Those who have served

Those who have served:

Democrats

Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 196571.
David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 196872.
Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 196972.
Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
Bob Kerrey: Lt JG Navy 196669; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
Daniel Inouye: Army 194347; Medal of Honor, WWII.
John Kerry: Lt., Navy 196670; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat 3 Purple Hearts.
Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 194852; Bronze Star, Korea.
Max Cleland: Captain, Army 196568; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam.
Ted Kennedy: Army, 195153.
Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 196267; Naval Reserve, 196874.
Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 19711979; Captain, Army Reserve 197991.
Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 195676; Vietnam, DFC's, Bronze Stars, and Soldier's Medal.
Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
Pete Stark: Air Force 195557
Chuck Robb: Vietnam
Howell Heflin: Silver Star
George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
Walter Mondale: Army 19511953
John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFC's and Air Medal with 18 Clusters.
Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.



Republicans

Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
Tom Delay: did not serve.
Roy Blunt: did not serve.
Bill Frist: did not serve.
Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
Rick Santorum: did not serve.
Trent Lott: did not serve.
John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
Jeb Bush: did not serve.
Karl Rove: did not serve.
Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.
Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
Vin Weber: did not serve.
Richard Perle: did not serve.
Douglas Feith: did not serve.
Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
Richard Shelby: did not serve.
Jon Kyl: did not serve.
Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
Christopher Cox: did not serve.
Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (195457) as flight instructor.
George W. Bush: We all know the details on that
Ronald Reagan: due to poor eyesight, served in a noncombat role making movies.
B1 Bob Dornan: Consciously enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
Phil Gramm: did not serve.
John McCain: US Navy 195881; Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
John M. McHugh: did not serve.
JC Watts: did not serve.
Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
George Pataki: did not serve.
Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
John Engler: did not serve.
Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.


Pundits & Preachers

Sean Hannity: did not serve.
Rush Limbaugh: did not serve (4F with a 'pilonidal cyst.')
Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
Michael Savage: did not serve.
George Will: did not serve.
Chris Matthews: did not serve.
Paul Gigot: did not serve.
Bill Bennett: did not serve.
Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
Bill Kristol: did not serve.
Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
Ralph Reed: did not serve.
Michael Medved: did not serve.

 

I've never served in our nation's armed forces. Do I suck, too? Am I unpatriotic? Am I un-American? You imply that some of these men are unworthy to participate in the public sphere because they 'did not serve', does that mean that all who didn't serve are unpatriotic scumbags, or just the ones with whom you disagree. George Washington was the only Founding Father to serve our country militarily, are you ashamed that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Ben Franklin didn't? FDR, the president who saved the world, and Abraham Lincoln, the president who saved the Union, must be lesser presidents because they didn't serve and Jimmy Carter, who was impotent before the Ayatollah Khomenei, and Richard Nixon, the only president ever impeached, because they served, by your implied standards. Your cheap shot at these people's patriotism and fitness for office puts you in the same boat as the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice. (pun intended)

 

Actually I thought I was posting this under another ongoing thread in "Interesting Websites".....don't know how the heck I managed to post it here. Must have been half asleep since it was the last thing I did before heading to bed.

As far as a "cheap shot" or "implying" anything, I received this list in an e-mail and while I did find it interesting that most of the war hawks in this country have never served, I personally don't think serving in the military and serving in a political office have much to do with each other.

I don't like it when EITHER side tries to use lack of Military service as a reason that a person can't be an effective President, Senator, etc.

But I think we all know which side tries to use it the most.

 

Those are some great facts, I love em. I hate to ask, maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but what is the signifigance of the two dates?

As far as Kerry goes, he will deny owning much of the items mentioned, he makes it clear that it doesn't belong to him, he says it's his wife's. I am sure they file seperate taxes and she can blanket most of his earnings.

Being from Mass myself, I can't trust any politition from Mass. When Dukakis ran, I was beside myself. Relieved when he lost.

 

*smacks self in forhead*

For the life of me I couldn't figure it out lol

 

While we're talking "facts".

Maybe you should go read "The Project for the New American Century".....written for and by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), and others.

It calls for World domination by the United States, by force if necessary

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein was in power or not.

Quotes from the report:
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein".

"This American grand strategy must be advanced for as far into the future as possible"

"fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars".

"discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role".

Gee, a "New World Order", I wonder where I have heard that before?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


.

 

Good grief. I cannot WAIT till the election is over. Then, maybe, all the spewing will stop. Probably not, but one can hope.

 

If this is an "Interesting Website", where's the website link?

Prior to the Viet Nam war, most guys with political asperations spent a tour in military service, because people looked at that as important, specifically important for somebody wanting to be a politician. That attitude changed to some extent in the 60s & later, and military service is not quite so highly rated as a REQUIREMENT for politics. The WWII generation is dying off, and more and more, you're going to see politicians and every other field, populated by those that didn't do military service. Joining the military MAY imply that you love your country, (it's also been used as an alternative to prison, as a way out of poverty, or a way to get an education) but not joining doesn't mean you don't, and skills learned in the Army/Navy/etc. have NOTHING to do with politics, intelligence, or even common sense. As already noted, many of our wartime presidents had no military experience. That's what advisors are for.

And yes, this is a cheap shot. A cherry-picked list from the two groups proves nothing. I could probably put together another list of Republicans that served and Democrats that didn't. From this point onward, there will be a LOT of public figures of all kinds that didn't serve in the military.

Then why post this in the first place, since that's what the anonymous "pass it on" email is implying.

Do we? Kerry started waving his military service around from the get-go. He continues to push it. Primarily because his real record in Washington is VERY poor. And extremely liberal. And you can't run for president from a position that's to the left of Ted Kennedy. And regardless of his actions in Viet Nam, his actions after he got back infuriated a LOT of people, veterans and non-vets alike.

 

Quote by G.T.:
"If this is an "Interesting Website", where's the website link?"

I was talking about the "Interesting Websites" forum on this board.

Quote by G.T.:
"I could probably put together another list of Republicans that served and Democrats that didn't."

OK, why don't you, would love to see it.

Quote by G.T.:
"Then why post this in the first place, since that's what the anonymous "pass it on" email is implying."

I didn't say anything about it being "anonymous".

Quote by G.T.:
"Primarily because his real record in Washington is VERY poor. And extremely liberal. And you can't run for president from a position that's to the left of Ted Kennedy."

Coming to you directly from the Republican quote book. And when did being liberal become something that is bad for this country. OH...you must be talking about those extreme liberal causes like Social Security and Medicare, the things that George JR wants to rid us of.

Quote by G.T.:
"And regardless of his actions in Viet Nam, his actions after he got back infuriated a LOT of people, veterans and non-vets alike."

Well, you have every right to feel as "infuriated" as you like........just like John Kerry had every right to say what "he" felt.

.

 

You should have read this more carefully. Nowhere does it mention anyone other than Wolfowitz participating in this study, or where the official request came in. Perhaps you could show me where Rumsfeld or any others you mentioned are credited for active participation, as having quotes and opinions cited is a totally different matter.

Wolfowitz is listed as a member of the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, he job he held before he became Assistant Secretary of Defense, which indicates that the report was commissioned and prepared well before there was a Bush administration. You have to do better than this, stick with facts and stay away from kooky conspiracy theories.

 

Nah, they should have kept Clinton in the back room and made him give out the b... Nevermind

 

I feel sorry for America. You have to put up with such horrible politics.

 

Well, how about the "Statement of Principles" of the PNAC

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

While Wolfowitz may be the "Who's your Daddy" of the PNAC, Dick Cheney is one of the founding members and is probably the biggest contributor of what the PNAC is.

Members of PNAC:

Richard 'Dick' Cheney- PNAC member
Donald 'Don' Rumsfeld - PNAC member and Secretary of War
William Kristol - One of the founders of the PNAC
Paul Wolfowitz - PNAC member and deputy Secretary of War
John Bolton - PNAC member and undersecretary of state
Paula Dobriansky - PNAC member and Secretary for Global Affairs
Zalmay Khalilzad: - PNAC member and US Envoy to the Middle East
Lewis Libby - PNAC member and Cheney's "chief-of-staff"
Eliot Cohen - PNAC member and member of the Defense Policy Board
Devon Cross - PNAC member and member of the Defense Policy Board
Elliott Abrams - PNAC member and National Security Council, Middle East Affairs


I have to say there is so much interweaving of organizations that it's hard to tell who the players are without a scorecard. One thing is for sure, the SAME names keep popping up where ever you look.

