Cindy Sheehan

[theknife]

nice list, laddie, but well out of context: the relevant lies, for the purposes of this particular discussion, are those which were used to actively promote and sell the need to invade iraq, as told by the people who were directly in a position to launch said invasion. this eliminates anyone in congress or in the previous administration.

that being said, it is certainly worth noting the pre-war comments of those Dems who were either too spineless to stand up to the administration in the rush to war or were too stupid to know they were being duped by the administration's bogus intel. but that's a whole 'nother topic.

[albed]

Originally Posted by Mazer

What lie, knife?

LIE -Singular knife. Can't you give a straight honest answer to a simple question instead of trying to bury it with bullshit?

[Sinner]

Nice commentary from the L.A. Times


Who speaks for Casey Sheehan?
DAVID GELERNTER

THIS NATION respects and admires Cindy Sheehan on account of her son's heroic death in Iraq. But the Cindy Sheehan spectacle has been another thing altogether. It's on hold now; perhaps it's over. But the protest echoes.

It's tragic that we don't seem to remember President Lincoln's words at Gettysburg, and Sheehan and her supporters don't either: "The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here." In the shadow of heroic deeds, words don't count for much. The Gettysburg Address is one of the rare exceptions.

Casey Sheehan's deeds were heroic. By laying down his life for this nation, he delivered the kind of message that is written in blood, that lives forever. Why on Earth would a loving mother choose to refocus the nation's attention onto her words and away from his deeds?

And what was Casey Sheehan's message? It had nothing to do with President Bush. It didn't even have to do with the war, necessarily. It said something much simpler: "I love my country."

His mother seemed intent on drowning out that message. At times she contradicted it. Some news stories about the mother's protest didn't even mention the son's name. In most, he passed through like a butterfly that is gone before you really see it. "Spc. Casey Sheehan, who was killed in an ambush in Baghdad last year…. " That's all you got; then it was right back to Cindy Sheehan's latest pronouncements.....

cont - LA Times


Ends with

"The news media have done Cindy Sheehan no favor. They only let a grief-stricken mother embarrass herself; it has been painful to watch. It's past time to shift the spotlight back to her brave son and his surviving comrades, where it has always belonged. "

Amen....

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Sinner

"The news media have done Cindy Sheehan no favor. They only let a grief-stricken mother embarrass herself; it has been painful to watch. It's past time to shift the spotlight back to her brave son and his surviving comrades, where it has always belonged. "

Amen....

as if.

like the right's been falling all over itself even acknowledging dead soldiers let alone shining "spotlights" on them. when ted koppel read the names of the dead when they were still below 600, sinclair group, the big conservative tv station owner refused even to broadcast the program, pulling it from cities reaching hundreds of thousands. in actuality the right much prefers the dead out of the way and invisible.

- js.

[albed]

Hmmm....I don't suppose you ever used your DJ work to do that yourself did you?



You must be one of those right wingers then, preferring the dead out of the way and invisible.

[daddydirt]

Originally Posted by theknife

nice list, laddie, but well out of context: the relevant lies, for the purposes of this particular discussion, are those which were used to actively promote and sell the need to invade iraq, as told by the people who were directly in a position to launch said invasion. this eliminates anyone in congress or in the previous administration.

there was no need to actively promote and sell the need to invade Iraq thanks to the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed by a president named Clinton. another fact conveniently forgotten tk, shame on you.

On Regime Change in Iraq

Believe it or not, the American call for "regime change" in Iraq didn't start with George W. Bush. For that, we must return to the days of the 105th Congress, when Bill Clinton occupied the White House. Recall a piece of legislation dubbed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" (Public Law 105-338). Not only did it call for Saddam Hussein's ouster, it also spelled out the goal of replacing his regime with a democratic Iraq.

