Peace Protesters

[SmallTown]

Ah ken, once again you talk a lot about nothing. Once again, please read my first post on this subject. Shoot, hold a sec, I'll get it for you.

Originally posted by Ken King

Iraq wasn’t our ally against Iran, we assisted Iraq with some equipment and intelligence during their war with Iran, but we didn’t do any active engagements like an ally would.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by SmallTown

Might want to tell that to GW, considering how often he used the term ally to discuss supporters of the war against iraq, though they probably never touched foot in the country.

You were saying allies are simply those who do any active engagements, which of course is not true.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Ken King


They're the same person or at least connected at the neck and share the same @ss.

and for god's sake, leave me out of your fetish fantasies.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by SmallTown
and for god's sake, leave me out of your fetish fantasies.

Who has the fantasies? Seems to me that it was you that moved from the area but you keep coming back for more. Who is it that has the fetishes you refer to? I was referring to you having your @ss on your shoulders and you took it as a sexual innuendo. Just can't get anything right, can you?

And while I might talk a lot about nothing (in your small mind ) I do know what I am talking about, unlike you. You are nothing more than an irritating pimple on my @ss that needs to be lanced.

BTW, find that treaty yet?

 

[SmallTown]

typical. Going off subject when you know you're wrong. Oh well. Don't worry about it, I won't tell if you won't tell.

 

[Ken King]

Oh, so you found the treaty saying we were allies? The only person that can't stay on topic is you

 

[vraiblonde]

Hmmm, Shanobi (Shattered) - not sure how to respond to all that. You do have a few factual inaccuracies but they're not significant enough to quibble about.

You realize, of course, that ALL politicians have friends in high places, right? Where do you think they get the money to wage a campaign and get elected? Most of them have had jobs in the private sector before taking office. They have relatives with jobs - they're going to have ties to something, it's inevitable.

Does it worry you that, if John Kerry is elected President, he'll make deals so that all government institutions must use Heinz products in their vending machines and cafeterias?

You know that Tom Daschle's wife is a lobbyist for the airline industry, right? Does that disturb you?

History is history - it's in the past. You can't change it, you can only evolve. We had a major war where we nuked Japan - does that mean they will ALWAYS and FOREVER be our enemy? We had a significant war with Great Britain many years ago - are THEY still our enemy as well? How about our "friendship" with Saudi? Do we have to ALWAYS be friends with them, no matter what they do or who's running things over there?

And you forgot to explain to me how the embargos killed all those Iraqi people. Please answer that one.

 

[Sharon]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Hmmm, Shanobi (Shattered)

That's what goes thru my mind ever since the day you mentioned it.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by Ken King
Oh, so you found the treaty saying we were allies? The only person that can't stay on topic is you

Nothing says there HAS to be a treaty to be an ally.
And again going off defending the Iraq stance as not being an ally. Again, Ken, I made no reference to Iraq, simply to your "understanding" of the word ally.
But since you bring up Iraq, we may or may not have been an ally, but we did some interesting things back in the day. Maybe we weren't allies, just business partners?

1982. President Reagan ordered the Defense Department and the CIA to supply Iraq's military with intelligence information, advice, and hardware for battle after being advised to do so by CIA Director William Casey. Former Reagan National Security official Howard Teicher said that Casey "personally spearheaded the effort to insure that Iraq had sufficient military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to avoid losing the Iran-Iraq war." The U.S. continued to provide thi type of intelligence to Iraq until 1988. [Teicher Affidavit, Knight Ridder 2/24/1995; NBC News 8/18/02; New York Times 8/18/2002]


1982. Iraq began using chemical weapons against Iran. [Shultz 1993, p. 238; see also Cole 1997, p. 87; Jentleson 1994 p. 48] By the end of the decade, some 100,000 people would die as a result the chemical warfare waged by the Iraqis [New York Times, 2/13/03].


