Perspective

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:31:32 GMT, "Bill Walker"

<snip>

As opposed to what, being considered a pussy nation? <g> We tried
being nice and it didn't work. Look what it got us. Plus there is a
difference between invading a country just because we can versus going
in to a country to remove a person that was a threat to even his own
people. Saddam signed a treaty after Desert Storm and agreed to very
specific terms. We did nothing to him till after he decided to go back
on his word. He was given every chance to honor his agreement but
chose to thumb his nose at the US and lost. End of story. Have you
forgotten what happened in the past when another country reneged on a
treaty? It brought about WWII. Remember that? Germany signed a treaty
at the end of WWI and Hitler decided to ignore it in the mid 30's. At
first he looked for ways around the treaty (tons of money in to rocket
and jet research since piston powered fighter planes were a no-no) but
later on decided to just ignore the treaty all together. At the time
no country was willing to step forward and put Germany back in line
because they were worried about the opinions of other countries along
with how their own people would react to such an effort. They didn't
want to upset the voting public and get kicked out of office. We
learned from that mistake. How many lives could have been saved had
the leaders of all the other countries, us included, done something
sooner instead of putting their heads in the sand and pretending it
would be all right? We got what we deserved back then for that bit of
arrogance. The world community gave Germany the time it needed to
build up such a force. Had Hitler not pushed his plan up by two to
three years he would have had a military no one could have touched and
the world would be speaking German right now.

Yes, things were distorted and lied about to sway the general public
to back the attack on Iraq. That I will not even try to debate. But
just imagine what would have happened if GW had gone ahead and sent
troops in to Iraq without public approval? You think thinks are a mess
now?

Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com

 

"Things were not distorted".. George Bush and his administration downright
lied to the American people to get this country into a declared war.. They
tried to lie to the world community to justify that war.. The world did not
support this war..

Your references to Germany, Hitler and WWII are timely and should be
considered.. This administration parallels the strategy of the Nazi when
Hitler came to power.. Germany became an aggressive nation and has worked to
dispel that image since 1945.. Win, lose or draw..in Iraq, George Bush has
placed that same onus on our country.. America is an invader in Iraq, an
occupier and intruder.. The American taxpayers will be paying for this
insanity for many generations to come..

It was necessary to go to Afghanistan, bomb the blazes out of anything that
resembled Osama bin Laden.. We are not beholden to control that region of
the world or any other region of the world.. That was what caused Hitler to
lead Germany into WWII.. He'd decided that Germany would be an Aggressor
Nation and control Europe..America went into WWII with the blessings of the
world .. not to control the European nations..

Our presence in the middle east is a strategy to politically control and
shape that region .. We are the Aggressor Nation .. There is no "pussy
nation" definition of America.. Never has been and never will be..

Bill Walker

 

You refer, I suppose, to WMDS. And, it certainly appears that there were
none. Yet. the intel services of every major country were convinced Saddam
had them. We knew that he had not only had them, we knew he'd used them.

We STILL don't know what happened to them.

In order to establish that a person lied, you have to KNOW two things (based
upon more than "faith") You have to KNOW that the statement was inaccurate,
AND you have to KNOW that the person making the statement knew, at that
time, that the statement was inaccurate. We're pretty sure of the first.
We don't know the second.

cheers

bob

 

While the whole "world" did not support the war neither did the whole
"world" oppose the war. We are not the only country that went in to
Iraq or have you forgotten that already? Some of the loudest opponents
to the war were proven to have disobeyed the embargo of Iraq during
Desert Storm and sold stuff to Iraq anyhow. Goes to show their
objection was only to try to protect themselves, not due to them
wanting to be the good guys. The "lies" that got this ball rolling are
a moot point right now anyhow. As they say hindsight is 20/20. We are
already over there and need to worry about how to get things worked
out so we can pull out our troops ASAP. The only thing that really
pisses me off about the whole thing is that it is mainly US and
British troops paying the price for something that in the long term
will benefit world stability. Other countries that are doing nothing
other then bitch about the war will gain from this too.

Every time I hear someone dredge up the same old line that "this
administration parallels the strategy of the Nazi when Hitler came to
power" it makes me want to laugh. How can you even compare the two?
There is none. Has GW invaded anything more then Iraq? One country
does not equate to world domination which was Hitler's plan for his
3rd Reich. And are we putting our own people in charge of Iraq? I
don't think so. As far us the US's "strategy to politically control
and shape that region" we gave other countries a chance to join in
help in the effort but they were too chicken. They left it up to us
not by our choice. Yes, we have started them off with leaders that
favor the US but their position is not permanent. They can and might
be voted out once everything is up and running and they hold their
next election. All we are doing is giving them a chance to be free of
a dictator and be able to guide their own destiny. Care to tell me
where's the bad in doing that? So can you prove to me that GW has
taken full control of Iraq for the rest of time to back up this claim
that GW is the same as Hitler?

