Why I will never support Bush

[Peaches-n-Cream]

The military is a career choice for many people especially when there is a family history of service. I understand 33girl's and curlyag's points.

I had planned to write something else, but I am listening to a NYC Security Briefing.

Tom Ridge just raised the threat level to orange, and NYC is increasing patrols of the harbor and bridges and the air. Quite frankly I am scared. I don't know who is right or wrong. Saddam Hussein is a bad man and a threat to world security. There are other threats out there in the world. I am afraid that this situation has the potential to escalate to a Viet Nam type war.

So the Mayor of NYC just said that we shouldn't be scared and shouldn't change our plans or the terrorists will win. I am scared. I don't have any plans, but I certainly won't be traveling in the next few weeks.

The war seems to be inevitable. I just hope that all of your friends and family will be safe. I hope the same for our men and women in the military. God Bless.

[dnll7272]

If we do not so something about Hussain then we will have another epsiode of 9-11. I support Bush and his decisions, he is our presdient and we voted him in!

[The1calledTKE]

Originally posted by dnll7272
we voted him in!

Not all of us voted for him ,don't forget. Thanks to Florida Bush won. Gore won the popular vote. But that is old news.

[Cloud9]

Credibility Bomb


Doug Ireland is a New York-based media critic and commentator.


The "powerful odor of mendacity" (to borrow Tennessee Williams’ phrase) hung over George Bush’s primetime virtual declaration of war Monday night.

When Bush proclaimed that "The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," that was a lie. What are the "most lethal weapons ever devised?" Why, nuclear weapons, of course. That Iraq possesses nukes, or is even close to making them, is something for which Bush has been unable to provide any evidence that would withstand scrutiny. The United Nations’ inspectors have found none. And that which the administration has produced turned out to be fraudulent -- like the centerpiece documents about Nigerian uranium shipments to Iraq, which were childish forgeries.

Bush asserted that Iraq "has aided, trained, and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda." The last part of that was a lie. Pieces of the crucial document of U.S. "proof" that Saddam Hussein has aided his ideological enemy Al Qaeda -- a cut-and-paste British report assembled by Tony Blair’s public relations strategist, and recommended heartily as the fundament for this assertion by Colin Powell in his prosecutor’s brief at the United Nations -- turned out to have been plagiarized from a paper by a graduate student, based on data a decade old, and augmented by more plagiarizing from press cuttings.

Senior officials of both the British and U.S. intelligence services have told the press of their convictions that assertions of a Saddam/Al Qaeda connection are errant nonsense. For example, a British Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) report -- leaked to newspapers in the wake of Powell’s speech by senior spooks appalled at the way their work was being distorted by their political masters -- concluded there were no such links, and added that "We believe that Bin Laden views the Ba’ath as an apostate regime; his aim of restoration of an Islamic caliphate, whose capital was Baghdad, is in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq."

In a reflection of the chimerical nature of Bush’s "proofs," his speech did not even mention 9/11. And the day before the president spoke, the Baltimore Sun published a lengthy report showing that Bush’s obsession with toppling Saddam preceded 9/11 by nearly a year: at the very first meeting of his National Security Council, the Sun reported (on testimony from participants) that Bush ordered plans to be drawn up "for both clandestine and military action to topple the regime."

Saddam has, of course, sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers; but so has our "ally" Saudi Arabia -- and we’re not making war on the House of Saud.

Bush’s assertion in the speech that, when we bring "democracy" to Iraq at gunpoint, this "will set an example to all the Middle East" has been proclaimed as "not credible" in a secret State Department report ("Iraq, the Middle East, and Change: No Dominoes") leaked to the Los Angeles Times and published on March 14. The report noted that "Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements." Where democratic elections have been tried in the region‘s Muslim countries, the results have been victories for Islamist parties in Algeria (a result abrogated by a military coup) and in Turkey, and a strong showing by Islamists in Morocco.

This is not an argument against democracy, but a reminder that international politics is not checkers, but chess: one has to think eight or 10 moves ahead. Bush is no chess-player. His war on Iraq is a gift to the Bin Ladens of this world and to the extremist theocrats; it will fuel the fiery preachments of the Islamist mullahs, facilitating recruitment by Islamist parties everywhere, and creating a climate in which the creation of new generations of terrorists will take a quantum leap.