Please have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Citizenship_Project


.

 

geez... if i had known this was going to be a political battle, i wouldnt have clicked on it

 

I noticed the thread where you intended to post this later. WOULD have been more appropriate there.

I'm almost tempted, but it would take hours. Did a Google search to see if anyone had conpiled a complete list, and couldn't find one. But you're email article notes 66 politicians, and Congress alone has 535, split roughly half & half. Which is why I noted that it was a cherry picked list, which doesn't mean anything.

No, I did. There is no author listed, and not substantiating links or sources to back it up. It's anonymous by definition, unless you can provide sources to back it up.

No, coming to you from the congressional record. In Kerry's 20 plus years, he has authored and passed 6 bills. One was a "save the whales" type bill for the fishing industry, which was credible. One was a bill to declare a "World Population Awareness Week", which was a non-issue and time waster. Then another one a year later to do it again. And another one to name a public building somewhere after somebody. I don't remember the other 3 off the top of my head, but none of them were serious bills about anything. His voting record, judged both by liberal and conservative groups that keep track of such things, rates him as the most liberal Senator in Washington, by his voting record over the years, not by his campaign organization. (The liberal activist groups were applauding him for it, the conservative ones condemning him for it, but they all agree as to where he stands.)

Talk about following a political playbook. Democrats have been scaring old folks with that for at least 20 years. Not true then, not true now.

I'm not a Viet Nam vet, and was not "infuriated" by it, as he was not personally calling ME a baby killer. I was, and am, offended by it, as it DID hurt the war effort, DID unfairly malign a lot of good men, and WAS a bunch of lies. He had no proof to back up what he told Congress as "truth", and men that served right along side him, on the same rivers, day in and day out, deny every seeing what Kerry says he saw. Maybe all of THEM are liars. Kerry's got a right to his opinion, as opinion, but he had, and has, no right to libel and slander, under oath. If I did that to you, you could sue me for both charges and drag my butt to court.

 

Maybe you should go here and check the "facts".

http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

And maybe everyone should go here before posting. It might cut down on the length of these debates.

http://www.factcheck.org/

 

I find their principles quite commendable. From the tail end of their own text:

This was written well BEFORE 9/11, and looks pretty prescient to me. Here we are heavily involved in one regional conflict, and are stretched too damn thin in case another one erupts somewhere else.

As far as us wanting to control the Middle East... it's a powderkeg, and one of the world's most strategic resources. SOMEBODY will control it. Maybe you'd prefer Bin Laden and his ilk rule it? We don't want to OWN it, we just want to keep it from blowing up in the world's face. Never, ever underestimate the importance of oil to the world. Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was over oil. Hitler's push into Africa and the Arab countries was primarily over oil. Wars have been fought over vital resources all through history.

You note in another post

as if that somehow proves our malevolent intent. That "two theater" capability has been the government's yardstick for having an adequate military strength for most of the post-WWII years. It's not a plan to use it, it's a plan to be prepared in the event of needing it. So one enemy can't take advantage of us while we're involved in another area. Like now. See above.

Chill bro, it's not as bad as the panic-mongers would have you believe.

 

No thank you. While the site is under the banner of the Annenberg group, which is pretty liberal in their own right, Factcheck.org answeres to nobody but themselves. And they're not as impartial as they'd like you to believe.

From their own disclaimer at the bottom of their "About Us" page:

I prefer to check my own facts where possible.

Washington Times

 

I found a list of members of congress who have served.

Here.


I noticed that more Republicans were Marines. Now we all know that only real men join the Marine Corps.

No, I'm not partial.

 

Good find Archangel. Doesn't look much like SportsNut's list, does it? LOL

And real women too these days. Which is OK. Marines are the only branch that hasn't watered down the training to make it easier for women to qualify.

No, you're proud.