As I said there is no comparison to Hitler and GW. The only comparison
is in regards to Hitler and Saddam. They both went back on their own
agreements and got what they deserved. Is that so hard to understand?
Or should we have waited another 10 years for things to have gotten
worse and allowed a lot more people to die so we would have had the
approval of the entire world so no one would think we were too
aggressive? We need to worry about ourself, not what a handful of
others might think of us. So I could care less if some other country
is worried that if they piss us off too badly we might get mad at
them.

Also, there are different levels of aggression. If all aggression is
so bad how would you rate you own little aggression last week? You did
not go in with force to take over someone's property. You went in to
stand up for what you thought was right. You did not care that others
didn't share your opinion of what was right or wrong. All you cared
about was what you felt you had to stand up for with total disregard
for anyone else. How does what GW did differ from what you did. If
GW's aggression is so bad then what does that say for your actions?

Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com

 

That's always the fun part when you're dealing with information
gathering (intel). You are only able to get a handful of all the
pieces from the puzzle. For the rest of the puzzle you have to make an
educated guess about it using just what info you were able to gather
beforehand. I spent 9 years in the Air Force working for a command
that was responsible for monitoring the testing of nuclear weapons by
other countries that signed the nuclear test treaties of the 60's and
70's. Since we did not have open access to all the countries or their
programs we had to do the best we could with what we could get and
report it as we saw it.

Ruppster

 

LOL.. I thought that was where you were going.. I went to Breckenridge
without representing anyone but Bill Walker.. I went there for two men that
I believed would be there.. I made those intentions very clear.. My actions
only involved me and those two men, unless someone else just wanted to be
involved.. Fortunately, there was no one else involved..

I'm not a leader of an entire nation and it is my own ass that is being
placed at risk or in harm's way.. You've thrown a Straw Man into the mix..
What happened at Breckenridge last Saturday isn't comparable Hopefully..
the president of the United States and the administration that surrounds him
represent their constituents.. I don't represent anyone but me.. I also take
the consequences for my actions and don't rely on others paying them for
me..

Bill Walker

 

Yes there is a comparison between the two. GW was elected as the main
representative of the US with the backing of congress. We have given
him the right to stand up for this country on our behalf as he feels
is best. He was elected based on what he stood for and being the
lesser of two evils by public vote. As your character made you stand
up for what you thought was right for yourself GW (as our elected
representative) stood up for what he thought was right for our
country. What he did and what you did were still acts of aggression
and both were handled in their own way. But since GW has been given
the responsibility to handle the US his act of aggression is on a
larger scale. You acted with force to prove a point and so did GW. So
to condemn GW for aggression when you have done the same thing I think
is nothing but ironic.

Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com

 

Damm!!! Good points on both sides guys.

 

Guess it goes to show you truly can have a civil discussion on usenet
when people can keep to opinions and not resorting to name calling.
<g>

Ruppster

 

Yep. And the "conclusion" is usually a judgment call, based upon the
balance of the information. And, there are ALWAYS reports that contradict
and analysts who don't agree. It is that from which most of the "Bush knew"
crowd draw their fiery conviction.

Figuring out "who's right" is always easier after the fact.

cheers

bob

 

hmmm... I don't think you really understand the form of government that you
live under.. The president of the United States is elected as the leader of
a free nation.. What you are describing is a ruler, exactly the same as
Saddam Hussein.. He was elected also, such as the elections under a dictator
would be affected.. There are three branches of our government that when
functioning, are there to put into place the safeguards that prevent our
president from taking actions such as you describe.. Those other two
branches of government were lied to and deceived into giving George Bush the
war option that he asked for.. The American people were lied to and deceived
by George Bush.. We know for sure that he lied to us about each and every
reason we attacked Iraq..

Nossir.. until our country is declared an authoritarian govenment, ruled by
a dictator, your concept of this government is misguided.. and dead wrong..

Bill Walker

 

Bill, you don't know anything of the sort. That's your OPINION, not a fact.
I'll even accept the possibility that you're right, but you don't KNOW it,
you just think it.

cheers

bob

 

My "concept of this government" is far from "misguided" and also far
from being "dead wrong". I also know more then you think. Just because
my views differ from yours doesn't mean I am automatically wrong and a
dumbass to boot. A "ruler" can do what he wants without fear of what
his people will think of him. And if someone tries to have him kicked
out that "ruler" can easily dispose of the thorn in his side however
he wants to. As you said GW was elected which means he has to answer
to the people one way or another and can be impeached for doing wrong.
As I said before GW invaded Iraq with the support of Congress. He did
not abuse his power and just do whatever he felt like. He followed
protocol. He acted as an elected official, not as a "ruler". If you
were unlucky enough to have been President at the time what would you
have done? Would you have stuck your head in the sand and let Saddam
have the freedom to do as he pleased?