February 1982. The Reagan administration - despite stern objections from Congress- removed Iraq from the U.S. State Department's list of states sponsoring terrorism. [Freudenheim, Slavin, Rhoden 2/28/1982; Washington Post 12/30/02; The Times 12/31/02] This cleared the way for future U.S. military aid to that country. [Financial Times 2/23/83 cited in Phythian 1997]


1983. The U.S. State Department reported that Iraq's support of terrorist groups continued unabated. [Jentleson 1994, pg. 52]


1983. The Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 civilian Hughes helicopters to Iraq, in spite of the fact it was widely understood that the helicopters could be weaponized with little effort. Critics regarded the sale as military aid cloaked as civilian assistance. [Phythian 1997, pgs. 37-38]


1983. Secretary of Commerce George Baldridge and Secretary of State George Shultz successfully lobbied the National Security Council (NSC) advisor to approve the sale of 10 Bell helicopters to Iraq in spite of objections from the rest of the NSC. It was officially stated that the helicopters would be used for crop spraying. These same helicopters were later used in 1988 to deploy poison gas against Iranians and possibly the Kurds. [Washington Post 3/11/1991; Phythian 1997, pgs. 37-38]


1983. Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran increased significantly. The U.S. was informed of Iraq's use of chemical weapons later that year. [Shultz 1993, p. 238; see also Cole 1997, p. 87; Jentleson 1994, p. 48]


"Early 80s." Diplomats brought photographs to the United Nations and several national capitals showing the swollen, blistered and burned bodies of injured and dead Iranians who had been victims of Iraqi chemical attacks. [New York Times, 2/13/03]


1983. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt supplied Iraq with U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons with the secret approval of the Reagan administration. [Phythian 1997, pg. 35] President Reagan personally requested Italian Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to funnel arms to Iraq. [Friedman 1983, 51-54 cited in Phythian 1997, pg. 36]


August 1983. Iraq was using mustard gas. It is not clear if the use of this weapon was known by the U.S. State Department and National Security Agency [Profile] at that time. [CIA Declassified Report ca. 1997]


Late 1983. According to the memoirs of then Secretary of State George Shultz, U.S. intelligence began receiving reports that Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran had increased . [Shultz 1993, p. 238; see also Cole 1997, p. 87; Jentleson 1994, p. 48]



November 1, 1983. U.S. State Department official Jonathan T. Howe told Secretary of State George P. Shultz that intelligence reports indicated that Saddam Hussein's troops were resorting to "almost daily use of CW [Chemical Weapons]" against their Iranian adversaries. [Washington Post 12/30/02; The Times 12/31/02]



December, 1983. By the end of 1983, 60 Hughes MD 500 "Defender" helicopters had been shipped to Iraq in spite of objections from four Republican Senators. The U.S. Department of Commerce had decided that the exporting of aircraft weighing less than 10,000 pounds to Iraq did not require an export license. [Middle East Defense News, 11/9/92]

 

[Otter]

Originally posted by Sharon


That's what goes thru my mind ever since the day you mentioned it.

You, too??

 

[Pookie]

Originally posted by Ken King
They're the same person or at least connected at the neck and share the same @ss.

 

[Christy]

Originally posted by otter
You, too??

Me too.

 

[swingdancer]

Just checking in to let Shanobi know s/he is not alone ...

I, too, support the troops in Iraq but oppose this war. War is NEVER a good option. We have no right to change another country's regime and no evidence yet that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. The time to finish the job in Iraq was 1991 -- that time has passed, and with little evidence and no credible threat against the U.S., we have no right to invade that country.

Of course, some will cry, "What about the Iraqi people?" If we were truly going to Iraq for the people's sake, we would be stepping in to change the leadership in dozens of other countries where the people live under oppressive regimes.

Now that we have taken this action and seemingly won, my only hope is that we stay there long enough to help the people rebuild their country and their government and don't forget them when the next target (Syria, perhaps?) comes along.

On another note, which I am sure will flame the already burning fires: It is telling that others in this forum have resorted to slander and name-calling rather than truly listening to what Shanobi has to say. Some users' use of epithets ("peace queer" is a great one that comes to mind) speaks to their inability to defend their position with evidence.

 

[vraiblonde]

So, Swing, what you're saying is that if we're not going to do for ALL, we should do for NONE - is that right?

War is NEVER a good option.

That is simply not true. I give you WWII, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War as examples

my only hope is that we stay there long enough to help the people rebuild their country and their government

Bush is trying but the Democrats and the UN keep saying that the job is over and to get out. Obviously we can't do that - the country must be stabilized or this whole thing was for nothing.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by swingdancer
Just checking in to let Shanobi know s/he is not alone ...

