing this mess to get to the point we are at.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Why use Iraq body count as a source? They're a joke. They rely solely on those deaths that are reported by the mainstream media - mostly those deaths occuring in the vicinity of Baghdad. Iraq is a big country - a lot bigger than Baghdad.
Now were all responsible for the War? If memory serves me, Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, and Kerry was close in 04. So did we all really vote for the war? How bout half of us. How bout the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 like people on this board and probably Pearl Jam themselves? Coudln't a more informed vote for Gore have been useful? Lets also remember, the vast majority of Democrats in congress at the time also voted for the Iraq War. So Im not buyin that a vote for Bush was tantamount to a vote for war. That war had support on both sides. It's really easy to monday morning quarterback all of this now...
Hence my use of the words 'The only mistake that was made was made by the American people who voted these neo-con greed heads into power in the first place.'
It's wacky, crazy, cool Clinton quote time! These are dedicated to the smartest guy in the thread... Byrnzie!
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Wait a minute... One more time for the kids in the back...
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, "While other countries also have weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors."
Whoops! That's all for now!
Thanks for that history lesson. Although i find it odd that you seem to assume that I am, or ever was, a fan of Clinton.
It was immoral for U.S. foriegn policy to allow the Viet Nam War to continue to rage for years, after military planners said there was not chance of a declared victory.
So you agree that the U.S invasion of South Vietnam was in essence, a just cause?
Are you saying that if the U.S had won then that would have justified U.S terror in the region, including the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, and the deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese and 56 thousand Americans?
A mistake is when we think something is okay, but in hindsight we come to realize how erroneous it actually was. We make an error. Hence the applicability of the word "mistake" in this context.
But that's just it. The majority of the worlds populations saw the inevitable invasion as a mistake before the event. Hence, two million people taking to the streets of London, for example.
And let's not forget that evidence has since come to light proving that the decision to invade had already been made as early as 2002. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece The Iraq dossier was a fraud. Most of it consisted of a University students thesis plagiarised from the internet which happened to be 12 years out of date. The rest of it was 'sexed up intelligence' designed to promote the drive to war. There was no mistake being made by the people who struggled to promote and justify their decision to invade. They are guilty of lying to the British and American public and should be charged accordingly.
...
I think to be fair... we should take those comment in the context from which they were spoken.
Full Transcript: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/121798iraq-clinton-speech.html
...
Most came from debates about the U.S. sponsored U.N. Ecomomic Sanctions set against Hussein's Iraq as a result of the first Gulf War. There were parties who believed the sanctions should be lifted and Iraq allowed to trade freely in the market. Other comments were made after Hussein continued to interrupt U.N. Weapons Inspections by limiting access to weapons insprctors, a clear violation of the agreed upon cease fire that ended the war.
When placed in those contexts, they make case for the continuing sanctions and military No-Fly Zones established by the George H.W. Bush administration.
Nice hypothesis, although severly lacking in any factual information. You shoud try reading about what actually happened regarding the weapons inspections in Iraq. Whislt you're at it, try and justify the deaths by malnutrition and disease of approx 2 million Iraqi children as a direct result of the U.S enforced sanctions.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html
'Ritter has extensive knowledge of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Europe. He served in the Office of Special Commission at the United Nations (UN), where he coordinated international efforts to implement United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions mandating the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Prior to serving in this capacity, Ritter provided expertise concerning information collection, management and assessment issues in support of UN inspection activities inside Iraq.
He began his military career as an intelligence office for the United States Marine Corps, where he served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps Rapid Deployment Force concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War.
The author of several publications concerning the Middle Eastern relations, Ritter graduated from Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, PA with departmental honors.
Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter is no stranger to controversy :
- In September 2002 he told officials in Baghdad that military action against Iraq was unjustified.
- Since he resigned from the UN weapons inspection team four years ago, Mr Ritter has been the most outspoken critic of US policy towards Baghdad.
- He has argued that the inspection team, Unscom, was a nest of US spies and that Iraq was disarmed long ago.
- But he first made the headlines in 1997, when as a senior Unscom member he was accused by Iraq of being an American spy himself.
Scott Ritter was born in 1960 to a military family. He joined the armed forces after university and worked as a military intelligence officer in the 1980s.
During the Gulf War he served as a ballistic missile expert under General Norman Schwarzkopf, and joined Unscom in late 1991.
He took part in more than 30 inspection missions and 14 as team leader.
Initially, his relationship with Iraq was bad. His unannounced visits were said to have surprised Iraqi officials, who in 1997 accused him of being a US spy.