As far as "The American people were lied to and deceived
by George Bush.. We know for sure that he lied to us about each and
every reason we attacked Iraq", if this was even close to being true
why hasn't he been impeached yet? Right now it is an assumption (as in
"assume") that he knew what the true intel was and made every intel
agent lie about the supposedly "true" facts, even agents from other
countries, in order to deceive Congress in to giving GW their support.
Do you have proof to back up your statement? Intel is a guessing game,
sometimes you get it right and sometimes you lose. I would rather err
on the side of caution then get caught with my pants down. Had GW done
nothing only for the US to get hit with a dirty bomb or a chemical
warhead (which he was known to use) from Saddam later on I would bet
the same people that are bitching at GW now for his preemptive strike
would still bitch at GW for not having done something sooner to
prevent it. Politics ain't perfect and he would piss off some people
no matter what he did. As I said before hindsight is 20/20.

Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com

 

Damm!!! Good points on both sides guys.
(pieface)


‘‘Yes, Bill, Ruppster, pieface, others, are making interesting
cases. This is what you call, a discussion of differences of opinion!
Both, have made very good points.’’ When one states one point of
view, I think yeah that is it.
Then the other states his, and I think, well maybe that is the better
point.
I will have to read more, I just wanted to stop here to say. I hope you
guys keep it calm, and no one gets perterbed.
Keep it as a gentlemens disagreement, it would be delightful. (2 cents
by Bjay)

 

‘‘In order to establish that a person lied, you have to KNOW two
things (based upon more than "faith") You have to KNOW that the
statement was inaccurate, AND you have to KNOW that the person making
the statement knew, at that time, that the statement was inaccurate.
We're pretty sure of the first. We don't know the second.
(cheers,bob)

‘‘Earlier I was stating how I was enjoying the onGoing debate here
about GW, Hitler Soddam,and the comparison of WWII, to Irag, and the
breckenridge conflict, and so forth. I named a few who were having the
main discussion, and I left out the gentlemen, who goes by bob.
Bob Thomas, I really like your statement above, describing whether or
not a person has deliberately lied. Never heard it expressed any
better. Tell me you read it somewhere! (kidding)
(cheers, Bjay)

 

Sounds good to me!

 

So which reason for attacking Iraq turned out to be true and
believable ?

There's "Sadam was an evil dictator".

What's the second one ?

WMDs ?

An Iraqi conspiracy with Al Qaida ?

A model for other Arab countries to follow ?

 

Yes, and the constitution also protects me from you walking around with
a bomb in your bag.

 

No, it is true if you read the sentence for want it says and not what
you think it says. It said that we knew that he had them and that he
used them. The use of the word "had" means past tense, versus the use
of the word "has". He had chemical weapons in the past and used them
in the past. This is a well known fact. As far as the chemicals that
were being referred to having a short shelf life while that is true
and that they were probably already expired at the time they were
being talked about the point was they were viable weapons during the
period he claimed he had no such stuff and was not supposed to have in
the first place. A leopard does not change his spots. If he was open
about his support to use the stuff in the past who's to say he
wouldn't use them in the future without hesitation.

No one called the other guys "idiots" nor was their opinion
disregarded. But it was just that, their opinion based on very little
fact. Had they had evidence to back up all their claims then that
would be a different story.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? A little over ten years ago
at the end of something called Desert Storm he signed a treaty that
disallowed him from having the stuff he was shown to have acquired
during the time frame he wasn't supposed to have it. Then when the
pressure was put on him for his disobeying some of the very rules he
agreed to he decides to break his promise altogether and disregard the
treaty completely. The reason we went after him this last time was not
because he used chemical weapons 20 years ago. It was because he broke
the treaty he agreed to that ended Desert Storm. If the treaty is made
invalid by the signing party then that means it is only fair to let
the attack on him be renewed. That is why he got his butt kicked. The
fact that he used chemical weapons in the past was to show that he was
not afraid to use them to begin with. No one ever claimed it was the
sole purpose of invading Iraq. As far as "killing hundreds of
thousands of people" that is far from the facts that I have seen. Even
the http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ website gives a lot lower number.
And it's not even close to a hundred thou.

There is a difference between opinion and fact. Just because you think
you know (your opinion) what happened does not mean that is really
what happened (fact) unless you have proof to back it up. So do you
have any proof to back it up? If so I would love to see it.

Then prove it.

Ruppster
sportster at dodge-semis dot com