Estimated 500,000 march in Washington last Sat

sapperskunk

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You believe in war as an option and believed it necessary to invade Iraq in 03. Do you support bombing Iran?



What about him out you off in your meeting with him? You're still biased, I don't care if you guys had a sleepover.

I don't have an opinion on Iran yet. As did a lot of people, yes, I believed going to war with Iraq in 03 was a wise decision.

Are you drunk? I didn't understand that incoherancy.

Little homophobic are we? That's not very nice. So your calling me gay, the other vet Garret gay, and are implying we slept together?

You got to love the South.

Gary Carter

sapperskunk wrote:

We're in a bit of a pickle, as an Iraqi American and Veteran I see the need to stay in Iraq until the host military is up to speed.

u choose to only see this point of his post cause of your biased, if u read all the other stuff, u will see his got some good points. what he means is that yes no one is ever pro war, but where there now might as well fix it, which i agree with to a point.if we leave now theres a country right next to iraq thats called IRAN and dont give that fucking bull shit stuff that the prez of iran wont take over iraq if we leave

Abookamongstthemany

sapperskunk wrote:

I don't have an opinion on Iran yet. As did a lot of people, yes, I believed going to war with Iraq in 03 was a wise decision.

Are you drunk? I didn't understand that incoherancy.

Little homophobic are we? That's not very nice. So your calling me gay, the other vet Garret gay, and are implying we slept together?

You got to love the South.

Sorry, I hit the o instead of the p in put.

And no, I was only using it as an example of a longer period of time.

Last Exodus

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Some people don't seem to mind war so much. If you hadn't noticed we're in one.

We are!!?? Time to build a bomb shelter!

Last Exodus

cutback wrote:

True, true but I think there is a lot of anger in the country right now and I think the protesting helps in that it is a constructive way to relieve that anger.

Ok thats a good reason. anger bad. marching good.

gue_barium

sapperskunk wrote:

I don't have an opinion on Iran yet. As did a lot of people, yes, I believed going to war with Iraq in 03 was a wise decision.

Are you drunk? I didn't understand that incoherancy.

Little homophobic are we? That's not very nice. So your calling me gay, the other vet Garret gay, and are implying we slept together?

You got to love the South.

Wise?

Where do you even get off saying something like that?

Not to mention it has been determined by the world as a whole as pretty much the fuck up of the New American Century.

Last Exodus

metsfan531941 wrote:

well maybe if u get past your biased and look at hes saying u will see hes got some good points, after all the man was in the war

this guy has to be drunk

gue_barium

Last Exodus wrote:

this guy has to be drunk

Or auditioning for something on sesame street.

There's got to be a letter in there somewhere.

Last Exodus

gue_barium wrote:

Wise?

Where do you even get off saying something like that?

Not to mention it has been determined by the world as a whole as pretty much the fuck up of the New American Century.

he was referring to the past tense. lots of people got sold on that wmd crap. easy for you to monday morning quarterback. so i guess you knew more than collin powell who sold that crap to the UN?

Kann

Last Exodus wrote:

he was referring to the past tense. lots of people got sold on that wmd crap. easy for you to monday morning quarterback. so i guess you knew more than collin powell who sold that crap to the UN?

That's something I fail to understand. Everytime 2003 is mentionned people say that everybody believed the wmd threat, in the whole world. But that's just no true, I remember clearly a number of governments refusing to go to war because of the lack of proof of such a threat. Almost noone bought that crap.

Byrnzie

http://la.indymedia.org/uploads/2003/03/eddie-vedder.jpg

Byrnzie

Last Exodus wrote:

he was referring to the past tense. lots of people got sold on that wmd crap. easy for you to monday morning quarterback. so i guess you knew more than collin powell who sold that crap to the UN?

