Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 43 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 42 43
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
Rob Offline
cobra kai
15000+ posts
cobra kai
15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
Quote:

Chant said:
There should be no nuclear weapons in this world.




superman IV: quest for peace


giant picture
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469
Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469
Likes: 37
Oh come on...

There was a time factor in WW II, regarding Japan. And a human factor.
Sure, the argument can be made, that nukes shouldn't have been used on Japan in 1945, but I think we all know the answers to why they were used. (Or maybe the distorted image of the United States expands to stacking the deck against the U.S. on this bit of history as well. )

That's like rationalizing that Hitler didn't know about the extermination of the Jews, as author David Irving has argued.


In 1945, the U.S. had fought long bloody battles to take islands near Japan. They cost a lot of lives on both sides. While the Japanese clearly couldn't win the war, they could continue to fight a long bloody war of attrition to the last man.
Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war could have lasted another 10 years. And could have cost millions of lives, on both sides. It was only absolute, overwhelming force that compelled the Japanese to surrender.

And the U.S. has had close to 60 years to use nukes again, but it has maintained a very even hand.
Likewise, Britain, France and Russia.
There is a respect for the potential human cost of using nukes that has deepened over several decades, that was not fully realized in the first two or three decades. Western nations are very reluctant to use nukes. About the only way I think the U.S. would use nukes is in retaliation against a nuclear attack.

No such reluctance, in the rogue nations who seek to acquire them. I've read words of Islamists who speak of obtaining nukes as an absolute necessity for the defense of Islam, attacking the source of corruption of the Islamic world.

First and foremost as Islamic targets are obviously the United States and Israel.

The region considered for three decades to be the most likely place on Earth for a thermonuclear war is between India and Pakistan.

There is a level of potential devastation of nukes that third-world and rogue nations have much less regard for. These are extremely volatile states, with much less regard for death, even their own, in the name of their cause.

Do you really have no pause, at the thought of nations that breed suicide bombers with chilling regularity, that would suddenly have nukes?

Do you believe for a moment that they wouldn't use those weapons against their real or perceived political/cultural enemies, for the greater glory of Allah, and assure their glorious place in heaven, and in the revered annals of martyrdom?

And there's just the numbers game. The more nations with nukes in play, the more likely one will be used, either by a government, or seized by fanatics in a nuclear coup. The more nations have them, especially poor nations that can't really afford good military training and weapons maintenance and security for their nukes, the more likely something insane will happen.

All the loose nukes around a declining impoverished Russia we've worried about for 15 years ? Imagine a place even less stable than Russia with nukes.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge
4000+ posts
fudge
4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
I concede the point!

But you didn't really answer my question.

Did the U.S. really do the world a favour in using nuclear weapons, showing everyone what kind of power a nuke had?

I should, perhaps try to explain my earlier comments a little better.

I think noone should have Nuclear Weapons, or WMD in general. But ofcourse there are nations which I most certainly wouldn't like to see having nukes!




Racks be to MisterJLA
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge
4000+ posts
fudge
4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
Quote:

Chant said:
There should be no nuclear weapons in this world.




superman IV: quest for peace




exactly!




Racks be to MisterJLA
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469
Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
brutally Kamphausened
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469
Likes: 37
Quote:

Chant said:
I concede the point!

But you didn't really answer my question.

Did the U.S. really do the world a favour in using nuclear weapons, showing everyone what kind of power a nuke had?

I should, perhaps try to explain my earlier comments a little better.

I think no one should have Nuclear Weapons, or WMD in general. But of course there are nations which I most certainly wouldn't like to see having nukes!




Well geez, in an ideal world...


Of course.

But the problem is, if the U.S. disarms, the rest of the world will not. Without a deterrant, Russia might nuke us.
There is talk in the U.S. that Russia, despite being impoverished, is updating its nukes, and we again have to catch up, with a whole new class of specialized nukes.

The U.S. didn't do the world a favor in 1945.
The rest of the world wanted nukes, independent of what the U.S. did.
Tthe reality was that the Germans were working on a nuclear program, and already had V-2 missiles to carry them. As you're probably aware, most of the German scientists began working on the U.S. nuclear missile program after the war.

But my point is, within a few short years, Britain developed nukes, and France, and Russia (the last largely stolen from us), and China. And then out of the blue in the early 70's, India, Pakistan and Israel. Most of these nations are friendly with the U.S., and didn't pursue them in reaction to the U.S., they just wanted them.

It concerns me that the U.S. is seen as the cause of nukes !

It's often been argued in the U.S. that we might as well not have nukes, because we'd never use them.