Here's what the law says: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

You may think the Iraq Liberation Act was ramrodded down the throats of reluctant Democrats by a House and Senate dominated by conservative Republicans. Consider the final tally: The House passed the bill by a vote of 360 to 38, with 157 Democrats joining 202 Republicans and the House's one independent to back the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime. The act, with bipartisan cosponsorship of two Democrats and six Republicans, also passed the Senate by unanimous consent. And Bill Clinton signed it into law on Oct. 31, 1998, declaring at the time that the evidence was overwhelming that freedom and the rule of law "will not happen under the current Iraq leadership."

Yes, regime change has been articulated by the administration, world without end. Bush did it again during his televised news conference on Thursday night. But that policy, along with support for a defeated Iraq's transition to democracy, was embraced years earlier by Bill Clinton and a bipartisan Congress.

[theknife]

unfortunately, the desire for regime change is not a legal justfication for war, which is precisely why the Bush administration had to create a bogus case for invading Iraq.

if you looked around, you could probably find similar feel-good legislation addressing our desire for regime change in various countries such as iran, venezuela, cuba, north korea etc . however, this desire does not legally justify invasion and occupation...which is probably fortunate, considering how badly iraq turned out.

[albed]

Why are liberals so inclined to play lawyer? There was nothing illegal about the Iraq invasion or a heck of a lot of similar invasions. The real lawyers know that but the parrots just keep on squawking as if endless repetition will make it true.

[theknife]

looks like those on whom the task fell to make the legal and political case for war knew thier credibility was going to get sacrificed by the White House:

A former top aide to Colin Powell says his involvement in the former secretary of state's presentation to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was "the lowest point" in his life.

"I wish I had not been involved in it," says Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, a longtime Powell adviser who served as his chief of staff from 2002 through 2005. "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life."

no doubt good soldiers, he and Powell, and they tried to make the best of a bad situation:

"(Powell) came through the door ... and he had in his hands a sheaf of papers, and he said, 'This is what I've got to present at the United Nations according to the White House, and you need to look at it,'" Wilkerson says in the program. "It was anything but an intelligence document. It was, as some people characterized it later, sort of a Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose."

apparently the White House was hoping that if they threw enough shit on the wall, something would stick. sounds like Powell knew he could get fucked, bent over backwards to vet everything, and got fucked anyway. while he knew the White House could fuck him, he apparently didn't see George Tenet coming. big mistake:

"George actually did call the Secretary, and said, 'I'm really sorry to have to tell you. We don't believe there were any mobile labs for making biological weapons,'" Wilkerson says in the documentary. "This was the third or fourth telephone call. And I think it's fair to say the Secretary and Mr. Tenet, at that point, ceased being close. I mean, you can be sincere and you can be honest and you can believe what you're telling the Secretary. But three or four times on substantive issues like that? It's difficult to maintain any warm feelings."

Wilkerson doesn't quite come out and say Tenet was lying, but the inference is clear.

from CNN - text or video

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by albed

Hmmm....I don't suppose you ever used your DJ work to do that yourself did you?



You must be one of those right wingers then, preferring the dead out of the way and invisible.

asked and answered, and nothing to back you up. typical albed suppositions lol, and just as typically wrong. - js.

[albed]

You actually stopped playing music and read or played a reading of dead soldiers names?


Give us the story Jack. Where were you? How did it go over?

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

unfortunately, the desire for regime change is not a legal justfication for war

Sez who?

I think the argument could be made that a majority of Americans supported an invasion before Powell asked the UN for its blessing, though I admit I have no evidence to support this claim. It should have been enough for Powell to tell the UN, "Look at all of your sanctions that Iraq is violating, that's why you should support us." It wasn't until after the UN decided they didn't want us enforcing their sanctions and inspections that WMD's became an issue as a last ditch attempt to build a consensus. But here's the thing: the UN had decided long before that they wouldn't support a war, and the US had decided long before that it would pursue a war.

The WMD argument wasn't a justification for our war, it was an attempt to build consesus for a war we were going to start anyway. If the administration lied to the UN, so what?

But if you're so hung up on this issue I want to remind you of three truths:

• We knew Saddam wanted WMD's
• We knew he was capable of aquiring them because he had done so before
• We knew he was capable of using them because he had done so before, against Iraqis!