 

I'm going out on a limb here and hope that the powers that be here will not ban me for doing so. It seems to me that there are two camps of thinking here that are battling for power. The one camp includes people (mainly Republican but not all Republican) who believe that we are justified in our moves into Iraq in order to resolve the tyrrany that we, as Americans, helped to put into power in the late 70's and early 80's in order to give us an ally in the middle east. It is true that Hussein was a monster. There is no doubt about that in the least but we entered a war in Iraq under what was false pretenses. It was declared to the American public and the world at large that we were going after Hussein because of his imminent threat of using WMD's against the free world and his neighbors. This was patently not true and has been proven as such by Bush's own committee. Now we are attempting to justify ourselves by focusing on Hussein's reign of terror on his own people.

The second camp is people (mainly Democrat but not all Democrat) that believe we have entered into a war illegally. That we need to uphold those accords that we have ratified with the United Nations and to abide by their findings NO MATTER WHAT OUR APPOINTED LEADER AGREES WITH. We broke International Law by invading a soveriegn nation without legal proof of his wrong-doing, only insinuating evidence that has since been rebuked. Now we have other nations that are just plain worried to death that they are the next to be invaded by the U.S. We have taken aggresive stances in our talks with Iran and Korea to name just two. We are starting another cold war that encompasses not two major powers but more volatile third world nations that do not hold the same sanctity of life that we hold dear. The attack on Afghanistan was legitimatized by the consensus of the United Nations. It had a direct line leading to 9/11 and the Taliban was openly supporting terrorists in the form of Al Quaeda. Iraq was not. There were groups in Iraq that supported terrorism but there has been no factual evidence that the Hussein government supported them. There are also groups in our country that have supported terrorists too, are we going to place all of them under arrest?

Anyway you look at it this is a no win situation. Do we continue with aggressive behavior towards nations that are already on the edge of religious or idealistic jihad or do we try to find another solution to this volatile situation. A solution that spreads the task of "policing" the nations with a significant task force of varied nations? I vote for the latter as we have opposed the former on many occasions in opposing unsanctioned invasions of sovereign countries by aggressive countries. And no, you cannot state that we are not agressors here. It is obvious for anyone to see that we are aggressive when it comes to trying to force our ideals, ethics and morals on others.

Now that I've probably ended my time on Major Geeks for this post, I wish to thank all that have listened in the past and hopefully I will still be here tomorrow. I'm off of my soapbox now.

Wraith aka Jack

 

I think you're selling a lot of people short, especially our moderators. I don't see anyone getting that angry. You laid out your opinion without personal attack or animosity. I also believe that it was not the most prudent course of action to take action in Iraq, though I'm of the opinion it was the result of miscalculation and sometimes even incompetence, not some bizzare Fu Manchu world domination plot. The same international community you would appeal to for help is the same one the people of Dharfur have begged for help. Unfortunately, while the international community disapproves of genocide, it has never been inclined to actually stop said genocide. When being black and non-muslim is no longer a death sentence in Dharfur, I'll consider the international community a viable solution; until it matches words with deeds, it's just a paper tiger.

 

Wraith, you're quite safe. Your post was polite and respectfully layed out. And most importantly, didn't get nasty or insulting to anyone.

Even before we went into Iraq, I griped that I wished Bush's team would rely less on the WMDs, which might never be found; Hussein was good at hiding things, and had plenty of time to move, remove, or hide what he didn't want to be found, and concentrate more on his refusal to comply properly with the many U.N. mandates for full disclosure, on his ongoing calls for jihad and attacks against Americans and American interests, and on his atrocities to his own people. Nobody seems to remember that he was paying $25,000 to every Palestinian family that strapped explosives to their kids in Israel and turned them into suicide/murder bombers. Direct financial support to groups that we had already tagged as terrorist organizations. And there have been fewer of the murder bombers in Israel since his money dried up. Not gone, but less. We are currently, and quite rightly, complaining about the U.N. inaction over Darfur, where possibly a million people may die. Iraq was just as bad as Sudan is today. We've already uncovered 300,000 bodies, and experts say we may eventually find a million there. So on the humanitarian side alone, Iraq was as worthy of military action as Sudan is. And he WAS in league with the other terrorist organizations, whether he had any contracts with Bin Laden or not. Hussein clearly HAD WMD programs, and clearly HAD WMDs, and clearly had an ongoing interest in continuing that, whenever it was feasable. And some things have been found confirming that, and quite a few insiders have confirmed it. He HAD trained terrorist in camps in-country, and those terrorists are sprinkled around the area now, as well as fighting up there. A LOT of material moved to Syria before we invaded, likely including whatever he had relating to WMDs.