At the peak of the cold war, both the U.S. and Russia had upwards of 30,000 reported missiles each. As I recall with the most recent reductions, it's supposed to be down around 1,000 on each side.
That's a considerable reduction.

~

Rob, I wish I could help you with the anti-Bush perspective of Bush's hidden motive for invasion.
We've all heard "blood for oil" and "war profiteering" and so forth. But as you say, none of those make sense.

Yeah, sure, we'll spend a trillion on an Iraq war, just so Bush and Cheney can make a few million in contract kickbacks from Halliburton. Makes sense.

And if it was "blood for oil" Iraq would have to give us every drop of oil for the next 30 years, and we might then break EVEN !
But whatever, we know it makes no sense, but let the Bush-bashers vent away and have their fun.

As for the real reasons, see Bush's 1/28/2003 speech, and his 3/17/2003 speech.

And maybe in 20 years, the Bush-bashers will finally accept that Bush's stated reasons are the reason we went. I actually think the prevailing reason is because (whether others choose to believe it or not) Bush and his administration want to plant seeds of democracy in the Middle East, because they truly believe that's in our long term interest, far more than any other economic/oil/financial considerations.

And the urgency for invasion in March 2003 was to complete the war while we had the level of resolve and support we did, before sanctions began to crumble, and some further question about WMD's caused a loss of political will, and then Iraq would win, the U. N. inspectors would be removed, the U.S. invasion somehow diplomatically diverted from occurring, and then Saddam would have the 5 or 7 years he'd need to have his WMD's and threaten his neighbors, the U.S., or both.

That's why, though a September 2003 invasion would have ostensibly made more sense, that I believe it occurred when it did.

Eliminate strife and opression in the Middle East, and then they won't want to kill us ! And Iraq's as good a place as any to start.

The U.S. brought democracy to Western Europe through Wilson's Fourteen point plan at the end of World War I.

We brought democracy to the empires of Germany and Japan at the end of World War II.

And hopefully, it can now be seeded in the region that has been neglected for decades, and most sorely needs it. It's a volatile world, and it needed to be done, regardless of what the naysayers will continue to nay-say. And Bush had the political will to get it done.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
2000+ posts
2000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,289
I can't speak for others, only myself, but I never had a problem with deposing Saddam (aside from the fact we haven't really finished Afganistan yet, the Taliban are making something of a comeback), I just feel that the US and Uk Government were not honest.

Certainly in the UK the WMDs were overstated when there was no solid proof to back the claims. I don't know the extent to which the government in the US played on them, but until the "proof" became more and more unreliable it was Blairs big justification.

There were also plenty of soundbites on the news where politicians (from either side of the pond) aluded to links between Saddam and Bin Laden. Which almost certainly were baseless. Saddams government was, although vile in many ways, quite multicultural, which never would have gone down well with religious extremists.

I have a problem with my Government lying to me (whether that has happened remains to be proved but I put the burden of proof with Blair since he made the claims). They make decisions that affect my life and I should be able to trust the motivations for their actions are as they claim. there ya go, I'm an idealist, albeit a cynical one.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:


Yeah, sure, we'll spend a trillion on an Iraq war, just so Bush and Cheney can make a few million in contract kickbacks from Halliburton. Makes sense.

And if it was "blood for oil" Iraq would have to give us every drop of oil for the next 30 years, and we might then break EVEN !
But whatever, we know it makes no sense, but let the Bush-bashers vent away and have their fun.






I just want to point out that the Iraq war is costing US, you and I, the taxpayer all those billions.

The profits Halliburton makes are all for Halliburton.

So unless Halliburton says it's going to foot the bill for the war itself, I don't see where the price of the war and the profits made by no-bid contractors connect.

Last edited by whomod; 2004-01-30 6:32 AM.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Quote:

Steve T said:
There were also plenty of soundbites on the news where politicians (from either side of the pond) aluded to links between Saddam and Bin Laden. Which almost certainly were baseless. Saddams government was, although vile in many ways, quite multicultural, which never would have gone down well with religious extremists.




Actually, they have found a fair amount of evidence to document that Saddam's government had ties various terrorists groups, including al Queada, just not to Bin Laden himself or 9-11 directly.

You also need to remember: in foreign affairs, quite often the rule is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." In other words, despite Saddam's relative lack of religious extremism, both he and al Queada share a common hatred for the United States and/or Israel.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
Quote:

Knee-jerk Republican / Bushite defence is concerned with retrospective changes to the rationale for invasion.

Suddenly the Republicans are deeply concerned with human rights in Iraq. Oh-ho, that's why we invaded!