I don't know about you, but I feel like the world is a safer place now that he's behind bars, and you can bet that about 20,000,000 Iraqis breathed a huge sigh of relief when he was arrested.

Those reasons, combined with his past actions of firing missiles at our planes, violating the no fly zones, bribing UN officials, and generally abusing his power to rape his own nation of its wealth and culture more than justified his ouster.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Sez who?

I think the argument could be made that a majority of Americans supported an invasion before Powell asked the UN for its blessing, though I admit I have no evidence to support this claim. It should have been enough for Powell to tell the UN, "Look at all of your sanctions that Iraq is violating, that's why you should support us." It wasn't until after the UN decided they didn't want us enforcing their sanctions and inspections that WMD's became an issue as a last ditch attempt to build a consensus. But here's the thing: the UN had decided long before that they wouldn't support a war, and the US had decided long before that it would pursue a war.

The WMD argument wasn't a justification for our war, it was an attempt to build consesus for a war we were going to start anyway. If the administration lied to the UN, so what?

But if you're so hung up on this issue I want to remind you of three truths:

• We knew Saddam wanted WMD's
• We knew he was capable of aquiring them because he had done so before
• We knew he was capable of using them because he had done so before, against Iraqis!

I don't know about you, but I feel like the world is a safer place now that he's behind bars, and you can bet that about 20,000,000 Iraqis breathed a huge sigh of relief when he was arrested.

Those reasons, combined with his past actions of firing missiles at our planes, violating the no fly zones, bribing UN officials, and generally abusing his power to rape his own nation of its wealth and culture more than justified his ouster.

forcible regime change is flatly illegal under international law because it deprives a people of thier right to self-determination. and while i am not up on the specifics under US law and War Powers Act, i do know that if you have to defraud the Congress and the US people with false documentation to make a case for it, then that is illegal here as well.

and while your world may feel like a safer place, the rest of the world is not: number of terror incidents tripled last year from 2003, making 2004 the most active year for terror attack since 1985. and if you think these numbers are some kind of anomaly, bear in mind that the CIA has identified Iraq as having replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists. so rather than diminishing terror, we created a post-graduate course in terror with our occupation of Iraq that has spread to places like Egypt, London, Madrid, Iistanbul and others.

so here we are three years later and we are indeed left with three truths:
the war in Iraq was not necessary, it was not worth the cost because the world is not a safer place, and it is not winnable. so no matter how good of an idea you think iraq invading may be, it is a failure by any military or political yardstick you'd care to use.

at this point, my question to any Iraq war supporter would be twofold:
1) exactly how many american lives is war in iraq worth? 5000? 10000?
5000? unlimited casualties? put a number on it
2) exactly how is victory defined? reduction of car bombs to x per day? 50% of the population employed? reduction of insurgent attacks to x per day? electricity in bagdhad to 15 houors per day? specifically, what does victory in iraq mean?

your leaders cannot define the cost because they are locked into the consequences of thier decisions and they can't define victory because they don't know what it looks like. that's why they can only speak in bumperstickers.

i'll finish this rant with the words of CIA terrorism expert Michael Scheuer, on Hardball today:

O‘DONNELL: And, finally, the president has made the case that winning the war in Iraq is central to winning the war on terror and making sure that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda cannot take—harm the United States. Is that true, if we win there, will that help?

SCHEUER: No, ma‘am. The war in Iraq has broken the back of our counterterrorism effort. I‘m not an expert on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but the invasion of Iraq has made sure this war will last decades ahead and it has transferred bin Laden and al Qaeda from being man and an organization into being a philosophy and a movement. We‘ve really made sure that the war against us is going to be a long and very bloody one. Iraq was an absolutely disastrous decision.

so there's the bottom line: whatever you thought of Saddam, the consequences and cost of invading Iraq far outweigh whatever the percieved benefits were supposed to be.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

forcible regime change is flatly illegal under international law because it deprives a people of thier right to self-determination.

You can't take self determination away from a people that never had it in the first place.

and while i am not up on the specifics under US law and War Powers Act, i do know that if you have to defraud the Congress and the US people with false documentation to make a case for it, then that is illegal here as well.