So. He was a direct financial supporter of terrorist organizations. He was a very vocal advocate encouraging terrorism against us. Those alone qualify him under our heading of "those who harbor and support terrorists". He was a brutal murderer on the same scale as Sudan is today, which should have gotten him the same condemnation that we're hearing for Sudan today. He deserved what he got.

Just Playin, you're quite right about the U.N. They do NOT act agressively against much of anything. All they do is talk. There were U.N. "troops" in and around Rowanda when that massacre was going on. They sat back and let it happen. They're doing the same in Sudan. They did the same with Iraq. There were over 10 U.N. resolutions that threatened Hussein with military consequences before WE went in, and none of them had any meaning because they never follow up on their threats. And the world knows it, although a lot of the world pretends otherwise.

And the U.N. is corrupt at the core. Syria, one of the worst terrorist nations, was appointed head of the U.N. Security Council. Libya, terrorist supporter and one of the worst human rights abusers, was head of a U.N. commission on human rights. Insane. And while we were asking the U.N. to act on what they had already threatened and promised to do in Iraq, France, Germany, and Russia were getting oil and cash under the table, illegally, from scams using the U.N. Oil For Food program that was supposed to be providing food and medical supplies to all those sick and starving kids in Iraq that we kept seeing on the news. Who were the strongest opponents to invading Iraq? France, Germany, and Russia. Gee, what a surprise.

Tying our national security decisions to approval by the U.N. is both stupid and dangerous. They're not part of the solution, they're part of the problem.

And forget "peace keeping" and "policing" activities by the U.N. Those only work where peace has pretty much been established, and where MOST of the people, and the government, wants peace. Most of the countries on our blacklist would meet those peace keepers with all-out war, just as is the case in Iraq today.

For months we pretended we were "peace keeping" over there after the major thrust to remove Hussein. Didn't work. Which is why we've gone back to real military mindset in Falujah and other hot areas that are still clearly at war. And are having better success. It ain't pretty, but it's necessary.

 

Almost forgot. Having terrorist-supporting countries in fear that they may be next is a GOOD thing. Pakinstan has changed from very tolerant of, and a supporter of terrorists to one that's helping us round them up. Libya has voluntarily abandoned THEIR ongoing nuclear arms programs and turned their stuff over to us and the IAEC.

It would be a far better situation if ALL the worlds rational nations agreed about the threat and worked together to fight it, but fight it we must, or it will slowly, but eventually enslave the world. That's their goal.

The dynamics of Islamic expansion are very different than the growth of Hitler's Nazi party in Germany, but there are a few striking similarities. During the 30s, most of the world dismissed and ignored Germany as a threat. Even after Germany invaded Spain and was fighting there. That period was called the "Phoney War". Churchill saw the danger and was called a drunk, a nut, and a warmonger, while Chamberlain was lauded as a statesman and brilliant. All that changed the first day of the Blitzkreig, but by then it was too late for a relatively painless solution.

It's already too late for a relatively painless solution to the current radical Islamic movement, by quite a few years, but we're still in the Phoney War myopia, with most of the world ignoring and discounting the problem.

This one has the potential to be as bad or worse than WWII, although it will be spread out far more widely, be fought in little outbreaks all over the world, and will likely take many years to control. Not irradicate, as the Arab memory and goals are eternal as far as they're concerned. In their minds, this is just the long overdue continuation of the bloody expansion that was stopped by Europe in the Middle Ages. In France.

They've learned a lot since then. They've been studying Che Guevarra, the Viet Cong, and other successful models for insurrection, and they'll be a lot harder to target than thy guys in grey uniforms with swastikas on their arms. If they're stopped in one country, they fade back and regroup somewhere else. It's a lot like fighting c0ckroaches. But deadlier.

President Bush is easy to make fun of, and is NOT the sharp statesman that Churchill was, but I think history will show that on THIS issue, Bush was correct in his assessment.

And personally, I'd much rather fight them now, before they manage to get nuclear weapons. The cost will be much higher then.

