Censport
Konnichiwa, y'all!
I wasn't laying all the blame on your country's doorstep, that's putting words in my mouth. I just reminded you of how they got here.senseiman said:No, you were just trying to lay the blame for terrorist getting into the US on Canada's doorstep. Canada HAS changed its immigration policies since 9/11 BTW.
What about the civilian contractors, truck drivers, construction workers, teachers, etc.? What about the civilian media? How many news organizations were in that same building?senseiman said:Tough it out? The UN presence in Iraq was a civilian one,
Then you're not paying attention. I never claimed to be in lock-step agreement with every Republican in congress. Stop trying to hold me accountable for the words of other Republicans.senseiman said:You were the one criticizing Clinton for withdrawing from Somalia. The Republicans (whom you seem to be supporting here) were in favor of withdrawing too and in fact were the most vocal in doing so. So which party is the coward, exactly? The Democrats for supporting withdrawal from Somalia or the Republicans for....supporting withdrawal from Somalia? I don't follow your logic at all.
Was Saddam in power? Yes. Who was going to have the power after him? His murdering, rapist sons. As long as the Husseins had power, the threat was there.senseiman said:These would be the same Kurds who had set up an autonomous government in northern Iraq and had US and British warplanes protecting them? The same Kurds who Saddam's forces hadn't fired a shot at in over a decade? The invasion saved them from genocide? I'm sure that would be news to them.
You clearly didn't read a single one of those articles. What I expect is for the UN to make immediate use of the helicopters provided to it and postpone the photo ops, delegate-hosting, condom distribution and worrying about their hotel's catering until AFTER they've saved some lives! What the UN has is a bunch of pompous, spoiled blowhards who are in love with their authority and status in the world community, and productive results apparently come second to all that.senseiman said:What do you expect, exactly? The UN to send its navy to Sumatra? They dont' have a military. Its an international organization whose role is to COORDINATE relief assistance, the actual job of providing immediate assistance is dependent on the contributions of member states.
Now you're not reading my posts.senseiman said:So...now it was the UN that broke the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? Funny, I thought it was the American media that did that.
Censport said:(and CNN/CBS/BBC, etc.)
Nixon didn't lobby for a Nobel Peace Prize or go around pretending to be a great man of peace. Did Nixon travel the globe overseeing dubious elections? Carter did and does exactly that.senseiman said:I see. So there was no call for Nixon to liberate any countries but - if we are to follow your logic - there were pressing calls for Carter to liberate countries that he failed to heed.
Gee, sounds like you've already got all the answers. Time to step up to the plate...senseiman said:So this just begs the question as to what exactly happened in the world between Nixon's leaving office in 1974 and Carter's taking over in January of 1977 that caused this radical change of circumstances. And, indeed I might ask why president Ford isn't singled out by you for criticism as a lot of these earth shaking changes must have occured on his watch.
No, Carter wasn't supposed to create a problem by waffling back and forth between supporting him and pressing for reform. Make a decision and stick with it, that's what a leader does.senseiman said:I'm a little confused about how you arrive at these conclusions. Was Carter supposed to liberate Iran by invading it and giving the Shah - who was every bit as viscious a dictator as Saddam Hussein - back his throne? Interesting definition of 'liberation', if that is what you were trying to get at.
In the Spring of '78, Carter had three choices ahead of him:
-Back the Shah to the hilt as the policeman of the Persian Gulf: The traditional U.S. policy.
-Disassociate the United States from the Shah and seek a dialogue with Khomeini and other radical Moslems in the region.
-Continue to support the Shah while pressing Tehran and other governments for reform.
So what did Carter do? Shortly after the Shah declared martial law, President Carter called him to voice support. In November of 1978, security advisor Brzezinski called the Shah from the Iranian embassy in Washington to express his assurance that the United States would "back him to the hilt". Late in December, Carter dispatched the aircraft carrier Constellation to the Indian Ocean. Then Carter countermanded his own order. He then tried to press the Shah for some lucrative deals. Carter started by pressuring the Shah to release "political prisoners" including known terrorists and to put an end to military tribunals. The newly released terrorists would be tried under civil jurisdiction with the Marxist/Islamists using these trials as a platform for agitation and propaganda. Then there was a formal country-to-country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel.
Ramsey Clark, who served as Attorney General under President Lyndon B. Johnson, held a press conference where he reported on a trip to Iran and a Paris visit with Khomeni. He urged the US government to take no action to help the Shah so that Iran "could determine its own fate." Clark played a behind-the-scenes role influencing members of Congress to not get involved in the crisis. Perhaps UN Ambassador Andrew Young best expressed the thinking of the left at the time when he stated that, if successful, Khomeni would "eventually be hailed as a saint."