I find this to be complete bunk, there were 2 main reasons given the immediacy of the threat of WMD's and enforcing the UN Security Council thingy's. No one has even suggested that the main reason wasnt the WMD's Ive never heard a statement from the goverment stating otherwise. I do here people saying well, if they arent found we still got rid of a brutal dictator who tortured thousands and killied many more. I wont now or ever lose sleep over his removal. If you dont believe the world is safer without him, then I have a bridge to sell you in Manhatten if your interested......

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm?
5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
Quote:

"Politically the president really needs to explain this to the American people," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee who supported the Iraq war. "It undermines his ability to continue to talk to the American people about the war on terrorism."




Quote:

President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday sidestepped demands for outside review of pre-war intelligence on Iraq (news - web sites), but said it was important to know all the facts surrounding White House assertions Iraq's illicit weapons justified the U.S. decision to invade.

"I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts," Bush told reporters at the White House.


Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) has broken party ranks to join Democratic demands for an independent probe into how U.S. intelligence got it wrong given the failure by searchers to find weapons of mass destruction Bush insisted were in Iraq.


"McCain is the guiding light on this," said a Republican insider who predicted that the Bush administration may shift its view and accept an investigation.




Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
lemme ask a question to the antibushites:

say there are no wmds. say there never were any wmds. say the white house knew that, and there was never any justification for an iraq invasion and/or war.

say you're right about bush being a criminal.

the question: why?

why do it? where's the motive? shouldn't that be a factor you're naming? did i miss it?

where's the reward? the benefit? the evil sub plotline that skeletor reveals to he-man just before he pulls the "death lever" (but then, of course, he-man breaks free and saves the day).

because republicans really just hate france that much? a mass ploy to one-up the UN? to get a shoppers high by needlessly spending billions on a military effort? to enrage democratic sponsors? to secure iraq's oil ...which we haven't secured? to lend creative storylines to jla arcs? to elevate the popularity ranking of internet message boards?

every super villain, even the lamest adam west batman tv show villains, have some sort of driving force -- namely because you can't make a villain without one.

if america/republicans/coalition of the willing/bush (etc) are as evil as you say or as evil as you want them to be... what is the reasoning for their misdirection?




A friend of mine in the oil industry says that there is 30 years of oil left in the world. He is the CEO of an oil services company (he puts things called "chritmas trees" on the sea floor, which pump up fuel).

Even if he is wrong, there is a finite amount of oil left in the world.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army cannot successfully wage an extended war for the same reaosn the Japanese lost WW2. Neither of them had a strategic oil reserve.

And now the US has one, a big one, just to the east of Saudi Arabia.

Last edited by Dave; 2004-01-31 4:36 AM.
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398
Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..."
15000+ posts
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..."
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398
Likes: 38
Quote:

The Chinese People's Liberation Army cannot successfully wage an extended war for the same reaosn the Japanese lost WW2. Neither of them had a strategic oil reserve.

And now the US has one, a big one, just to the east of Saudi Arabia.




Sounds good to me!


"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?"

[center][Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com] [/center]

[center][Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com][/center]
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Quote:

the G-man said:
With all due respect to Europe's "lack of patience" for Israel, we probably wouldn't have "needed" an Israel if the European leaderss hadn't caused, been complicit in, or tried to ignore, the wholesale slaughter of several million Jews approximately 60 years ago.





The difference between Europe and the US is that Europe has only participated in one war since WW2. I'd run out of fingers if I counted the number of wars the US has been in since then. If warmaking is an indicator of moral righteousness, then Europe wins hands down.

As for the Jews, we can counterbalnce that against the American Indian genocide, I suppose. As least the Europeanssupport a Jewish homeland. You guys have Indians stuck unemployed on reservations.

Quote:

[qb]

And even when you factor alleged European anti-Semitism out of the equation there's still plenty of issues to take with this blind faith in Europe as a moral arbitrator of whether war with Iraq was justified.

Now comes reports out of Iraq that Saddam had bribed "about 270 Iraqi and foreign politicians, businessmen and journalists," including "senior French officials, the ruling parties of India and Bulgaria and even the Russian Orthodox Church....Among those accused were former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, former French U.N. Ambassador Bernard Merimee and Russian ultra-nationalist Vladimir "Mad Vlad" Zhirinovsky."

Again, I note this not to argue an inherent U.S. superiority, but to argue against an inherent European superiority, a blind acceptance among many on the left that a European viewpoint is automatically the correct one.