I think I've made it clear that the American people didn't need to be defrauded to support the war. A lot of people were against it, sure, but not enough, or else it would never have taken place.

and while your world may feel like a safer place, the rest of the world is not: number of terror incidents tripled last year from 2003, making 2004 the most active year for terror attack since 1985.

It's a sign of the times, my friend.

and if you think these numbers are some kind of anomaly, bear in mind that the CIA has identified Iraq as having replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists. so rather than diminishing terror, we created a post-graduate course in terror with our occupation of Iraq that has spread to places like Egypt, London, Madrid, Iistanbul and others.

I havn't been carbombed today, and you know what, I'm not going to get blown up by a terrorist tomorrow either.

so here we are three years later and we are indeed left with three truths:
the war in Iraq was not necessary

Opinion, not fact.

it was not worth the cost because the world is not a safer place

It may be a scarier place (that's why we call them terrorists), but by and large the world is no more dangerous than it was before.

and it is not winnable. so no matter how good of an idea you think iraq invading may be, it is a failure by any military or political yardstick you'd care to use.

I happen to have a few choice yardsticks right here.
1. The US Army and Marines covered more ground during their invasion faster than any other invading force in history.
2. The civilian to soldier kill ratio is the lowest of any war.
3. It is statistically safer to be an American soldier in Iraq than to live in California, which has roughly the same geographic size and population.
4. Iraqi POWs (soldiers, not terror suspects) have been treated better than American POWs in every part of the world, and those prison guards who do mistreat prisoners are severely punished.
5. The people of Iraq have enjoyed more freedoms during three years of American occupation than any time in the previous two decades.
6. Politicians in Iraq are optimistic about their future and they're up to the challenge.
There are probably more, but it's late and I can't think of any more right now.

at this point, my question to any Iraq war supporter would be twofold:
1) exactly how many american lives is war in iraq worth? 5000? 10000?
5000? unlimited casualties? put a number on it

What's the point of giving an answer here? You'll reject any number greater than zero.

2) exactly how is victory defined? reduction of car bombs to x per day? 50% of the population employed? reduction of insurgent attacks to x per day? electricity in bagdhad to 15 houors per day? specifically, what does victory in iraq mean?

Victory will be achieved when the Iraqis are able to find their own answers to those questions, just like we're able to determine our own social and economic needs.

your leaders cannot define the cost because they are locked into the consequences of thier decisions and they can't define victory because they don't know what it looks like. that's why they can only speak in bumperstickers.

So they don't get re-elected. Even if the Republicans loose control of the federal government, that won't erase what has already been accomplished. Their fate may be sealed, but like it or not the political situation in the Middle East cannot be changed by elections on the other side of the Earth. Iraq is on its way to achieving self determination, and now that it's happened ask yourself, "Is this really such a bad thing after all?"

so there's the bottom line: whatever you thought of Saddam, the consequences and cost of invading Iraq far outweigh whatever the percieved benefits were supposed to be.

Even if one does outweigh the other, it doesn't cancel it out. We did some good over there, admit it.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

forcible regime change is flatly illegal under international law because it deprives a people of thier right to self-determination.

What is this, pretend I'm a fucking lawyer week? Where's the law you're referring to knife? And like Mazer said, how does it apply to a dictatorship? You're so completely full of shit on your very first sentence I just don't see the point in bothering with the rest of your crap. Why can't you argue your points with honesty and integrity knife?

Because you can't.

Why don't you adjust your viewpoint to reflect truth and reality? Again, because you can't.

Your reality is what's inside your warped head and you dedicate your life to convincing others that that is the truth instead of accepting the honest truth yourself.

[theknife]

^...and the house troll erupts!^


swissh...nothing but net

[legion]

Not really up to me to answer but I am bored

Originally Posted by Mazer

You can't take self determination away from a people that never had it in the first place.