"War criminals will be punished," Bush intoned, "and it will be no defense to say I was just following orders." This from a president who, in his first year in office, used the U.S. veto power at the United Nations to reject the International Criminal Court set up to prosecute war crimes (while asserting the U.S. military’s right to be exempt from prosecution under international law).

Bush tried to blame France for causing the war by threatening to use its veto. What hypocrisy: since the United Nations creation, the United States has used its veto 76 times, and 41 of those vetoes in the last three decades concerned attempts by the United Nations to call Israel to account for its violations of multiple U.N. resolutions. Not just the Muslim world but many outside it find this record shockingly one-sided.

By asserting the United States' right to invade whomever it likes whenever it likes, Bush’s speech brought the world to the most dangerous moment in its history since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. A first-strike on Iraq, unprovoked by any aggressive act on Saddam’s part, will start a new nuclear arms race by countries that have nothing further to lose by creating a nuclear deterrent to the unchecked imperial power of Washington.

A first-strike on Iraq turns the United States into an aggressive power as a matter of policy, shreds the fragile framework of nascent international law and takes the global diplomacy back 70 years by making the United Nations as irrelevant as the League of Nations was in its ability to stop aggression.

Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, who was this country’s representative to the International Conference on Military Trials in August 1945 and the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials, told his colleagues then that "we must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

Bush’s Monday speech definitively threw that American principle into the trashcan of history. And that is ultimately more dangerous on a planetary scale than any depradation which Saddam has the means to accomplish.

[xo_kathy]

Originally posted by dnll7272
If we do not so something about Hussain then we will have another epsiode of 9-11.

Also old news, Hussein was not responsible for 9/11.

[dekeguy]

I wouldn't be so fast to consign the Army to a bunch of poor downtrodden people who joined because they were seduced by money for education and other benefits. My troopers are a good cross section of the citizenry who saw the Army as both an opportunity for personal improvement and a chance to do something positive for our country. We are a mix of regulars and reservists who have no illusions about the possible dangers we might encounter and no sympathy for those who complain that they really did not expect to have to do what they signed up to do.
My troopers are here because they are soldiers who believe that obligations are to be honored. My regulars are sharp, professional, and damned impressive. My reservists are a well motivated group of soldiers who are a mix of business people, professionals, skilled labor, and even law students like the CO. None of us are the poor disenfranchised who were seduced by promises of a free ride. This is a Combat Arms outfit, not some rear eschalon safe billet, yet these guys do not seek the easy ride. They are the finest men with whom I have been priveleged to serve.
Hold whatever opinion you choose, it is after all your right as Americans, But please spare us the condescention of viewing us as the hopeless who were exploited by slick ad campaigns to lure in the desperate.
Here where we are a bit closer to the reality of confrontation it seems pretty clear to us that that Saddam runs a supermarket to supply money, training, and nasty stuff to many terrorist groups. I see a very direct benefit to closing down the terrorist supply store. I see a direct connection to choking off the terrorist cowards who attacked New York and Washington by cutting off one of their principal supply sources.
I think its about damned time we took action to stop this terrorist business and I think the immediate campaign is just one of a continuing series of actions that may take years. No body ever said it was going to be quick and easy, but I think it needs to be done. I am an American soldier and that is my opinion, an opinion which will be respected just as much as I respect the contrary opinions discussed here.
dekeguy
Captain, USAR
Forward Deployed

[KuThetaChi]

Thank you for your post, I hold a lot of respect for you and your men. I would like to thank you for the job you do, and let you know that there are people who support not only Bush but what you are doing!!!

[lifesaver]

Yep. We heard all this before Desert Storm / Shield. Who here doesnt rememebr the left's threats and promises of "If we do this, our boys will be comign hoem by the tens of thousands in bodybags." oh and "Ooohh, Iraq has the 5th largest standing army in the world, we dont have a chance." Iraquis were surrenderign just for an MRE. The war was over in what, like 15 minutes? More people died in the plane crash in Souix City, Iowa in '89 than US service memebrs killed in the Gulf War. (not exact, but the us casualty list was around 200. + or - a few). The liberal left said the same thing even post 9/11, "oohh, no army has ever conqured Afghanistan." THe russians couldnt do it, and they tried for 10 years." We had a new govmt in there in like 10 days.