In early 1998 an inspection by Mr Ritter's team led to the most serious confrontation between Baghdad and the UN since the Gulf War, and eventually to Unscom leaving Iraq. In August 1998, Mr Ritter resigned from his job, accusing the Security Council and the United States of caving in to the Iraqis.
To compel Iraq into compliance, he told the BBC that year: "Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein."
Soon after his high-profile resignation, Mr Ritter was back in the headlines with further criticism of Washington and the UN. Only this time he accused Western powers of being too tough, rather than too soft, on the Iraqis.
In late 1998, Mr Ritter called US and British military strikes against Iraq a "horrible mistake". He forced UN chief inspector Richard Butler to apologise to him after Mr Butler accused Mr Ritter of breaking the law by speaking publicly about his work in Iraq. In 1999 he published a book, Endgame, where he argued that Unscom's mission had been compromised by Washington's use of inspections to spy on the Iraqis.
Last year he produced a documentary entitled Shifting Sands: The Truth about Unscom and the Disarming of Iraq. He said that his team was satisfied that Iraq had destroyed 98% of its weapons by 1995.
Mr Ritter accused the US Government of deliberately setting new standards of disarmament criteria to maintain UN sanctions and justify continued bombing raids. He also said Iraq "did co-operate to a very significant degree with the UN inspection process" and blamed the US and the UK for the breakdown. Mr Ritter essentially repeated those views during his trip to Baghdad last year.
He said the US seemed "on the verge of an historic mistake".
"My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance," he added. "The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders."
But that's just it. The majority of the worlds populations saw the inevitable invasion as a mistake before the event. Hence, two million people taking to the streets of London, for example.
And let's not forget that evidence has since come to light proving that the decision to invade had already been made as early as 2002. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece The Iraq dossier was a fraud. Most of it consisted of a University students thesis plagiarised from the internet which happened to be 12 years out of date. The rest of it was 'sexed up intelligence' designed to promote the drive to war. There was no mistake being made by the people who struggled to promote and justify their decision to invade. They are guilty of lying to the British and American public and should be charged accordingly.
It looks like you are talking about the power mongers and their accountability. I am talking about the average American who supported the war, and there were many.
Whether the world's populations did or didn't recognize a mistake in the making, we're talking about the US in this case. Good people far and wide believed it was the "right' thing to do and supported doing it. Whether they should have known better is irrelevent in my eyes because I am talking about what they actually did know and how they did feel.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It looks like you are talking about the power mongers and their accountability. I am talking about the average American who supported the war, and there were many.
Whether the world's populations did or didn't recognize a mistake in the making, we're talking about the US in this case. Good people far and wide believed it was the "right' thing to do and supported doing it. Whether they should have known better is irrelevent in my eyes because I am talking about what they actually did know and how they did feel.
So what did the American people know that accounted for their support?
And is this a defence on their behalf? The average German in the 1930's supported Hitler. But are they to be absolved of guilt because they didn't know any better? We are all responsible.
It looks like you are talking about the power mongers and their accountability. I am talking about the average American who supported the war, and there were many.
Whether the world's populations did or didn't recognize a mistake in the making, we're talking about the US in this case. Good people far and wide believed it was the "right' thing to do and supported doing it. Whether they should have known better is irrelevent in my eyes because I am talking about what they actually did know and how they did feel.
He was saying that those people were lied to, thus made their desicion based on blatent lies from our government (and the british government as well). And he would be correct..
He was saying that those people were lied to, thus made their desicion based on blatent lies from our government (and the british government as well). And he would be correct..
So what did the American people know that accounted for their support?
And is this a defence on their behalf? The average German in the 1930's supported Hitler. But are they to be absolved of guilt because they didn't know any better? We are all responsible.
You may have missed the numerous posts throughout this thread where in conversing with ThumbingMyWay32, I clearly pointed to the accountability of each individual who at any point has supported the war. That accountability stands at all times.
I am saying if people were not aware, they were not aware. If people thought the war was a good idea or the 'right' thing, they thought that, too. They may have been ignorant, uninformed etc. It was what it was. Any mistakes that come from that perspective fall on those made them. Plain and simple.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You may have missed the numerous posts throughout this thread where in conversing with ThumbingMyWay32, I clearly pointed to the accountability of each individual who at any point has supported the war. That accountability stands at all times.
I am saying if people were not aware, they were not aware. If people thought the war was a good idea or the 'right' thing, they thought that, too. They may have been ignorant, uninformed etc. It was what it was. Any mistakes that come from that perspective fall on those made them. Plain and simple.
I generally agree with this, but in this case when it turns out that nearly all of the information given to the public about it was false, I'd say the blame rests mostly on the government that lied to it's people. It's almost like (or maybe exactly like) duping us into war.
