Anti War Protests

[wkmac]

Appears the protests are speading so to speak into the Congress and the Republican party.

12 Republicans Break Ranks on Iraq Resolution

 

[wkmac]

a and how about all the caches of weapons found weekly

try daily or hourly

Since the conversation seemed to indicate the discussion is about WMD, chemical weapons being one component then I think we should go to the highest authority. The President is not only commander in chief of American Military Force but is also the head of foreign policy and national security matters. He decides their direction and scope with some congressional oversite mostly by means of economic funding. I would think for the most part we would all basically agree to this (minor diferences of opinions in some areas) but the basic premise would be agreed upon.

With that said, why not consult the President on the issue of WMD in their various forms and maybe he can help us to once and for all put this specific issue to bed. I now give you the President of the United States in his own words in an address to the Nation on the evening of Dec. 18th 2005' at 9:01 pm EST.

Mr. President, you have the floor and our undivided attention.

From this office, nearly three years ago, I announced the start of military operations in Iraq. Our coalition confronted a regime that defied United Nations Security Council resolutions, violated a cease-fire agreement, sponsored terrorism, and possessed, we believed, weapons of mass destruction. After the swift fall of Baghdad, we found mass graves filled by a dictator; we found some capacity to restart programs to produce weapons of mass destruction, but we did not find those weapons.

Thank you Mr. President. Now folks we can spin it, turn it, twist it any way we want and try our best to rationalize this issue but the blunt truth is, using the President's own words, "but we did not find those weapons." To the President's credit, he didn't go on to make excuses such as "Saddam moved them to Syria" which by the way is plausible or that they hid them here or hid them there but he didn't.

He then went on to say the following:

It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.

Again, tip of the hat to him for being honest with the nation.

OK, 2 important things here. Intel was for the most part wrong. I didn't say, President Bush did. He also said "we did not find those weapons" so that should settle that point. OK, the issue of WMD as it pertains to Iraq is a flat non issue so unless you want to publically sit there and call the President a liar, we should not bring up the WMD again. It's a settled point by the highest authority. Now if you want to discuss Iraq on other matters, then that should be the focus and in fact the President lays out his case for staying in Iraq based on these other issues as he laid out in the speech. For those who would think I'm picking my words from his speech, "DAMN RIGHT I AM!" at the end of the last quote the President went on to say this:

Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

I'll agree with that statement but my contention would be as to who had the right in the first place to do this? That is the real heart of the question IMO.

Here's the entire speech for you to read and I would encourage you to do so and I would encourage you to read the transcripts of not only other Bush speeches but those of other Presidents. Most are on-line and very worthwhile to read.

President's Address to the Nation

In parting, if the President and the intel community was wrong about Iraq concerning WMD, the question would be can we trust that same mechanism in the future to also be right when those same allegations are raised about others? That's one each of us will have to decide for ourselves. Take care!

 

[wkmac]

And just so the republican party loyalist here think I'm picking on them and giving Slothrop a pass, here's a

"LIBERTARIAN" article to piss him off!



The Critical Dilemma Facing Pro-War Libertarians

I love it when you guys hate me.

 

[moreluck]

Wkmac

Haven't you ever heard of the saying...."Let sleeping dogs lie" ??

 

[av8torntn]

didn't the president say there were no stockpiles of chemical weapons found? I know when he spoke to us those were the words he used. Even the credible democrats say there were no stockpiles of chemical weapons. Of course you still have a few loons saying Bush lied people died and He betrayed our country, but even those two fools know better and are misstating the facts.

 

[govols019]

Violations of UN resolutions justified our actions? I think not.

If that were the basis for invasion then we should have invaded Israel.

 

[canon]

Violations of UN resolutions justified our actions? I think not.

If that were the basis for invasion then we should have invaded Israel.

State sponsored terrorism isn't a practice in Israel. And yes, violations of UN resolutions which specify the consequences for those violations DOES justify the actions. If there are some resolutions which you feel also need to be acted upon, please feel free to write your congressman. But excluding one because another is idle isn't rational.

ReThink.

 

[av8torntn]

even more good news from Iraq
Official: Al-Qaida in Iraq leader wounded - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

 

[Jones]

State sponsored terrorism isn't a practice in Israel.

That depends on who you ask. I suspect the Palestinians might have a different point of view. Israel was founded in terrorism, and I'm not casting judgement, simply pointing out that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

 

[canon]

That depends on who you ask. I suspect the Palestinians might have a different point of view. Israel was founded in terrorism, and I'm not casting judgement, simply pointing out that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

True. Never really thought of it like that before. Perhaps we should give America back to England.

That depends on who you ask.

Let's ask the innocent Israeli victims of suicide bombers. And you're right, I'm sure the palestinians have a much different view. They see such acts as noble. Leaders of Arabic countries pay the families of the suicide bomber lots of money for their deeds... including Saddam Hussein. You can stand on whichever side you want. I side with Israel.

 

[Jones]

True. Never really thought of it like that before. Perhaps we should give America back to England.

Why should we give America back to England? I don't follow your logic.

Let's ask the innocent Israeli victims of suicide bombers. And you're right, I'm sure the palestinians have a much different view. They see such acts as noble. Leaders of Arabic countries pay the families of the suicide bomber lots of money for their deeds... including Saddam Hussein. You can stand on whichever side you want. I side with Israel.

Do you think all Israelis are innocent and all Palestinians are guilty? Or just the dead ones? Why must you either side with Israel or the Palestinians, that sounds like a false choice. After 40 years of war and no end in sight, a lot of Israelis question whether that's a real choice as well.