The European perspective was based on established Westphalian principles of respect for sovereignty. Right or wrong, its fundamental to diplomacy (the opposite is aggression and imperialism). The argument is that tyrants should be overthrown in the same way as tyrants were overthrown in the Philippines, Thailand etc. - by the people, not by external forces. I have my doubts about this. But its the established moral orthodoxy.

The Anglican Archbishop of Australia recently said something like understand the need to depose Saddam, but not understanding why 3000 civilians died in the effort.

At the end of the day, in the absence of WMDs, it was a war of aggression. The Europeans have had their fill of wars of aggression. Clearly the Bush adminstration, irrespective of the benefits, has not.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Quote:

Rob, I wish I could help you with the anti-Bush perspective of Bush's hidden motive for invasion.
We've all heard "blood for oil" and "war profiteering" and so forth. But as you say, none of those make sense.

Yeah, sure, we'll spend a trillion on an Iraq war, just so Bush and Cheney can make a few million in contract kickbacks from Halliburton. Makes sense.

And if it was "blood for oil" Iraq would have to give us every drop of oil for the next 30 years, and we might then break EVEN !





If Halliburton and the oil indutry were the ones paying for the invasion, it would not break even. The war would be a huge loss making exercise.

Instead, they got a 100% subsidy from the US taxpayer. The subsidy incidentally went directly to hi-tech companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing. But the oil industry benefited from it. And the taxpayers paid for it.

With that subsidy, all business in the new oil rich market in Iraq is pure profit.

But that is a peripheral benefit to big business. The real benefit is to American security - access to strategic oil reserves.

Quote:

MisterJLA said:

Quote:

The Chinese People's Liberation Army cannot successfully wage an extended war for the same reaosn the Japanese lost WW2. Neither of them had a strategic oil reserve.

And now the US has one, a big one, just to the east of Saudi Arabia.




Sounds good to me!




You bet. Sounds good to most Americans, put like that. Makes sense, doesn't it?


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Quote:

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
Quote:

Knee-jerk Republican / Bushite defence is concerned with retrospective changes to the rationale for invasion.

Suddenly the Republicans are deeply concerned with human rights in Iraq. Oh-ho, that's why we invaded!





I find this to be complete bunk, there were 2 main reasons given the immediacy of the threat of WMD's and enforcing the UN Security Council thingy's. No one has even suggested that the main reason wasnt the WMD's Ive never heard a statement from the goverment stating otherwise. I do here people saying well, if they arent found we still got rid of a brutal dictator who tortured thousands and killied many more. I wont now or ever lose sleep over his removal. If you dont believe the world is safer without him, then I have a bridge to sell you in Manhatten if your interested......




I won't lose sleep either. Its the only reason I supported the war. But read Dave's list:

Quote:


Once again, the big picture...
Saddam's genocide of an estimated 1 million of his own people,
Saddam's prior pursuit and possession of WMD's,
Saddam's use of WMD's on Iranians and his own people,
Saddam's documented secret WMD program to again obtain WMD's (whether or not he had successfully done so at the time if the March 2003 invasion),
Saddam's defiance of the 1991 peace agreement,
Saddam's non-compliance with U.N. weapons inspections,
Saddam's defiance of ten U.N. resolutions calling on Saddam directly to disarm, the last voted in September 2002, just 6 months before the U.S. invasion, calling on Saddam to disarm and submit to inspections, or face "severe consequences",





What is now first, was once insignificant. Blair did the same thing, shifting emphasis from WMDs to human rights.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
PS: if we're going to support UN Security Council resolutions, when is Israel going to move out of the Golan Heights? I think those resolutions were passed in 1967.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Quote:

Dave said:
The difference between Europe and the US is that Europe has only participated in one war since WW2. I'd run out of fingers if I counted the number of wars the US has been in since then.




Since WWII, Europe, or nations thereof, have participated in the wars in Palestine, Malaya, Korea, Suez Canal Zone, Kenya, Cyprus, Suez, Borneo, Vietnam, Aden, Radfan, Oman, Dhofar, Northern Ireland, the Falklands War, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and a number of other locations.

Often their involvement stemmed directly from their lingering history of colonialism. One could argue that a war stemming from colonialism is also a war of "agression."

Furthermore, had the United States not provided the bulk of funding for NATO and, essentially, protected Western Europe from the Soviet Union (and each other) for fifty years, we can only speculate on how many other wars they would have been involved in.

As for your comment "you guys have Indians stuck on reservations," you apparently imagine, inaccurately, that reservations are some sort of forced ghetto and Indians are without the same rights as other U.S. citizens.