I, too, support the troops in Iraq but oppose this war. War is NEVER a good option. We have no right to change another country's regime and no evidence yet that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction. The time to finish the job in Iraq was 1991 -- that time has passed, and with little evidence and no credible threat against the U.S., we have no right to invade that country.

Sometimes war is the only option or do you think we should have ignored that little event of December 7th 1941? No regime change, damn I guess we’ll have to get Hitler and his hoard back as they were only doing their own thing and no one has the right to make them change, at least according to you. In 1991 the authorization of force was only for removing Iraq’s troops from Kuwait. I’m sure Stormin’ Norman would have loved to whack the Iraqis all the way to Baghdad and beyond, but he lacked the authorization to do so. Whose fault was that? You claim there is no credible threat to us, yet Congress says there is. Hmm, I wonder which is right? A group that has access to classified briefings and intelligence data or your average citizen.

Of course, some will cry, "What about the Iraqi people?" If we were truly going to Iraq for the people's sake, we would be stepping in to change the leadership in dozens of other countries where the people live under oppressive regimes.

This is an ancillary objective to removing the threat. If it were just the treatment of the people of Iraq then the UN would have been the entity to step in and resolve it. Like they have elsewhere, NOT.

Now that we have taken this action and seemingly won, my only hope is that we stay there long enough to help the people rebuild their country and their government and don't forget them when the next target (Syria, perhaps?) comes along.

I guess you haven’t been paying attention as it has been made clear that we won’t leave this as it is to just return to the same mess. Also it seems the Syrians understand we aren’t fooling around and are cooperating, albeit reluctantly, with our requests to not harbor Iraqi regime leaders.

On another note, which I am sure will flame the already burning fires: It is telling that others in this forum have resorted to slander and name-calling rather than truly listening to what Shanobi has to say. Some users' use of epithets ("peace queer" is a great one that comes to mind) speaks to their inability to defend their position with evidence.

Help me with this one, you say “slander” (the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation) and I want to know how you can use the term when most of the folk on these forums hide behind pseudonyms, therefore their reputations are intact.

 

[Shanobi]

Oh wow, I got another perosn on my side. It's nice to have someone to talk to while yer waiting in the firing squad.
OK, Vrai, I realize that politicians line their pockets, that's politics, that's business. I think forcing Heinz down someones throat is a misuse of power. And I don't understand why you would suggest that I wouldn't care about this abuse of power if a Democrat did it. Where I sit thet're all on the same side. I never called myself a Democrat but if you want to assume such...go right ahead. I believe that the Dems only way to survive nowadays is to act more Republican.
Anyway, here's my beef. Line your pockets, that's your business. Screw America, that's your job, I know that. You can take my tax $$ and send it to Camden , NJ to make a new aquarium to revitalize the town, good luck. But when you send my brother to Iraq to kill people to help secure your deals you are stepping over the line. THat's where my protest steps up a notch. To send in troops to secure your deals should be criminal and a gross misuse of power.

 

[vraiblonde]

Shanobi, show me where I insinuated that you'd overlook cronyism if it were a Democrat doing it? A little defensive, are we?

To send in troops to secure your deals should be criminal and a gross misuse of power.

You're right - it is. Fortunately, that's not what Bush did. Naturally Halliburton and Bechtel will be considered in the rebuilding - it's what they do. Halliburton is one of the largest energy service companies in the world. Who SHOULD they use? SMECO? Who should they use instead of Bechtel? Joe's Construction?

you have a problem with big corporations. You have a problem with the use of military. You have a problem with what is commonly referred to as "networking". The only thing you don't seem to have a problem with is Saddam Hussein.

 

[SmallTown]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Shanobi, show me where I insinuated that you'd overlook cronyism if it were a Democrat doing it? A little defensive, are we?

You're right - it is. Fortunately, that's not what Bush did. Naturally Halliburton and Bechtel will be considered in the rebuilding - it's what they do. Halliburton is one of the largest energy service companies in the world. Who SHOULD they use? SMECO? Who should they use instead of Bechtel? Joe's Construction?

you have a problem with big corporations. You have a problem with the use of military. You have a problem with what is commonly referred to as "networking". The only thing you don't seem to have a problem with is Saddam Hussein.