 

GT, thanks for the kind words. I understand that my post was polite but being as controversial as it is and knowing that some emotions may be running a bit high at the moment I was momentarily concerned that my overly large mouth was about to get me into trouble yet again. It's good to see that it has not. I must disagree on a few vital points here.

Bush's administration has focused on WMD's because that is what we fear most. This is evident from the 30 + years of cold war with the U.S.S.R. Now that the Russian influence has diminished we needed another enemy to occupy our minds and the Middle Eastern countries fit the bill nicely. I don't know if you remember the gas crisis of the 70's but one of the top reasons given to the general public for the crisis was the U.S.S.R. influence over the middle eastern bloc countries that received support from them. Thus the reason for helping Hussein achieve power in Iraq after the Shah of Iran was removed. For many years the Shah was our "puppet" so to speak in that area and allowed us an influence over the OPEC nations. When he was removed we supported Hussein in the hopes that he would also provide us an opportunity. He did so while we backed him in the Iraq - Iran war and we provided him with the some of the same weapons technololgy we are now accusing him of developing. Basically he cut the price of oil to below OPEC's pricing and sold cheap oil to us thereby bypassing the crisis. In exchange we provided him with technology, something we have a bad habit of doing. Many nations have claims of jihad or of condemning our largely capitalistic society. We don't attack them out of hand and we should not have attacked Iraq. Especially when the pretenses we went into the country turn out to be unfounded. I seem to remember Bush stating that he had concrete evidence of WMD's that he could not release due to national security. Well, the crisis is over and still no concrete evidence has been released. If you read the "Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD" you will see that the further development of Iraq's WMD was actually to be restarted after the sanctions had been lifted, not during the period of time after the first Gulf War ended. Iraq did not have the capability at this time to carry out further development of it's WMD or Nuclear programs. It's as simple as that.

Then explain why we don't also go after some of the more influential politicians in our own country that have ties to groups such as the IRA, the Mujahedin, Indonesian Army (TNI), Mossad, and many others. You may state that these are official groups (some of which erroneously call themselves military) but I would argue that one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. What is going on in Dharfur is criminal and definitely needs to be addressed but must be addressed as a coalition and not as one nation by itself. If Germany were to attack another nation and justify it's actions with vague promises of revealing evidence that never comes to light, what would we think of those actions?

This is my point. The current administration claimed he was CURRENTLY developing these programs even when the evidence stated otherwise. There has been no evidence to the contrary since.

And so have we, so tell me, why aren't we prosecuting those officials that were in office during the training of "terrorists" in our own country? I don't completely buy the Syrian theory as I'm sure we have agents (or at least Israel does) in that country that would have turned up evidence of these moves. And correct me if I'm wrong, we have satellite coverage in that area that pinpointed 99% of Saddams forces and installations (including his mobile launchers) yet we did not track traffic from his suspected WMD sites? Do you really expect me to believe this theory?

Honestly, don't you find this a VERY broad brush to paint this picture with. By this definition we should in fact be invading both Mexico and Canada as I'm certain that both countries have supported someone whom we linking into terrorism.

The UN has no power because it has no military force of it's own in order to enforce that power. Do I advocate that the UN has full control over those countrie's military forces in order to enforce it's resolutions? I'm not sure, I will have to give some serious thought about it as it does pose problems with many different areas.

Whoa, hold the phones! A political organization corrupt at the core, say it isn't so!! (a joke here folks to lighten the mood)

Almost all political organizations have some level of corruption in them. It's the nature of the beast. It is important to be certain to implement a level of checks and balances in order to minimize those powers. As far as the Oil For Food (OFF) fiasco, there were U.S. citizens on that list as well. The reason you don't see them in the papers is merely because of our own privacy laws which protect our citizens but at the same time allow us to impugn the names of others who don't have that protection. I've always wondered why our protections of what we consider our rights don't always apply to foreign nationals? Should they not? Oh and speaking of privacy, you might find this an interesting read;

Secrecy in the Bush Administration

and this one too;

Homefront Confidential

I'm confused, are you stating that most of the citizens of Iraq want war and not peace? Or is it the government (such as it is) does not wish peace (remember, the government pro tem of Iraq is U.S. based and therefore that would mean that WE don't wish to have peace in Iraq)? Again, we find ourselves with the issue that the UN has no teeth and is therefore not a threat to the warring factions in Iraq. The one thing here I find overly ironic is that we are trying to establish a democracy in an area that does not wish to have a democracy. When you talk to the average Iraqi, and state that we are there to ensure their freedom, he starts to think about those freedoms that the European countries promised them for decades. Only to exploit their resources and their people during all of that time. With a track record like that it's no wonder they are fighting against becoming a democratic society.