Indians have suffered many forms of unfair, or even brutal, treatment through our history. But they are not "stuck" on reservations. They are free to live any where in the nation they wish. They have full citizen rights and can be elected to any public office. At least one United States Senator is an Indian (Ben Nighthorse Campbell). How many Jews, pray tell, held elective office in Nazi Germany?

Furthermore, if we want to keep moving further and further back into history in some sort of moral tit for tat, we can discuss Europe's role in the crusades, the Roman Empire, etc., etc.

Of course, all of which would be silly, if not futile.

The point of all this is that no nation is all good, nor is one all bad. Rather than base our foreign policy decisions on the imagined superiority of other--also flawed--nations we should base it on what is strategically and otherwise justified as being in the best interests of our citizenry.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge
4000+ posts
fudge
4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Dave said:
Furthermore, if we want to keep moving further and further back into history in some sort of moral tit for tat, we can discuss Europe's role in the crusades, the Roman Empire, etc., etc.

Of course, all of which would be silly, if not futile.






The problem with that arguement is that the USA is a relatively young nation compared most European nations. That being said, the older nations are bound to have seen more strife, tyranny, torture and violence.
Hell, If we are too look at it that way, my own nation would be susceptible to serious consideration, what with the vikings having pillaged, raped and murdered throughout hundreds of years.

That is why it's futile to argue such a case




Racks be to MisterJLA
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Your death will make me king!
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Great point, Chant.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
I seriously think Chant is my favorite European and/or liberal on this board.

Even when I a disagree with him, or (as I think is the case here) we come at the same point from different angles, he makes a good point or two and does it very politely.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
I had a thought today about Europe's attitude towards the US and, while I make no claim as to its veracity, it's worth pondering.

The United States started as European colony. The vast majority of Americans are at least partially descended from Europeans. Our culture is largely a melting pot of European ideas, language and culture. Until recently, our nation was populated primarily through European immigration, first the British, Dutch and Germans and, later waves of Irish, Italians, Russians, etc., etc. Even Hispanics/Latinos have a connection to Europe through Spain and other colonization of this hemisphere.

Is some of our ongoing tension with Europe essentially caused by what is viewed by Europeans, perhaps subconsciously, as a parent-child relationship? Does Europe view us as the child that they can't let go of, the way that some parents never can really admit their kid is now an adult?

Just a thought. I'm not sure how I stand on it one way or another.

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge
4000+ posts
fudge
4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
I think you actually have a point there G-man, it really could be that Europe views America like a child. Like a teenager that has reached puberty.
It sounds crazy, but that really might be it.
Never thought of that before




Racks be to MisterJLA
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
I think its more like a Pete Townsend complex they see us an child, but they keep hoping theyll see us fucked over!

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
FOR WHOMOD:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64626-2004Jan30.html
Quote:

No Evidence CIA Slanted Iraq Data
Probers Say Analysts Remained Consistent

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 31, 2004; Page A01


Congressional and CIA investigations into the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons and links to terrorism have found no evidence that CIA analysts colored their judgment because of perceived or actual political pressure from White House officials, according to intelligence officials and congressional officials from both parties.



Richard J. Kerr, a former deputy CIA director who is leading the CIA's review of its prewar Iraq assessment, said an examination of the secret analytical work done by CIA analysts showed that it remained consistent over many years.

"There was pressure and a lot of debate, and people should have a lot of debate, that's quite legitimate," Kerr said. "But the bottom line is, over a period of several years," the analysts' assessments "were very consistent. They didn't change their views."

Kerr's findings mirror those of two probes being conducted separately by the House and Senate intelligence committees, which have interviewed, under oath, every analyst involved in assessing Iraq's weapons programs and terrorist ties.

The panel chairmen, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), and other congressional officials said in recent interviews that they found no evidence that analysts shaded their findings to more closely fit the White House's known desire to create the strongest, most urgent case for war with Iraq.

The conclusion that analysts did not buckle under political pressure does not answer the question of why the intelligence reports were so flawed. Nor does it address allegations -- made by Democrats in Congress and Democratic presidential candidates -- that top Bush administration officials misused intelligence and exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq.

On Wednesday, former chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kay told a Senate committee that he no longer believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the war. And he called for an independent inquiry into why U.S. intelligence agencies believed the opposite.

The White House, which has said it opposes such an outside inquiry, has said final conclusions about Iraq's weapons programs and U.S. intelligence cannot be made until the Iraq Survey Group, the inspection agency Kay used to lead, completes its work.

"I want the American people to know that I, too, want to know the facts," Bush told reporters yesterday. "I want to be able to compare what the Iraq Survey Group has found with what we thought prior to going into Iraq." Bush added that Hussein was a danger and "we dealt with the danger. And, as a result, the world is a better place and a more peaceful place, and the Iraqi people are free."