Also, I really dont care what the rest of the world thinks of us. We have the soviergn right to defend ourselves. I like the motto : oderint dum metuant (Let them hate so long as they fear)

I am not going to debate the politics of the post now, because I am at work, but wanted to post this much.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KuThetaChi
Thank you for your post, I hold a lot of respect for you and your men. I would like to thank you for the job you do, and let you know that there are people who support not only Bush but what you are doing!!!

And, in fairness, many support you without being particularly happy with the President's decision. That goes for those who did and didn't vote for him.

[chopper816]

Originally posted by Cloud9
And here you have the crux of the problem. Here's North Korea, waving around its nuclear weapons, and there's Iraq, in which, as all of the war supporters keep repeating, over 12 YEARS there has been no evidence of any such weapons. I mean, it's not like a nuclear weapon is a really difficult thing to hide either, they don't come in pocket sizes. Think about it. Trust me, we have alot more important things to worry about than Iraq, but don't worry, thanks to the war we'll all forget about it until it's too late.

nuclear weapons can come as small as a briefcase, russia had many left over from the old soviet days, and they pack a big punch. and now they cant account for all of them, so yes, a nuclear weapon is an easy thing to hide.


i dont care if some of you are anti war, thats your right, but here's what will really piss me off if this happens. you protest the war now, but lets say we decided not to go to war, and 5 or 10 years down the road, iraq attacks the us with a weapon of mass destruction. will yall be the first people to bitch about how we shouldve done something about it earlier and how the president blew it. b/c if you are one of those hypocritical people, then stop wasting my time and quit posting, but if you wont do that, then thats fine.

I dont understand why people are against this war, diplomacy has failed, you tell me what else can be done? THERES BEEN 12 YEARS OF DIPLOMACY!!!!! if you think all of a sudden somethings going to happen, then youre pretty naive. we need to protect ourselves, and if that means going to war, then so be it. people need to stop being so uptight about going to war. saddam and iraq are a threat that needs to be eliminated, thats all there is to it.

and one last thing, some people are so mad and fed up with a military conlict, then you can leave, no one is forcing you to stay, but it comes off in the way that you like to use your freedoms, but when we have to fight to preserve them or let others get a taste of it, youre totally against it. why dont all those people go try living in iraq, iran, and others like it, then you come back and tell me if its worth it. and if youre still anti war, then you can stay and get introduced to the moab, or "the mother", choice is yours.

[1browngirl]

Originally posted by chopper816
and one last thing, some people are so mad and fed up with a military conlict, then you can leave, no one is forcing you to stay, but it comes off in the way that you like to use your freedoms, but when we have to fight to preserve them or let others get a taste of it, youre totally against it. why dont all those people go try living in iraq, iran, and others like it, then you come back and tell me if its worth it. and if youre still anti war, then you can stay and get introduced to the moab, or "the mother", choice is yours.

I'm sorry but why do people always resort to saying "if you dont like it then leave?" the same thing was said when African Americans protested for civil rights back in the day...if you don't like it go back to Africa!" This is my country, we and yes I mean we, have a right to protest the hypocrisy of this war and we have a right to voice our public outrage with the idiot that calls himself president. We don't have to go ANYWHERE!


Firstly: Its all about his father and the Gulf War, its all about oil. Plain and simple...no beating around the bush (pardon the pun.) There are other countries that have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, N. Korea for instance, but are we waging war against them, no.... we're not. Why? Ask yourself that question.

Secondly: Is this part of that so-called war against terroism that he calls himself fighting? Because if I remember correctly, Saddam Hussein was not behind that, Osama Bin Laden was, or have we all forgotten about him because the president certainly seems to forgotten about him. That's the bad guy, remember that. What a joke. What have we done lately to make the US and the world a safer place, have we captured Bin Laden...can we get back to that.

Thirdly: My mom always used to say "take care of your own backyard before you start messing in someone elses." We have problems here in the US: unemployment, homelessness, education, the economy. Let's trying getting a few things straight here before we run out and try to save the world. He doesn't even care about whats going on here, since it doesn't directly affect him or his family, why should he care.

I cannot wait until 2004, he's had four free years on us, as a country we are in worse shape now than we've been in a decade. If we sit back and allow this man to be re-elected, we deserve everything we get.

Don't get me wrong, I support our troops.... I have family and friends who are fighting and supporting our country but I DO NOT agree with what THAT man is doing in the name of so-called democracy.