I knew at the time that it was crap. I sat and watched Powell's, and Jack Straw's desperate attempts to sell that paltry crap - look!! a photo of a lorry in Iraq!! This lorry could be used to transport weapons of Mass destruction!! :eek: - to the world, following Dominque De Villepin's, the French foreign minister's speech which received a standing ovation.
Everyone knew that there were no wmd's. The world knew it was bullshit. This is why millions - 2 million on the streets of London, of which i was a part -took to the streets to protest the inevitable war. It's not difficult to tell when someone's lying, and anyone with just one iota of intelligence could see that we were being lied to. All the talk of "Sadaam Hussein is failing to hand over his wmd's!" "Iraq is not complying with the U.N and handing over it's wmd's!"
Question: What wmd's? There weren't any! How can a country hand over wmd's when they don't exist? The weapons inspectors were never going to satisfy the U.S governent because, as has already been shown, the decision to invade had already been taken in 2002 at the latest.
Bullshit is bullshit, is bullshit! Pure and simple.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19809-1593637,00.html

Times Online May 01, 2005

The secret Downing Street memo

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY


DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Eva7

Last Exodus wrote:

All this marching with a lame duck President who clearly doen't give a shit what the marchers or congress think? I think the marchers should march back home and start figuring out who the best possible candidate will be in 08 to fix this shit will be and then work on that campaign....

That's a good idea, but I am curious to know.... what do you think that the 60s huge movement and marches against the vietnam war represented? I mean, do you think it affected politics or just remained a folk phenomenon? I think it did affect politics.
This was the biggest march since Bush was on office. Late is better than never, but could it be that something is growing up? I mean, what did it take for the 60s people to create such a huge revolt against war? is it possible that something like that happens again?

I read that a lot of people here think that a number of people protesting doesn't affect politics, and so the protest is a waste of time. I don't understand what kind of concept of democracy lies behind such opinion. In a democracy, people should have a say. They have the right to show consent or dissent. That is a civil right, not entertainment. And in this case it is especially important that the us citizens show their dissent in any way in front of the world, also because other people in the world need to know what the us citizen support and what the us citizen are doing against bush politics.

miller8966

weren't they acting disorderly?

sapperskunk

miller8966 wrote:

weren't they acting disorderly?

Yeah, if you call spitting on soldiers disorderly?

Last Exodus

Kann wrote:

That's something I fail to understand. Everytime 2003 is mentionned people say that everybody believed the wmd threat, in the whole world. But that's just no true, I remember clearly a number of governments refusing to go to war because of the lack of proof of such a threat. Almost noone bought that crap.

those governments that werent on board never argued lack of real intelligence. they argued sanctions needed more time to work. so thats revisionist euro hogwash. your government in particular regularly does business with any outlaw regime who ghey oil from, iraq included, needs to supply mirage jets or nuclear reactors to. so thats crap. many european countries turned their backs on their long time allies for nothing more than money and the fear of their own growing muslim communities. so zip it

Last Exodus

Eva7 wrote:

That's a good idea, but I am curious to know.... what do you think that the 60s huge movement and marches against the vietnam war represented? I mean, do you think it affected politics or just remained a folk phenomenon? I think it did affect politics.
This was the biggest march since Bush was on office. Late is better than never, but could it be that something is growing up? I mean, what did it take for the 60s people to create such a huge revolt against war? is it possible that something like that happens again?

I read that a lot of people here think that a number of people protesting doesn't affect politics, and so the protest is a waste of time. I don't understand what kind of concept of democracy lies behind such opinion. In a democracy, people should have a say. They have the right to show consent or dissent. That is a civil right, not entertainment. And in this case it is especially important that the us citizens show their dissent in any way in front of the world, also because other people in the world need to know what the us citizen support and what the us citizen are doing against bush politics.

Different times. Revolutionary times and there was more going on culturally here than just anti war rallys. At that time tens of thousands of americans and many more innocents were being killed. There was a draft and every male of draft age was affected, including my own father. Americans in the street were looking to change leadership. And once again, as in 1968, the american people had a chance to elect an anti war president in Hubert Humphrey, and instead they voted in the Hawkish Nixon. Some things never change. The point is simply that Bush is a lame duck, so the change in regime here in the US is going to be decided at the ballot boxes. Not shit we can do now by marching...

Last Exodus

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5956

RainDog

Last Exodus wrote:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5956

Ahh, Vietnam. Another war we never should have been a part of.

So, does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." give aid and comfort to the enemy?

VictoryGin

Eva7 wrote:

This was the biggest march since Bush was on office.

. . . regarding the war maybe.

there was a much larger march in 2004, not regarding the war.
http://www.now.org/images/nnt/200405/march.jpg