There were instances before the war in which intelligence analysts said they sensed pressure to reach certain conclusions, but the House and Senate investigators said there was no indication they bowed to such wishes.

Last year, for example, some analysts at the CIA complained to senior officials when Vice President Cheney made multiple trips to CIA headquarters to question their studies of Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda.

And analysts at the Defense Intelligence Agency told investigators they sensed pressure when civilian Defense Department leaders constantly questioned why their analysis had found only tentative links between al Qaeda and Iraq.

But "their constant message" to congressional investigators was "they didn't buckle to pressure," another congressional official said.

Neither the CIA inspector general nor the agency's ombudsmen received any complaints about outside meddling, a senior intelligence official said. Added one congressional official: "There were no anonymous calls, no letters, nothing."

The CIA, congressional intelligence committees, Kerr's team and the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are investigating how the CIA analysis missed the mark so widely.



That is a more difficult question to answer and a much more complex problem to fix than situations in which analysts are improperly influenced by elected officials, intelligence experts said. The congressional committees have found that CIA analysts relied too heavily on outdated, circumstantial intelligence and on information from unreliable informants.

Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week that he had talked to CIA analysts and had found no evidence of "inappropriate command influence."

"And, you know, almost in a perverse way," Kay added, "I wish it had been undue influence, because we know how to correct that. We get rid of the people who in fact were exercising that. The fact that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem of understanding what went wrong. And we've got to figure out what was there. And that's what I call fundamental fault analysis."

Kerr said the "analysts believed that the evidence supported their judgment. Whether it did or not is another question."

The CIA maintains that it is still too early to say that its assessment was wrong because the search for weapons is not over. There are still millions of pages of documents to be read, hundreds of sites to visit and thousands of Iraqis to be interviewed, the agency says.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said Kerr's and the committees' findings mirror the CIA's view of its analysts' work: "We have long said and still say that our analysts didn't change their assessment of Iraq because of any outside pressure."

In fact, some analysts have told Kerr and congressional investigators that they welcomed the attention of Cheney on his visits.

"Analysts are very independent people," Kerr said. "When they get pressure, they tend to react the other way. They find it quite easy to stand up" to superiors. "It's kind of the culture."








....let the whomod spinning begin!

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
...and tho you prolly think im kidding i actual look forward to seeing whod twist facts to his opinion!

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398
Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..."
15000+ posts
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..."
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398
Likes: 38
That doesn't change the fact that blahblahblah neocons this, neocons that, conspiracy...Haliberton...Cheney, where was Bush on 9/11...? he duped the American public...lies, lies, lies, the average American doesn't question things like I do, since I care more and am smarter...here in California...blahblahblah.


Signed,

whomod.


"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?"

[center][Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com] [/center]

[center][Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com][/center]
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
ZOD Offline
2000+ posts
2000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,016
ZOD asks if these accusations have been discussed yet? Very interesting if they turn out true.

The Beneficiaries of Saddam's Oil Vouchers


Behold! The sabered Head of Uschi shall give death to Zod's enemies! CLICK and know DEATH! KNEEL before ZOD!!!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Quote:

Chant said:
it really could be that Europe views America like a child. Like a teenager that has reached puberty.




Or even the adult child who, in the eyes of the parent, is still their "little baby" who can't take care of themselves.

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
JQ
Offline
2000+ posts
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
It's the complete opposite. Many politicians in Germany think the US treats them the same way. I was reading in the economist that some US diplomat made that exact analogy about Germany rejecting the war, that they were just an angry teenager yelling at their parents.


FREE SCOTT PETERSON! "Basically, you've just responded with argumentative opinion to everything I've said. And you respond with speculations, speculating that I'M speculating. "- Wonder Boy
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Likes: 2
I dont think that I just think germany and france are wussies....

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
More irony from the "Axis of Weasels." Reports London's Daily Telegraph:

    "President Jacques Chirac was fighting last night to regain control of a fast unravelling scandal encircling his political power base...M Chirac seized charge of an inquiry into alleged telephone taps, break-ins and violent threats against judges investigating Alain Juppé, the former prime minister and [Chirac's] heir apparent, convicted on Friday of organising illegal party funding.

    The extraordinary intervention came the day after the justice ministry announced it would investigate the allegations.

    His gazumping of his own ministry indicates the seriousness with which he is taking the insinuation that he or his allies tried to pressure the judges in the Juppé case. . . . M Chirac has also been implicated in the case which brought down Juppé, involving the use of Paris town hall money to pay salaries to party employees.