He was saying that those people were lied to, thus made their desicion based on blatent lies from our government (and the british government as well). And he would be correct..
A mistake is when we think something is okay, but in hindsight we come to realize how erroneous it actually was. We make an error. Hence the applicability of the word "mistake" in this context.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You may have missed the numerous posts throughout this thread where in conversing with ThumbingMyWay32, I clearly pointed to the accountability of each individual who at any point has supported the war. That accountability stands at all times.
I am saying if people were not aware, they were not aware. If people thought the war was a good idea or the 'right' thing, they thought that, too. They may have been ignorant, uninformed etc. It was what it was. Any mistakes that come from that perspective fall on those made them. Plain and simple.
O.k fair enough. Although I think the bottom line is that what the general public believed to be right or wrong, and whether the population of either Britain or the U.S supported the war or not, was pretty irrelevant. The figures show that there was overwhelming oppostion to an invasion in both countries. The protests that preceeded the invasion all accross the world were unprecedented. But what difference did public opinion make at the end of the day? None.
So much for democracy! :rolleyes:
I generally agree with this, but in this case when it turns out that nearly all of the information given to the public about it was false, I'd say the blame rests mostly on the government that lied to it's people. It's almost like (or maybe exactly like) duping us into war.
So you're saying if someone erroneously, blindly maybe, is manipulated into making poor choices, such as killing others, they are mostly not responsible for that killing or poor choice?
I cannot reduce the average person to the status of being a pliable victim, because in my eyes that is an imbalanced view. In the end people are accountable exactly for what they do. Passing the buck does not work with accountability. It merely muddies the waters.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
I'm going to have to agree with you, if what you are saying is that those who are not in support of the war are not responsible for supporting and therefore perpetuating the war.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's the transcript I posted. to be fair... read the entire transcript and recall the context of the time and place in history. It was after the Gulf War and Hussein had been disrupting U.N. Weapons Inspectors by denyin them access to certain facilities. Those facilities (that Hussein had closed off) were the ones destroyed by U.S./British joint airstrikes. There were (mostly Conservative pundits) that complained that these tactics were a 'Wag The Dog' tactic to divert media/public attention away from the Monica Lewinsky circus.
...
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat on this and just want the truth to be put out there for people to read and evaluate on their own... to come up with their own conclusions.
This is why you don't see me posting single comments without including the accompanying full transcript from whence it was taken.
Hail, Hail!!!
Actually, what I said is that Republicans and Democrats supported the war initially. And as is the case during any military conflict involving the United States, we were unable to withdraw and return home within 15 minutes of arrival. Therefore, Democrats no longer support the war. That's really as complicated as it ever gets.
Though I don't believe anyone is supporting an eternal war in Iraq.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I'm well aware of the time and place. I'm also well aware of why President Clinton decided to do what he did, and the reasoning behind it. But, why would President Clinton attack a country he claimed had WMDs, but didn't?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Nice little segue. So, are we in agreement that when people support something, they are responsible for that choice of support? And when they withdraw that support, they are then no longer responsible for supporting that thing?
Maybe not an eternal one, and yet I hear support of the war being rationalized and justified all the time, still. I'm not saying that's right or wrong--that's for each person to decide for themselves. Because ultimately, we are each fully and 100% accountable to ourselves and to life for what we commit to and support, just as for what we choose not to support.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, what I'm saying is... If you're a responsible representative of the United States, hold yourself accountable for the decisions you make. Don't pass the buck when things get tough as a result of a decision you personally were responsible for making. Attempting to mask political decisions because of future political aspirations becomes rather nauseating.
You may be speaking of the American public. I'm speaking about American representatives in congress.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Because it was a suspecion. Hussein denied U.N. Weapons Inspectors access to these facilities. The penalty for that was destruction of those suspected facilities. Whether we knew or not that weapons research, development, manufacture, distribution or storage was going on behind those locked doors was something only Hussein knew and he wasn't letting anyone else know the truth.
Clinton was doing what every President in that case should have done... inspection denied, huh? Well, tell the inspectors to run for cover because the Air Force is going to used their 2,000 pound laser guided munitions to crack that lock. Bush Sr. would have done the same thing and so SHOULD have Bush Jr. Weapons Inspections, economic sanctions and No-Fly Zones instituted by George H.W. Bush were working and Hussein had to pay the price for thwarting access... a complete leveling of the facility in question. BOOM! If there was something to hide in there... it ain't there any more.
...
I don't see a good arguement for NOT leveling those facilities.
Hail, Hail!!!