[Cloud9]

hahahahaha, that's such a tired stereotypical response, "just get out if you don't like it." Nah, I'll stay JUST to piss people like you off. If I don't like it I won't leave, I'll work to change it. It's not my right to leave, it's my right to STAY and argue for that change.

Just as an addition to what dekeguy posted. Unless i am mistaken, if you enlist in the Army you are allowed to choose your own MOS or branch of service. This means that yes, if you join for college money and have no desire to die for this country, then you can choose a combat service support branch, such as Ajuditant(can't spell) General, or Medical Service Coprs or other branches that do not put you directly in harm's way. I am in no way belittling the jobs of those branches, i'm the son of two MSC officers and was headed that way myself until my plans were derailed.

The North Korea argument is a Red Herring. First of all, one of the countries that has the most to fear from N. Korea's weaponry is China. I believe if Kim Jong Il(or whatever his name is) starts murdering, gassing, and torturing his own people(like Saddam) and it gets to a point of real threat, the Chinese will be more than ready to step in and stop him.

Secondly, if Bush had bypassed Iraq and instead set his sights on Korea, the anti-war rhetoric would be parallel statements with N. Korea substituted for Iraq and vice versa.

The saudi people may harbor anti-American beliefs but at the end of the day, their ruling party knows what's best for them. They are our allies and don't sponsor the killing of innocent Americans. The argument about the 9/11 hijackers being from SA and therefore we should "take care of" SA is about as relevant as the argument that we should wage war on upstate New Yorkers after what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. (OKC bombing)

Lastly, the "we've got problems here" issue is also invalid. As much as Americans don't like it, i believe the fact that we are the last superpower obligates us to not play the role of global policemen per se, but at least the role of global watchdog. Things left to the UN to work out end up with thousands of innocents dying.(see Rwanda) Yes, innocents may be killed in Iraq, but if they are, it is MORE Saddam's doing than ours. It will be due to his practice of using them as human shields and not to the overzealousness of our troops or grave errors.

To our soliders and our president:

Gig 'em. I'm behind y'all. Come back safe and soon.

Kitso
KS 361 times i look forward to the liberation of Iraq when the truth about the Hussein regime is revealed and a bunch of anti-war protestors have to eat crow.

[chopper816]

Originally posted by 1browngirl
I'm sorry but why do people always resort to saying "if you dont like it then leave?" the same thing was said when African Americans protested for civil rights back in the day...if you don't like it go back to Africa!" This is my country, we and yes I mean we, have a right to protest the hypocrisy of this war and we have a right to voice our public outrage with the idiot that calls himself president. We don't have to go ANYWHERE!


Firstly: Its all about his father and the Gulf War, its all about oil. Plain and simple...no beating around the bush (pardon the pun.) There are other countries that have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, N. Korea for instance, but are we waging war against them, no.... we're not. Why? Ask yourself that question.

Secondly: Is this part of that so-called war against terroism that he calls himself fighting? Because if I remember correctly, Saddam Hussein was not behind that, Osama Bin Laden was, or have we all forgotten about him because the president certainly seems to forgotten about him. That's the bad guy, remember that. What a joke. What have we done lately to make the US and the world a safer place, have we captured Bin Laden...can we get back to that.

Thirdly: My mom always used to say "take care of your own backyard before you start messing in someone elses." We have problems here in the US: unemployment, homelessness, education, the economy. Let's trying getting a few things straight here before we run out and try to save the world. He doesn't even care about whats going on here, since it doesn't directly affect him or his family, why should he care.

I cannot wait until 2004, he's had four free years on us, as a country we are in worse shape now than we've been in a decade. If we sit back and allow this man to be re-elected, we deserve everything we get.