Self determination or better the lack of it is not a valid reason within it self to start a war, not even an pre emptive one. If it was the u.s. had to invade Iran, North Korea, the city state Singapore, and even china. Since china invaded Tibet there actually is a legal argument.
Ever wondered why during the first gulf war countries were actually falling over each other to back the U.S. up? Why nobody bitched their asses off whether the U.S. invasion was right or not? Iraq invaded another country therefore Iraq posed a threat to the stability of the region if not the world (oil reserves) daddy Bush went by the book and got the backing and the U.N. resolution he wanted!
To make it even more sad not even the gas attack by Saddam on its own people is a proper reason to attack a country according to international law.

Originally Posted by mazer

I think I've made it clear that the American people didn't need to be defrauded to support the war. A lot of people were against it, sure, but not enough, or else it would never have taken place.

Saying that as long as the majority of the U.S. population wants a war it is a justification to attack any country on this by god-forgotten planet? An interesting opinion indeed!

Originally Posted by mazer

It's a sign of the times, my friend.

Or is it? How many times were U.S. soldiers abroad blown to smithereens by insurgents with car bombs, kidnapped or beheaded before the attack in Iraq?

Originally Posted by mazer

I haven’t been car bombed today, and you know what, I'm not going to get blown up by a terrorist tomorrow either.

True but than again thankfully you are not in harms way or close to it. I seriously belief that U.S. soldiers in Iraq might have a different opinion.

Originally Posted by mazer

Opinion, not fact.

Which he has every right to express but than again you never argued he couldn’t.

Originally Posted by mazer

It may be a scarier place (that's why we call them terrorists), but by and large the world is no more dangerous than it was before.

I believe people in London and Madrid beg to differ.

Originally Posted by mazer

I happen to have a few choice yardsticks right here.
1. The US Army and Marines covered more ground during their invasion faster than any other invading force in history.
2. The civilian to soldier kill ratio is the lowest of any war.
3. It is statistically safer to be an American soldier in Iraq than to live in California, which has roughly the same geographic size and population.
4. Iraqi POWs (soldiers, not terror suspects) have been treated better than American POWs in every part of the world, and those prison guards who do mistreat prisoners are severely punished.
5. The people of Iraq have enjoyed more freedoms during three years of American occupation than any time in the previous two decades.
6. Politicians in Iraq are optimistic about their future and they're up to the challenge.
There are probably more, but it's late and I can't think of any more right now.

1. If the armed forces didn’t dissolve the entire police and armed forces in Iraq in the first place there might be some law and order right now.
2. Meaning??? What exactly???
3. A man tried to cross a river once that statistically was only 2 feet deep on average. Guess what ... he drowned! Statistically I can proof about the most idiotic theory I can shove out of my mouth.
4. true no argument there other than that every great nation is measured by its level of humanity.
5. hmm I think I can dig up enough samples contradicting that one but it is late here too and I really don’t feel like it.
6. Of course they are but since the u.s. state department has their arms so far up their asses that it became kinda hard to say otherwise. Or did you actually expect them to say:”you know what, I think we are in serious shit here. Those who helped me into power also rendered my country in a state anarchy and we know shit what to do about it.”

Originally Posted by mazer

What's the point of giving an answer here? You'll reject any number greater than zero

can’t speak for some else but for myself that number will not be into the tens of thousands. With the passing of time and reaching higher levels of technology people seem more and more reluctant to sacrifice large amount of lives for what ever cause. The combined number of wounded and deaths have reduced significantly over time.
WW2.: 1,078,162
Korean war: 136,935
Vietnam war:311,471
Gulf war: 760

The only reason the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam is/was that the government lost the backing of the American people (which is the only way to force the military might of the U.S. to its knees)
Please note that I used the words pulled out and not lost since the U.S. never lost any major battle in Vietnam and therefore from a military point of view it actually was a success.

Originally Posted by mazer

Victory will be achieved when the Iraqis are able to find their own answers to those questions, just like we're able to determine our own social and economic needs.