I think people on both sides have concerns over the "bidding process". Of course, it is easy to see these companies are qualified for the work, but without open bidding you may not know if you have the best. "invitation" only bids are even scarier.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Shanobi
But when you send my brother to Iraq to kill people to help secure your deals you are stepping over the line. THat's where my protest steps up a notch. To send in troops to secure your deals should be criminal and a gross misuse of power.

I doubt if anyone can argue with the fear you feel for your brother, many of us have similar concerns with our loved ones serving over there along side him. But he did volunteer for this duty, just as our family members did. Has he communicated to you that he feels he is doing an unjust deed? Those I know and have talked to have said that they totally agree that this is a righteous task and will make our nation safer.

The fact that you feel this is an unjust war exaggerates your fears. I doubt anything anyone says will change your feelings but I truly believe that you are wrong about the motives behind our actions in regard to Iraq. This has been dragging on for better than a decade and Congress decided to allow the President to bring the matter to resolution. In that decision Congress clearly stated that Iraq was a threat to our national security.

The diplomatic arena has stagnated due to Iraq’s continued deceptions and failure to come into compliance with the many resolutions issued by the UN. The UN itself made diplomatic methods impossible because of conflicting interests of several nations on the Security Council. The only action left for the President to take was that of a military nature. As the President is bound to see that the laws of the land are faithfully executed, and together with Congress are required to provide for the defense of our nation, I see this as him just doing his sworn duty. It seems to me that he is serious about this duty, unlike the previous administration that, in my opinion, allowed this to situation to worsen.

Iraq had many chances to avoid further conflict but they chose the path that forced our hand. Had they complied with what they had agreed to we wouldn’t be having this war or discussion. Why some have made the choice to blame our nation (or more specifically President Bush and his administration) for this is beyond me (though I will admit it took me some time to gain this opinion). This isn’t about money making deals, its about protecting our nation and way of life.

 

[Shanobi]

I don't believe that this is about protecting our freedoms and way of life. If we were genuinely concerned about terrorism we would look in Saudi Arabia, but that nation is off limits...why? If we were really concerned about terrorism we would work harder to make peace between Irsael and Palestine which was sorta one of OBL's demands (Get Israel out of Palestine and we'll lay off). If we knew that that is all it would take to end Middle East turmoil would we go through with it? Where does the greater good lie? We will bomb nations to protect our freedom (that I still don't understand, what freedoms are we protecting? what freedoms are these people trying to take from us? Our civil liberties? Our freedom from fear?). You do have a point in that having family in this war increases the fear factor but the reasoning behind the war is still ludicrous to me. Yes there was tension in the UN and that's becasue the rest of the world opposed the war. That's what the UN is for, to give others a voice (unless their voice is wrong, then UN is neutralized). And as far as Iraq not obeying UN sanctions you can hang it up. Israel and Turkey hold the record for number of broken UN resolutions but we sidestep that issue. Turkey slaughtered way more Kurds than Iraq but that's not the issue here, the issue is Iraq'a treatment of it's people....huh? Murder is murder, but politics can paint it differently and we don't seem to mind. The Kurds are one of the largest stateless people in the world and we don't seem to care yet we'll bend over backwards to make sure the Jews are well taken care of...Politics not principal...That's not how I choose to live my life...And that has gotten me in the minority

 

[Frank]

This was a case where all other efforts to resolve the problem short of war had failed, and the problem was deemed too dangerous - including by the UN itself - to ignore.

North Korea - Palestine - Syria - Saudi - these are instances where we DO have a serious conflict - BUT - they can be resolved diplomatically. As dangerous as everyone mentions North Korea is - they have at least three powerful neighbors who will not allow them to have nuclear weapons, should it come to that.

With Iraq it was clear that diplomatic and economic pressure wasn't changing anything.

I watched Gephardt yesterday on the news - I was astonished to find that his views on the war almost exactly parallel my own. This was a dangerous regime with ties to terrorism and they were developing dangerous weapons, and would not be dissuaded from building them, selling or giving them away or even using them.