I'm sorry if I don't see where we are having better success here m8. We are still at the same point we were back in May when President Bush declared the War in Iraq to be over. No, quite the contrary, if anything the citizens of Fallujah are more adamant about protecting their warriors there. I have friends over there right now GT and the reports I have gotten is not as rosy as the newscasts would lend you to believe.

Now, just to prevent confusion here. I fully support our troops in Iraq. I feel it is no fault of theirs that they are battling the enemy in Iraq. I reserve the right to disagree with the current administration in the U.S. and also reserve the right as a U.S. citizen to speak my peace as long as it is done in a responsible manner. I am a veteran of the United States Navy and would serve again if and when my country needs me (much to the woe of my wife who would not wish me to). I know that some of you may not agree with me or my views. That is fine with me, it is what makes our country so great. Diversified views on the issues.

I hope that I have expressed my viewpoints well and non-aggressively.

Wraith aka Jack

 

I'm sorry, I fail to understand why FEAR is a good thing. FEAR makes people act rashly without forethought or consideration for their actions. FEAR could make them even more dangerous than before.

Careful m8, you are starting to sound as paranoid as I.

Islamic expansion? I thought we were talking about REGIMES not RELIGION. This is not about religious expansion be it Islam, Christianity or becoming a Quaker. Don't cloud the issue with claims of religious crusades to save the infidel. Granted, it is a common cry within the terrorists camp but it is a smokescreen to cloud the real issues of power and money, not religion. Hussein invaded Kuwait for it's oil reserves and it's access to the gulf. It is opposed to Israel on many different levels including the possible threat of Israeli expansion into further Arab territory on what is ostensibly religious based ideals but also is very much economic in nature. Certainly there are religious overtones but it is NOT the reason that we are present in the Middle East. For that you need to look less at the spiritual reasons and more into the secular reasons.

Is this the same myopia that is focusing you on the religious aspect of this war? No, I disagree with you sir, I feel that if we stopped insisting on placing a viable democratic government into place in areas such as Afghanistan and Iraq and instead assist them in implementing their own form of government then we would see a marked improvement in relations there. But, we always know best right? Like when we allowed Ferdinand Marcos to establish his own form of democracy in the Philipines. You know the one, where he was "elected" into office for somewhere around 20 years....

You cannot control terrorism G.T. It is as futile as waging war against an ideal. There is virtually no way to end it except total annihilation of those whom hold that ideal.

Then let us study these examples as well. All that you have stated have failed in one form or another. Let us take it one step further. The Viet Cong have failed miserably and have started to allow capitalism into their economy (as well as China and other Communist regimes). Let us embrace that and expand upon it instead of fighting the ideal of the parent governments.

I am not making fun of President Bush. I would not do so as he holds too much power in his hand to take so lightly. Instead I'm worried about what the next four years will hold if we don't change the direction that our nation is currently heading in. His administration has engaged in restricting our rights and privileges, in antagonizing the world's nations in general, in degrading the world's view of the United States and our word as a nation in our foreign policies, in bringing us to the brink of a future that is terribly uncertain and could potentially be one of the most violent centuries in human history. President Bush, even now, is using fear tactics in his campaign against Senator Kerry. It seems as if fear is his only tool that seems to work and fear is NOT how I wish our country to be seen on a world level.

Nice debate so far. I hope we can continue.

Wraith aka Jack

 

Bush DID focus on the WMDs for an emotional response. Which I criticized, since there were more reasons than JUST that, and the WMDs might be (WERE) hard to prove. But if you remember all the rhetoric from all over the world, all through the 90s and before we invaded, the entire world believed they had them, including Interpol. Hussein was a consumate liar, and gave the impression to everybody that he had them. The fact that he either hid, moved, or got rid of them prior to our invading doesn't change the logic of the percieved threat. President Clinton signed a bill that Congress passed, back in 1998 stating that we were committed... then... to removing Hussein from power. Clinton just never caried out the official threat. Churchill didn't use such emotional arguments in the 30s, and was ignored. But Churchill was correct anyway. One of the most common human failings is the tendency to make decions based more on emotion than on logic. So leaders tend to play to the emotions rather than to logic, even when the logic is there.