Now while most of Iran didn't want extremist Khomeni to come to power, Carter responded that Khomeni was a religious man -as he himself claimed to be- and that he knew how to talk to a man of God. Carter's mistaken assessment of Khomeni was encouraged by advisors with a desire to form an Islamic "Green belt" to contain atheist Soviet expansion with the religious fervor of Islam. Eventually, all 30 of the scenarios on Iran presented to Carter by his intelligence agencies proved wrong and totally misjudged Khomeni as a person and as a political entity. Khomeni was allowed to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism.
Did Carter try to negotiate the release of the hostages? Yes, he tried to arrange the release to coincide with the November 1980 elections. Talk about your October surprises!
But hey, what do I know? I only lived through it.
senseiman said:This is exactly what I meant when I said it would probably take a generation for Iraq to recover from the damage inflicted on it.
Ah, it must've been somebody else complaining that Iraq was devastated and that the idea of starting democracy there was a joke.
Okay, they made an error. And you're helping how, exactly?senseiman said:While what you have just written conforms to my own opinion, it directly contradicts the statements of the Bush administration in the run up to the invasion when they predicted Iraq would, in fact, make a speedy recovery from the war. Wolfowitz even predicted that the US wouldn't need to spend any money on reconstruction as the Iraqi economy would be healthy enough to rebuild itself.
Yes you are.senseiman said:I'm not trying to put a nice face on terrorism,
Yes he did.senseiman said:I'm trying to take a rationale look at things. The point in question wasn't 'who is killing Israelis', you were talking about Saddam's alleged financing of terrorism as a rationale for invading Iraq. Saddam didn't give money or weapons to terror groups,
Indirect?!? Oh that's right, their main incentive was killing Jews. The fact that Ma got $25,000 compensation... well, I guess that was the icing on the cake, eh?senseiman said:I'm not defending Saddam's action, it probably did act as an indirect incentive for people to volunteer for suicide attacks that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians.
Then you'll be comforted to know that Saddam had relationships with al-Qaeda members. Well, not in the Biblical or Michael Jackson sense...senseiman said:But strictly speaking as a rationale for the US to start a war that has so far claimed tens of thousands of lives, including over 1300 US troops it is pretty damned thin.
Except the ability to harbor and finance terrorists.senseiman said:In the 12 years between the destruction of his army in the Gulf war and the invasion in 2003, Saddam posed a threat to no one.
Oh really? According to the military, Congresswoman (-person?) Marsha Blackburn, and my own (admittedly anecdotal) sources, we've destroyed over 400,000 tons of weapons that Saddam had that wasn't allowed under the '91 UN cease-fire agreement.senseiman said:He had no air force or navy to speak of, his army was equipped with Soviet weapons from the 1960s for which he could import no replacements or spare parts.
Wrong. Statements and known facts are two different things. Saddam stated that he had WMDs then stated he had destroyed them. The UN inspectors couldn't find any evidence that he had destroyed them, nor could they find them (in mass quantities, anyway). The question is: Where the *%&$ are they now?senseiman said:For one thing it was a known fact that 95% of his weapons had either been destroyed or decayed beyond use.
Or to pay the Kurds another visit.senseiman said:His only possible motivation for seeking them would have been for defensive purposes
He in fact did have a history of harboring terrorists and financing them.senseiman said:So...the answer is to invade a country that doesn't harbor terrorists with the deliberate purpose of attracting terrorists to that country so that you can kill them?
Which is why I posted the article you didn't read from that Iraqi and what he thinks of your political ilk. Also, I posted the article earlier about 80% of Iraqis strongly wanting those awful free elections we imposed on them. Maybe that's the same 80% that wants the US military to leave? Could be, since the fastest way to get the US military out is, as I stated before, to get their country up and productive again. But then does that mean that the 20% that wants the US military to stay are the ones fighting them? Think they took time out to answer a poll? And if that 80% are the want both free elections and US troop withdrawal, what are they planning to do, fight the terrorists -ah, insurgents- themselves? Where is your logic coming from?senseiman said:The Iraqi people are quite capable of speaking for themselves. I just happen to notice that the 80% of them who want the US troops out of their country agree with me.
By the way, McGovern was completely wrong about Vietnam, and you're sounding exactly like him.