Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
MtnGoat

Report: U.S. Finds Missiles with Chemical Weapons

Recommended Posts

I understand where you war supporters are coming from. I don't think anyone would ever argue that the average Iraqi was a repressed individual living under the threat of violence from a violent dictator. Under those circumstances, I think most folks would be inclined to celebrate now that the wicked bastard is apparently gone.

 

My point of contention though as it has always been, is that I really don't believe the U.S. & Britain had a right to break numerous international laws under the pretense of wiping out WMD (which have yet to be discovered) and declaring a link between Saddam and Al Queda (which has yet to be proven). Now we're talking about liberation but that was never the initial context of justification for the war.

 

We've been totally conned into believing that we're part of some noble cause celebre but the path to how we got there was anything but noble. Rather, in my mind at least, it was illegal and illegitimate.

 

Sometimes I feel that it's just not worth arguing about anymore because it would appear that almost everyone believes the popular media without question and to be a dissenting voice is an act of futility. cry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JG, I think the position of the U.S. now is clear. Either get on board or get the hell out of the way. You're right though, there's little left to argue about. Bring 'em on home now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What are you anti-war people thinking now that the civilians in baghdad are celebrating the US involvement?"

 

They'll be kvetching and wondering why they're on the wrong side of history when it comes to standing up to socialist regimes which take their own people to basements full of torture gear...... the left has once again screwed the pooch ragged.

 

Now of course they'll all say they didn't support Saddam, that's been the fallback all along. But they did just want to be so careful he stayed around for a few more years at least, and then got the opportunity to turn over his personal playground to one of his psychopathic kids.

 

A lot of folks constantly told us this wasn't in their name, and we can make sure the Iraquis know who, as we do, who didn't support getting rid of Saddam *now*.

 

NO more delay, no more allowing Saddam to run rings around western hand wringers with full intent.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right you are, Trask: there is no comparison. Clinton was elected; Bush wasn't. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job and failing to get away with it; Bush has repeatedly lied about his justification for this war and so far he's gotten away with it. The corruption in the Clinton administration was junior league compared to Bush, too. There truly IS no comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattp said:

Right you are, Trask: there is no comparison. Clinton was elected; Bush wasn't. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job and failing to get away with it; Bush has repeatedly lied about his justification for this war and so far he's gotten away with it. The corruption in the Clinton administration was junior league compared to Bush, too. There truly IS no comparison.

 

Uh huh, yup, exactly. rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif Nuff said. thumbs_down.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattp said:

Right you are, Trask: there is no comparison. Clinton was elected; Bush wasn't. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blow job and failing to get away with it; Bush has repeatedly lied about his justification for this war and so far he's gotten away with it. The corruption in the Clinton administration was junior league compared to Bush, too. There truly IS no comparison.

cry.gif This all you got Matt? yellowsleep.gifyellowsleep.gifyellowsleep.gif

This must be a sad day for you...Bush and his storm troopers won the war. yelrotflmao.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just want to be clear about a couple things:

 

1. how many people have to die before the US should feel the need to get involved? I don't say the UN because as history shows, it doesn't matter how many people die, the UN will never take a stand...see Rwanda and Kosovo.

 

2. What makes war legal?

 

From slate dated feb 14

Nowhere does that resolution say war is an option only after inspections have been utterly exhausted. Rather, it states a) that Iraq is already in "material breach" of several U.N. resolutions going back to the 1991 cease-fire; b) that the Security Council is giving Iraq one more chance to comply with its obligations; and c) that if it commits another breach—by failing to disarm completely, by making false statements or omissions in its stockpile declarations, or by failing to provide inspectors with "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted" access to everything and everybody they want to see—then there will be "serious consequences."

 

Nobody today, except the Iraqi ambassador, tried to claim that Iraq has fulfilled its obligations. Nobody tried to argue that "serious consequences" means something other than military action. Nobody disputed that, just three months ago, the council's 15 members passed Resolution 1441 unanimously—not casually or unwittingly so, but after seven weeks of negotiations, in which Secretary of State Colin Powell altered the language to meet French reservations.

...

 

And I'm so tired of people saynig that just because you don't think their position is logical, that they must be the prey of the popular media. Give me abreak. I never said we were going there to liberate Iraq. I said it was one motivation.

 

I was reading Colin Powell's book the other day and one of his phrases to live by is "Don't ever place your ego so close to your position that when your position goes, your ego goes with it."

 

You might want to think about that a bit. The anti-war argument has failed because it was flawed in the first place. The position is now gone and it's time for you to think about how you came to that position and how you might be a little wiser next time.