It will be interesting to watch how the development of this scandal affects the American presidential election, since President Bush is likely to face an opponent who thinks French approval is necessary to lend "legitimacy" to U.S. foreign-policy decisions.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Quote:

whomod said:
it is becoming clearer and clearer that the "imminent threat" case was false.

In this case, weapons of mass destruction and the immiment threat Hussein supposedly posed to us were the chief arguments. Absent proof of this immiment threat, those arguments were just a false pretext for military action. In addition, they make this government appear negligent of the horrors Saddam had been inflicting on his people during his time in power. The rhetoric, of course, was that Saddam was about to attack us. And that he was linked to al Qaeda.





Interestingly enough, the San Francisco Chronicle had to run the following correction Saturday (second item):

    A story Thursday about weapons inspector David Kay's Senate testimony incorrectly quoted President Bush as saying before the war in Iraq that Iraq posed an "imminent threat'' to the United States. The president never used the word imminent. In the months before the war, the president in speeches and appearances described the "threat'' posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq in a variety of ways, including "serious,'' "grave'' and "terrible.''


Funny how the same people who tell us that "BUSH LIED!!!! " keep repeating the lie that Bush described the Iraqi danger as "imminent."

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952
Likes: 6
Quote:

JQ said:
Many politicians in Germany think the US treats them [like] an angry teenager yelling at their parents.




Must be that tactic works with Germans.

According to this story, Germany is starting to come around:

    Germany is seeking to distance itself from France's tight embrace and realign itself more closely to Britain and America...

    They said the row with Washington over Iraq had been "catastrophic" for Berlin and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had become "a prisoner" of President Jacques Chirac's campaign to oppose the war to topple Saddam Hussein last year.

    "We were more dependent on the French in that situation. But this will not be a permanent situation," said one authoritative source.

    Another official explained: "We have to be careful that we are not identified with every word that the French president utters. We must have our own identity and be a little more clever."


So much for the claim of America losing "credibility" with its "allies" over the decision to liberate Iraq.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367
Likes: 13
Quote:


The point of all this is that no nation is all good, nor is one all bad. Rather than base our foreign policy decisions on the imagined superiority of other--also flawed--nations we should base it on what is strategically and otherwise justified as being in the best interests of our citizenry.




I think that's a very fair point, although I disagree on one level, philosophically.


Quote:

the G-man said:
I had a thought today about Europe's attitude towards the US and, while I make no claim as to its veracity, it's worth pondering.

The United States started as European colony. The vast majority of Americans are at least partially descended from Europeans. Our culture is largely a melting pot of European ideas, language and culture. Until recently, our nation was populated primarily through European immigration, first the British, Dutch and Germans and, later waves of Irish, Italians, Russians, etc., etc. Even Hispanics/Latinos have a connection to Europe through Spain and other colonization of this hemisphere.

Is some of our ongoing tension with Europe essentially caused by what is viewed by Europeans, perhaps subconsciously, as a parent-child relationship? Does Europe view us as the child that they can't let go of, the way that some parents never can really admit their kid is now an adult?

Just a thought. I'm not sure how I stand on it one way or another.




Australia is a European colony. We don't have the same issue with Europe.

I personally think its a cultural issue. Simply because Europe, North America and a few other states are lumped together as "The West" doesn't mean that we share exactly the same values and ideals (broadly speaking, we do).

Similarly, France and the UK are two of the few other countries capable of readily deploying force at a distance (to put it in perspective, when Australia sent a big contigent of troops to East Timor - which is geographically close to Australia- all Australians were subject to a special "East Timor levy" of 1% of our annual salary. France and England, like the US, cheerily toss troops to all corners of the globe with no impact on their economies). The big kids don't always play well together in the yard.


Pimping my site, again.

http://www.worldcomicbookreview.com

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
terrible podcaster
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
Quote:

the G-man said:
    Germany is seeking to distance itself from France's tight embrace and realign itself more closely to Britain and America...

    They said the row with Washington over Iraq had been "catastrophic" for Berlin and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had become "a prisoner" of President Jacques Chirac's campaign to oppose the war to topple Saddam Hussein last year.

    "We were more dependent on the French in that situation. But this will not be a permanent situation," said one authoritative source.

    Another official explained: "We have to be careful that we are not identified with every word that the French president utters. We must have our own identity and be a little more clever."


So much for the claim of America losing "credibility" with its "allies" over the decision to liberate Iraq.




Dependent on the French.

That's enough to make me lose my appetite.

DEPENDENT ON THE FRENCH!!!