I admit that is a tricky one. Before the ousting of Saddam car bombing were at an all time low as were the insurgents attacks. Okay enough sarcasm. That way you are actually laying the fate of an unknown amount of American men and women in the hands of a foreign power for an indefinite amount of time. No one can determine when social and economic needs are met. Some would be happy with medical insurance while others want a new computer system or a new dvd player and we all want an annual increase on our income.

Originally Posted by mazer

So they don't get re-elected. Even if the Republicans loose control of the federal government, that won't erase what has already been accomplished. Their fate may be sealed, but like it or not the political situation in the Middle East cannot be changed by elections on the other side of the Earth. Iraq is on its way to achieving self determination, and now that it's happened ask yourself, "Is this really such a bad thing after all?"

perhaps not, I guess time will tell

Originally Posted by mazer

Even if one does outweigh the other, it doesn't cancel it out. We did some good over there, admit it.

Yeah you did

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by toy boy

Not really up to me to answer but I am bored

As far as I'm concerned, if you've got a keyboard and something to say, say it.

Now, I don't believe any one reason justifies war, it takes a combination of things to come to that decision. I listed a few in a previous post. Iraq's former state of repression by itself was not the only reason to invade, nor was it the best reason. Whether invading a country that hasn't harassed its neighbors for a little while is illegal under international law is something I don't really know. I do know the only international law that the United States is obligated to obey is international treaty, the second highest law of our land as mandated by our highest law, the Constitution.

I believe people in London and Madrid beg to differ.

Well the citizins of Madrid might, but Londoners are tough bastards, and they proved it after they were attacked. Tragic as it was, they weren't going to let the terrorists rule their fears. The Spaniards on the other hand played right into thier attacker's hands by electing an anti-war prime minister. The terrorists won in Spain and they lost in England, and the important difference wasn't the body count.

1. If the armed forces didn’t dissolve the entire police and armed forces in Iraq in the first place there might be some law and order right now.
2. Meaning??? What exactly???
3. A man tried to cross a river once that statistically was only 2 feet deep on average. Guess what ... he drowned! Statistically I can proof about the most idiotic theory I can shove out of my mouth.

Had those police remained in place then here would be order, just as there was before, but very little law. I'm willing to bet that Iraqis prefer martial law American style to their former government.

theknife claimed that the war was a military failure. By citing the number of dead civilians compared to past wars I was giving one example of how our invasion was a military success.

You can try to prove anything you want to with statistics, but these statistics really are relevant. When the news reports the troop body count they should also report the percent of the total number of troops. In both world wars the mortality rate of American soldiers was greater than 2%, but in this war it is less than .2%. Interpret these stats any way you like, I choose to believe that soldiers in Iraq are fairly safe.

It is true that American soldiers haven't had to deal with a suicidal insurgency in past wars. They're generally not prepared for the special situations Iraq presents with its road-side bombs, its hidden arms cache, its leaky borders, etc. Should we give up just because this kind of conflict is unprecidented? I look to the progression of warfare over the past two centuries as an example of how resiliant and adaptive American forces tend to be. When rifles became accurate, semi-automatic, and easy to reload, our army stopped digging trenches and charging in straight lines to make themselves easy targets. When Japanese soldiers and civilians proved they weren't afraid to die, we nuked them to make their deaths pointless. There is as yet some military innovation to be discovered that will bring a quick end to American deaths in Iraq. Until that comes to pass we're trying diplomacy, and hopefully by building up the people themselves we'll make our military tactics obsolete.

[multi]

dont want to split hairs with you or anything ...but

The combined number of wounded and deaths have reduced significantly over time.
WW2.: 1,078,162
Korean war: 136,935
Vietnam war:311,471
Gulf war: 760

dont know about those other figures exept i just noticed
here
that in WWII there was about that many Chineese killed..wtf?

the total was like 55000000
and WWI was something like 15 000 000 , so that sort of cancels that idea out...

[theknife]

Originally Posted by toy boy

Not really up to me to answer but I am bored

well, don't look at me

some comments obviously are worth no reply at all but i'll go one round of quotes with most people - maybe two if valid points are being made. after that, i'm done. it's an act of mercy - watching people struggle to defend the indefensible gets painful after a while.