In terms of what I refer to, I am talking more about each individual, but that also includes anyone at any level of government. Accountability is simple, really. So if someone honestly recognizes a mistake and owns it they become free to move on with new behaviour that is fueled by the productive change, and they get the consequences of that. If people make a mistake, act weaselly and try to duck and weave for that mistake, they will be trapped in that place until they are able to move through that. For some people, they learn to tolerate living in an inner prison. It's not the life for me, that's for sure. Contrary to the weaselly methods, I seek to clarify and free/liberate myself in each moment. To each their own, I guess.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The only thing hiding in the facility were innocent civilians. Not a very digestible thought. Right? This is hiliarious... It was OK for Clinton to authorize the bombings of buildings in which he had no idea of the contents.
I bet Bush would be thrilled if he were afforded the same simplistic assessments of his actions.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
I just find it pretty naseauting that the Democrats who in large voted for this war, are now running on an anti-war campaign. How convenient. Now they are pandering to the voters trying to convince them they are the party of peace. What a crock. They are using the lives or american servicemen overseas as their own political fodder. Sick
That's on Hussein. The cease fire agreements called for unrestricted access to any and all facilities in Iraq. Hussein's defiance was a direct violation of those agreements and he was well aware of the consequenes. And if innocent civilians are hiding in there... how innocent are they? Why are they hiding? What were they hiding? What is innocent about that?
And speaking of innocent civilians... are technicians and chemical engineers that are developing chemical weapons systems considered to be "Innocent Civilians"? What makes them any different from uniformed soldiers?
...
He was afforded that before he went on his power trip and blew it. He had the backing of most Americans and our allies to enforce the cease fire agreements that George H.W. Bush had put into place in 1991. Weapons Inspectors were allowed BACK in Iraq and weren't finding anything just prior to the 2003 invasion. George W. Bush's big mistake was to invade with ground forces, instead of re-engaging the Weapons Inspections with the same punative consequences for denying access. If Hussien did not allow access and an Air Strike was called in to bust the door open, it would have been the right thing to do. I believe the vast majority of Americans and our allies would STILL be supporting him, had the taken the path set by his Dad... I know I would have. Weapons Inspections, Economic Sanctions and No-Fly Zones were effective tactics to contain Hussein. The invasion only detoured us on our fight against Global Terrorists be taking our focus off of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
Hail, Hail!!!
No argument. The Republicans would do the same thing. No doubt. Its just the endless cycle of bullshit from our one party system masquerading as a two party system.
Because of the mis-handling of the War by civilian politicians in the Bush Administration... the War is now going to be placed in the incompetent hands of the civilian politicians on Capitol Hill.
This is the NIGHTMARE of Viet Nam... the War under the command and control of numb-nut, fuck faced politician scum sucking assholes who are more worried about their re-election campaigns than the safe return of our soldiers.
And it's NOT just Democrats... it's both Democrats and Republican civilian fucks. To politiize this by blaming one side or the other, you are doing exactly what is needed for this thing to fail. No nation that has been divide has ever succeeded. You should be naseauted by all of our politicians... not just the ones with the (D) next to their names. The ones with the (R)s are just as responsible for allowing this mess to get to the point we are at.
Hail, Hail!!!
Why use Iraq body count as a source? They're a joke. They rely solely on those deaths that are reported by the mainstream media - mostly those deaths occuring in the vicinity of Baghdad. Iraq is a big country - a lot bigger than Baghdad.
Hence my use of the words 'The only mistake that was made was made by the American people who voted these neo-con greed heads into power in the first place.'
Thanks for that history lesson. Although i find it odd that you seem to assume that I am, or ever was, a fan of Clinton.
So you agree that the U.S invasion of South Vietnam was in essence, a just cause?
Are you saying that if the U.S had won then that would have justified U.S terror in the region, including the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, and the deaths of over 2 million Vietnamese and 56 thousand Americans?
But that's just it. The majority of the worlds populations saw the inevitable invasion as a mistake before the event. Hence, two million people taking to the streets of London, for example.
And let's not forget that evidence has since come to light proving that the decision to invade had already been made as early as 2002. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece The Iraq dossier was a fraud. Most of it consisted of a University students thesis plagiarised from the internet which happened to be 12 years out of date. The rest of it was 'sexed up intelligence' designed to promote the drive to war. There was no mistake being made by the people who struggled to promote and justify their decision to invade. They are guilty of lying to the British and American public and should be charged accordingly.