 

bigdrink.gifbigdrink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume our leaders verified the threat. I turst we didn't go to war on bad intel. If we did, I can't wait for the impeachment trial. Should be good viewing. Will be interested in Al Jazeeras take on the precedings. I would even support a war crimes trial against the whole cabinet if they based the war on lies (doubtful).

 

I've got my misgivings about this war. We're going to take it in the shorts (waves of terrorists). I've been reading a lot on the Al Jazeera web site. Our actions are fermenting hate towards our government, Al Jazeera doesn't help.

If we do find WMD the UN is proven impudent. What worries me even more are the other rouge nations. I'm resigned to the fact that one day before I die I'll wake up to the news that millions of (pick one): American/Germans/French/Spanish/Austrians have died due to a WMD. This war may delay or may accelerate this event, but it will not prevent it. When it does, I believe it will herald the beginning of a huge conflict. Maybe a dark age? Who knows?

 

It's all about OIL. When our hydrocarbon based economy goes the way of sailing ships we'll finally be able to ignore the idiots in the Middle East and all its problems. And without the money from oil, they can't afford WMD's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so the invasion is now close to or past the tipping point.

 

Now what are we going to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US reason for the war has been a shifting thing, depending on what people will believe. Al-Quaida, breaking the rules, WMD, terrorist support, oh, yeah, liberation, that's it, liberation. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad many people there are happy with the outcome, but the reasons we've been offered by our government are pure bullshit. I also don't think the oil alone is enough: sure, we'll make more money now, not to mention lucrative reconstruction contracts, and it will be the single biggest income opportunity for Bush's heaviest contributors, but MtnGoat does have a valid point that there are easier less risky ways to make money from the same source, albeit less money. No, I believe the real reason has to do with Empire and a vision for how the world will be run.

 

I haven't noticed anyone bringing up the Project for a New American Century around here, though I confess I can't bring myself to read all these threads. In case you're unaware, its a conservative think tank begun in 1998 and headed by Bill Kristol, publisher of the Weekly Standard. From the start they pushed for removing Saddam Hussein's regime, and the plan signatories include some familiar names: Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams (national security council director of mid-east policy) John Bolton (undersecretary of state), as well as non administration ubiquitous neo-conservatives Richard Perle and William Bennett. The gist of their report is to establish the US as the sole superpower in the world, able to act unilaterally and without regard for other's concerns. A PNAC book, Present Danger, is essentially the bluepring for Bush's foreign policy, and I think this drive for empire, which they prefer to call hegemony, is what Iraq is all about. It does call for the ability to wage unilateral war on several fronts all over the world and to urge the Israelis to abandon the peace process in favor a all out war with the Palestinians. Is any of this sounding familiar to anyone?

 

I'd go on, but I've already exceeded most attention spans around here, so I'll just make one more point. Its interesting to note that many traditional conservatives abhor this policy trend, which runs counter to the free-trade WTO plan for economic interdependence as the path to a safer world rather than this benvolent world dictator concept, where the world is described in the Weekly Standard's own words as "troubled lands [that] cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth be told, I could care less what happens globally as long as I'm comfortable, making a good living, getting laid on a regular basis, and privy to good friends and good beer. In my world it's all about ME. yelrotflmao.gifwave.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If for one second anyone believes we are in Iraq for the liberation of the Iraqi people I find that totally hilarious. It's a complete disgrace for our nation to make this claim at this point and anyone who is swallowing this b.s, or who says anybody here wanted us to lose this war deserves to be laughed in the face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, nobody wanted us to lose....... they just wanted to sit on the sidelines and allow Saddam to tell everyone to stuff it for a few more months, years, decades, while the proponents of ineffective inaction pat themselves on the back for their progressive/peaceful thoughts, resulting in nothing.

 

These folks and those here on this board made it quite clear, not in your name. Fine. None of the Iraquis now free from the secret police are in your name. None ending of sanctions, is in your name. None of the support for a new democracy, is in your name. You all made it quite clear actual, effective action wasn't in your name. Now you can take heart that the results aren't either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iain, we live in a po-mo world, the truth doesn't really matter. Liberation is mythology that makes us US citizens feel good about ourselves as a country, so expect it to be widely swallowed whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME bigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifbigdrink.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gifsmileysex5.gif

 

the_finger.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MtnGoat, it was only a little while ago you were beating the "threat" drum. Now its liberation. You used to believe in the power of the market, but now you're in favor of force as the foundation of foreign policy. Your principles keep shifting to suit your needs, just like the ends you use to justify your means keep shifting to whatever you think plays well to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×