Don't get me wrong, I support our troops.... I have family and friends who are fighting and supporting our country but I DO NOT agree with what THAT man is doing in the name of so-called democracy.

it sounds like your blaming bush for the economy, unemployment and the rest of the problems we have. remember, the economy started going in the tank when clinton was still in office, and instead of trying to fix it, he was out campaigning for democrats in 2000. if anything, blame clinton for playing politics by allowing bush to take over a souring economy for political reasons. also, hes tried to make the economy better, however, who has stood in the way of progress??? education has and is being worked on, and homelessness is just a false issue. there is no way this will ever be solved, and its not a national issue, its a local issue b/c every city is different and will have to deal with that issue differently.

also, bush hasnt forgotten about bin laden at all. lets look at this from a common sense standpoint. its more efficient to wage another war and look for a wanted man than to put all your resources in finding one man. their hunt for him hasnt stopped, its just not all over the news anymore b/c there are other issues that are covered, and honestly, in a world of 6+ billion, you think its going to be easy to find one man?

if you think this is purely about oil, then you are naive. yes, oil is an issue, but think about it, going in there, changing things for the better and not touching any oil is dumb. he starts a war, its all about oil, he doesnt take it, people bitch about gas prices and how he didnt capitalize on the opportunity to take some. iraq is a threat, and here is my question to everyone, do you want to wait until one of your loved ones is dead b/c of iraq to see they are a threat? do you want to take the chance of losing someone you love just to let a dictator do his own thing? thats what happened on 9/11, people thought bin laden could be contained in the middle east, and look what happened, thousands of americans dead b/c he was allowed to do his own thing. i was told by my chapter president one time, he said this is what his dad told him, learn from your mistakes, and never try to make the same mistake twice, i know that applies here. you talk about how bin laden is the bad guy and you think saddam is not. remember, this is a guy who gassed his own people, and will kill his own people for no reason whatsoever, and thats not bad? you think that leaving iraq alone will make the world a safer place, this is what the war is about, trying to make this world and country safer. as far as n korea is concerned, trust me, if the powers in that region cant set them straight, then believe me, theyre next.

not trying to attack or offend anyone, but im racking my brain trying to figure out why my point of view is so hard to understand.

one last note, the economy here always improves after a war, so if someone starts talking about the cost, remember, that is a political issue and the money will come back in the economy after the war, it always does.

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
Just as an addition to what dekeguy posted. Unless i am mistaken, if you enlist in the Army you are allowed to choose your own MOS or branch of service...

And another thing... don't make the mistake I did when enlisting in the Air Force (eighteen years ago) -- DON'T sign up in an 'open' General, Mechanical or Administrative category -- this lets the service place you in a career field they're hurting for people in. Open General - most likely you'll be trained as a cook or a cop; Open Mechanical - probably a crew chief; Open Administrative - supply or admin clerk. I signed Open General and wound up being a cook. Luckily I was sent to cook's school before being sent out to my first duty station. (I hung up my chef hat and apron soon after I got out; the only time I cook is for myself or to entertain friends and family.)

The North Korea argument is a Red Herring. First of all, one of the countries that has the most to fear from N. Korea's weaponry is China. I believe if Kim Jong Il(or whatever his name is) starts murdering, gassing, and torturing his own people(like Saddam) and it gets to a point of real threat, the Chinese will be more than ready to step in and stop him.

Ya got the Kimster's name right. The North Koreans are derisively known in some circles as DANKs (Dumb-A** North Koreans; referring to the ruling Commie leadership, not the people.) The Russians and the Chinese got him cornered anyway for the time being.

Secondly, if Bush had bypassed Iraq and instead set his sights on Korea, the anti-war rhetoric would be parallel statements with N. Korea substituted for Iraq and vice versa.

The Saudi people may harbor anti-American beliefs but at the end of the day, their ruling party knows what's best for them. They are our allies and don't sponsor the killing of innocent Americans. The argument about the 9/11 hijackers being from SA and therefore we should "take care of" SA is about as relevant as the argument that we should wage war on upstate New Yorkers after what Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City. (OKC bombing)

Lastly, the "we've got problems here" issue is also invalid. As much as Americans don't like it, i believe the fact that we are the last superpower obligates us to not play the role of global policemen per se, but at least the role of global watchdog. Things left to the UN to work out end up with thousands of innocents dying.(see Rwanda) Yes, innocents may be killed in Iraq, but if they are, it is MORE Saddam's doing than ours. It will be due to his practice of using them as human shields and not to the overzealousness of our troops or grave errors.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. BTW the Saudis have a huge royal family running things, not a political party.

To our soliders and our president:

Gig 'em. I'm behind y'all. Come back safe and soon.

Kitso
KS 361 times i look forward to the liberation of Iraq when the truth about the Hussein regime is revealed and a bunch of anti-war protestors have to eat crow.

Whoop! My sentiments exactly!