Nice hypothesis, although severly lacking in any factual information. You shoud try reading about what actually happened regarding the weapons inspections in Iraq. Whislt you're at it, try and justify the deaths by malnutrition and disease of approx 2 million Iraqi children as a direct result of the U.S enforced sanctions.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html
'Ritter has extensive knowledge of the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Europe. He served in the Office of Special Commission at the United Nations (UN), where he coordinated international efforts to implement United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions mandating the elimination of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Prior to serving in this capacity, Ritter provided expertise concerning information collection, management and assessment issues in support of UN inspection activities inside Iraq.
He began his military career as an intelligence office for the United States Marine Corps, where he served as the lead analyst for the Marine Corps Rapid Deployment Force concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iran-Iraq War.
The author of several publications concerning the Middle Eastern relations, Ritter graduated from Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, PA with departmental honors.
Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter is no stranger to controversy :
- In September 2002 he told officials in Baghdad that military action against Iraq was unjustified.
- Since he resigned from the UN weapons inspection team four years ago, Mr Ritter has been the most outspoken critic of US policy towards Baghdad.
- He has argued that the inspection team, Unscom, was a nest of US spies and that Iraq was disarmed long ago.
- But he first made the headlines in 1997, when as a senior Unscom member he was accused by Iraq of being an American spy himself.
Scott Ritter was born in 1960 to a military family. He joined the armed forces after university and worked as a military intelligence officer in the 1980s.
During the Gulf War he served as a ballistic missile expert under General Norman Schwarzkopf, and joined Unscom in late 1991.
He took part in more than 30 inspection missions and 14 as team leader.
Initially, his relationship with Iraq was bad. His unannounced visits were said to have surprised Iraqi officials, who in 1997 accused him of being a US spy.
In early 1998 an inspection by Mr Ritter's team led to the most serious confrontation between Baghdad and the UN since the Gulf War, and eventually to Unscom leaving Iraq. In August 1998, Mr Ritter resigned from his job, accusing the Security Council and the United States of caving in to the Iraqis.
To compel Iraq into compliance, he told the BBC that year: "Iraq should be subjected to a major campaign that seeks to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein."
Soon after his high-profile resignation, Mr Ritter was back in the headlines with further criticism of Washington and the UN. Only this time he accused Western powers of being too tough, rather than too soft, on the Iraqis.
In late 1998, Mr Ritter called US and British military strikes against Iraq a "horrible mistake". He forced UN chief inspector Richard Butler to apologise to him after Mr Butler accused Mr Ritter of breaking the law by speaking publicly about his work in Iraq.
In 1999 he published a book, Endgame, where he argued that Unscom's mission had been compromised by Washington's use of inspections to spy on the Iraqis.
Last year he produced a documentary entitled Shifting Sands: The Truth about Unscom and the Disarming of Iraq. He said that his team was satisfied that Iraq had destroyed 98% of its weapons by 1995.
Mr Ritter accused the US Government of deliberately setting new standards of disarmament criteria to maintain UN sanctions and justify continued bombing raids. He also said Iraq "did co-operate to a very significant degree with the UN inspection process" and blamed the US and the UK for the breakdown. Mr Ritter essentially repeated those views during his trip to Baghdad last year.
He said the US seemed "on the verge of an historic mistake".
"My government is making a case for war against Iraq that is built upon fear and ignorance," he added. "The truth of the matter is that Iraq today is not a threat to its neighbours and is not acting in a manner which threatens anyone outside of its own borders."
Whether the world's populations did or didn't recognize a mistake in the making, we're talking about the US in this case. Good people far and wide believed it was the "right' thing to do and supported doing it. Whether they should have known better is irrelevent in my eyes because I am talking about what they actually did know and how they did feel.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So what did the American people know that accounted for their support?
And is this a defence on their behalf? The average German in the 1930's supported Hitler. But are they to be absolved of guilt because they didn't know any better? We are all responsible.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
'Blatant' being the operative word.
I am saying if people were not aware, they were not aware. If people thought the war was a good idea or the 'right' thing, they thought that, too. They may have been ignorant, uninformed etc. It was what it was. Any mistakes that come from that perspective fall on those made them. Plain and simple.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
he said:
To which I eventually said in support of his comment:
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
O.k fair enough. Although I think the bottom line is that what the general public believed to be right or wrong, and whether the population of either Britain or the U.S supported the war or not, was pretty irrelevant. The figures show that there was overwhelming oppostion to an invasion in both countries. The protests that preceeded the invasion all accross the world were unprecedented. But what difference did public opinion make at the end of the day? None.
So much for democracy! :rolleyes:
I cannot reduce the average person to the status of being a pliable victim, because in my eyes that is an imbalanced view. In the end people are accountable exactly for what they do. Passing the buck does not work with accountability. It merely muddies the waters.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!