For some reason, the words national suicide come to mind.


go.

ᴚ ᴀ ᴐ ᴋ ᴊ ᴌ ᴧ
ಠ_ಠ
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
Rob Offline
cobra kai
15000+ posts
cobra kai
15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
Quote:

Dave said:
Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
lemme ask a question to the antibushites:

say there are no wmds. say there never were any wmds. say the white house knew that, and there was never any justification for an iraq invasion and/or war.

say you're right about bush being a criminal.

the question: why?

why do it? where's the motive? shouldn't that be a factor you're naming? did i miss it?

where's the reward? the benefit? the evil sub plotline that skeletor reveals to he-man just before he pulls the "death lever" (but then, of course, he-man breaks free and saves the day).

because republicans really just hate france that much? a mass ploy to one-up the UN? to get a shoppers high by needlessly spending billions on a military effort? to enrage democratic sponsors? to secure iraq's oil ...which we haven't secured? to lend creative storylines to jla arcs? to elevate the popularity ranking of internet message boards?

every super villain, even the lamest adam west batman tv show villains, have some sort of driving force -- namely because you can't make a villain without one.

if america/republicans/coalition of the willing/bush (etc) are as evil as you say or as evil as you want them to be... what is the reasoning for their misdirection?




A friend of mine in the oil industry says that there is 30 years of oil left in the world. He is the CEO of an oil services company (he puts things called "chritmas trees" on the sea floor, which pump up fuel).

Even if he is wrong, there is a finite amount of oil left in the world.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army cannot successfully wage an extended war for the same reaosn the Japanese lost WW2. Neither of them had a strategic oil reserve.

And now the US has one, a big one, just to the east of Saudi Arabia.




you think an oil reserve was the culprit behind all of this? the debt, the debates, the military action, the global animosity, the lost lives, the years of dedication etc, etc. ... all for an oil reserve?

i find that difficult to believe for a few reasons.

namely: at best, what the US currently has in iraq, it already had in saudi arabia - a "friendly" relationship with an oil-rich country.

secondly, within a short time (ranging from a few more months to a few more years), the US is giving 'the keys' to the entire country, including the oil, to the people of iraq (thus, missing: one oil reserve).

above and beyond the fact that the ends in that scenario don't even compare to the means.


giant picture
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
Rob, please tell me that you don't actually believe Saudi Arabia is a friendly nation. Please tell me that you meant that in jest.


<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
RDCW Profile

"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs

"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
Rob Offline
cobra kai
15000+ posts
cobra kai
15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
Quote:

the G-man said:
According to this story, Germany is starting to come around:

    Germany is seeking to distance itself from France's tight embrace and realign itself more closely to Britain and America...

    They said the row with Washington over Iraq had been "catastrophic" for Berlin and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder had become "a prisoner" of President Jacques Chirac's campaign to oppose the war to topple Saddam Hussein last year.

    "We were more dependent on the French in that situation. But this will not be a permanent situation," said one authoritative source.

    Another official explained: "We have to be careful that we are not identified with every word that the French president utters. We must have our own identity and be a little more clever."





to me, schröder always seemed honest. he'd frequently bring up cost issues or even selfish (to germany) issues (like not wanting to jeopardize the growing german economy). as a world leader, that may or may not be a problem, depending upon perspective. but, as a country leader, i'd never fault that attitude.

chirac, on the other hand, just seems like an ass hole, trying to one-up anyone he can in a pissing contest -- like he'd disagree simply for the sake of disagreeing. "nut uh, we have power, too" (followed by stereotyped "honh honh honh" french laughter).

i don't think that germany was ever in the same league as france.

hell, i don't even think france was in the same league as france. ... i'd like to think chirac was way further overboard than any frenchmen.


giant picture
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
Rob Offline
cobra kai
15000+ posts
cobra kai
15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
Quote:

PenWing said:
Rob, please tell me that you don't actually believe Saudi Arabia is a friendly nation. Please tell me that you meant that in jest.




its really no different than our relationship with iraq. "friendly."


giant picture
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
Quote:

PenWing said:
Rob, please tell me that you don't actually believe Saudi Arabia is a friendly nation. Please tell me that you meant that in jest.




its really no different than our relationship with iraq. "friendly."





Right. Good. I was worried for a second there.

Except that the US has a chance to put into place another failed puppet government to protect it's interests. Then "Iraq-friendly" may be a little closer to friendly. But, don't think for a minute that they wouldn't jump at the chance to kill us. Hell, they blow themselves up on a regular basis.


<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
RDCW Profile

"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs

"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
Page 15 of 43 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 42 43

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0