 

[over9five]

"Why should we give America back to England? I don't follow your logic."

I do! Of course you know those horrible Bostonian terrorists boarded British ships to dump tea into the harbor to protest the Tea Act.

But did you also know that those colonists fought like terrorists by shooting the British from behind rocks and trees? In those days battles were fought with your armies facing each other. Battle lines! One side fired, then the other! There was ORDER!

Not these colonist terrorists, though! Hiding in the bushes! Shooting at OFFICERS!!!! That doesn't happen! Damn terrorists!




<Sorry, momentary flashback.... I'm ok now....)

 

[canon]

Why should we give America back to England? I don't follow your logic.

It was in reference to this statement:

simply pointing out that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

When we were fighting for independence from England, our "freedom fighters" would then be terrorists to the English. Under your logic, the Minutemen during the Revolutionary war were no different than the suicide bombers: freedom fighters. Wrapping it up, to say that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter puts us in the position to undo what wrongs we've comitted in the past if indeed we are as bad as suicide bombers: Turn over America to England. (sarcasm... really not looking for a segway into slavery or native americans)

If you want to split hairs about the difference between the two, one group intentionally targets civilians as a means to make a political statement. Not sure if that difference is important to you, it is to me.

Do you think all Israelis are innocent and all Palestinians are guilty? Or just the dead ones? Why must you either side with Israel or the Palestinians, that sounds like a false choice. After 40 years of war and no end in sight, a lot of Israelis question whether that's a real choice as well.

Do I think all Israelis are innocent of what? Defending themselves? I see repeated bombings in crowded marketplaces proudly carried out by terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. A bus of men, women and children becomes a target simply because it's easy. A car packed with enough C4 to remove the face of a hotel too often finds a parking spot. Isreal responds with tanks into Gaza in search of terrorist leadership or rocket attacks on known terrorist targets, only to eventually bow to international pressure to withdraw and return to peace talks. Palestine on the otherhand, did nothing in the past to crackdown on Hamas, and then went on to elect them into power.

We lost two buildings to cowardly terrorist activities, and the world saw our response in the form of governments in two countries being eliminated, their militaries decimated, and their land conquered and still occupied today. What do you think our response would be if we've been putting up with it for 40 years? After 9/11 we saw news reports that took cameras into Arabic classrooms. The children, 7-10 years old were drawing pictures of American buildings they want to blow up when they get older as a class project. Osama bin Laden is idolized. Hatred is taught from the time they are born, and sympathetic views towards America or Israel is a death sentence in some places. But no, I don't think all palestinians are guilty... it's just hard to separate the two when the innocent have no voice. It becomes a leap of faith to say they exist.

That depends on who you ask. I suspect the Palestinians might have a different point of view. Israel was founded in terrorism, and I'm not casting judgement, simply pointing out that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Your statement that Israel was "founded on terrorism" combined with the comparison of suicide bombers to freedom fighters suggests you believe the two are equal. That on some level, Palestinian terrorists are justified when they target kids or crowded marketplaces because they are fighting for freedom. I don't consider ANY group (palestinian or other) to be "innocent" if they feel targeting civilians to be a legitimate militaristic tactic.

Why must you either side with Israel or the Palestinians, that sounds like a false choice.

Going to save that for the next post... working on getting some pics together, scanned, uploaded etc... but my frozen pizza is ready so story time will have to wait for a few minutes.. maybe an hour, the pizza is pretty hot.

 

[canon]

Of course you know those horrible Bostonian terrorists boarded British ships to dump tea into the harbor to protest the Tea Act.

Is that why we did it? I thought it was because we were coffee drinkers. Hey... maybe that's when we made the switch!

 

[govols019]

I blame the Freemasons.

 

[av8torntn]

I didn't get to watch the evening news tonight and I was wondering what the top story was. Was it
2 Ft. Campbell soldiers receive the Silver Star for actions near Ramadi Iraq

Three days since Operation Law and Order began in Iraq and so far no U. S. casualties

Or U. S. House gives a vote of no confidence in their troops fighting in the global war on terrorism

 

[over9five]

The top story was our brave, Democratic led House caving in to terrorists and insurgents. (That's what the world and Al Quada heard).

They stabbed our service men and women in the heart. This will make their job a hundred times more dangerous.

More American lives will be LOST because of this.

 

[Jones]

Perhaps they just caved to the will of their constituents?
From a recent Gallup/USA Today Poll:

7. As you may know, the Bush administration is considering a temporary but significant increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to help stabilize the situation there. Would you favor or oppose this?
Favor Oppose No opinion

2007 Jan 5-7
36% 61% 3%

It's a non-binding resolution that (apparently) reflects the opinion of a majority of the voting public. I'm not sure it amounts to a "stab in the heart of our service men and women".

 

[moreluck]

Jones.....How come on these Gallup Polls nobody asks me ??

I think the poll takers are slackers and just call college dorms and ask the first 'responder' to pass the phone around.

 

[scratch]

Jones.....How come on these Gallup Polls nobody asks me ??

I think the poll takers are slackers and just call college dorms and ask the first 'responder' to pass the phone around.

Once I answered ther phone, and it was a polltaker. He started asking a bunch of questions with the topic leading up to a local Democrat running for the US House of Representatives. I started to tell him my opinion, was hung up on in mid-sentence. It was a Democratic Polltaker. Polls are very misleading, they target certain demographic groups to get the results the client wants.