Yes, I remember the gas shortages of the 70s, and our repetitive mistakes trying to make and buy allies in the middle east. None of them were, or ARE our friends. You can't buy either friendship or loyalty, and Arab culture is very good at playing one group off against another for their OWN purposes. They played us pretty well.

A freedom fighter is one that attacks a ruling group/government. A terrorist is one that attacks innocent civilians to create terror and influence opinion. Targeting the innocent is terrorism, whoever is doing it.

If there IS any coalition to help those in Darfur, it will be put together by us, not by the U.N. They won't do it. And there is only one solution to Darfur's problems; that would be to overthrow the existing Islamic government in Sudan. Nobody has the guts to do that. The killing, enslavement, and starving of the black non-Muslim population has been going on for a decade. With government approval and support. They've simply accelerated the pace recently. You can't "police" that.

We'd be very suspicious of them. Which is one reason I wanted us to us a broader and more realistic justification for going in there.

We aren't Superman, with x-ray vision. We do know that MANY truckloads of stuff moved to Syria before the invasion. We do not know what was on those trucks, nor where all it went. It's easy to shuffle things around in the dark and within warehouses. We can pinpoint what's visible; we can't pinpoint what's not. Case in point. Some time back, an informer led our troops to a spot where Hussein had buried some very sophisticated jet fighters under the sand in the desert. We did NOT know they were there, and jet fighters are a lot more visible and identifiable than anonymous covered truckloads.

Again, the last administration, and the rest of the world, claimed the same thing. Hindsight is wonderful. Sometimes hindsight proves you were wrong. The whole WORLD was wrong. BTW, proof that Hussein intended to crank the programs up as soon as sanctions were lifted are almost as incriminating as having them ongoing. It proves him to still have been a long-term threat, NOT an innocent.

Not the same thing at all. We, and they, know that some of them are there, but neither country is trying to HELP or support them. Under that criteria, almost every western country would be guilty, as most of them have some Islamic agents there.

The checks and balances are not there, nor can we implement or enforce them. Besides which, the U.N.s goals are not always our goals. Most of our enemies are members. They will not solve this.

As far as secrecy in the Bush Administration, Clinton's was just as secret, but Henry Waxman wasn't griping about Clinton's administration. The public's "right to know" is always limited in some areas, and is ALWAYS more limited in times of war, which we're now in.

Definitely not rosy. Heavy combat is never rosy. But the "insurgents" in Falujah are now trapped with a real ultimatum. Give up, turn over al-Sarkawi, or keep getting pounded into dust. We can't negotiate peace with them, as they don't WANT peace. We will either kill or intimidate them into quitting, or they'll continue forever. We've already "negotiated" a peace with Falujah, and it didn't work. And al-Sarkawi is a true terrorist, NOT an Iraqi, and one of the biggest instigators over there. He MUST be killed or captured.

And not all of Iraq is like Falujah or Sadr City. The entire Kurdish area is at peace, with NONE of our troops there, and other areas are pretty calm as well. We only hear about the areas where resistance is strong. And where we still have to fight.

We'll likely never all agree on what's best, and as you say, diversity of opinion is normal in a free society. As is civil debate over them. Sadly, sometimes the debate becomes pretty uncivil.
And yes, you express your views very well.

 

I'm taking the George Carlin route on this one. Its nothing more than two guys arguing over who has the biggest penis. It's all very childish if ya ask me. I'd vote for the first person to just come out & say this is what I would like to do, but no promises, and not take every little cheap shot at thier opponent. That would be the person to have in office.

The way I feel about taxes is just this......................

10% across the board. Everybody pays 10% of thier yearly earnings, no returns, no cuts, no breaks, no loopholes.

 

Thank you once again for a very stimulating response but you have slid over a few points that I feel MUST be answered for. If I may (and I won't post it over again, you can read back for the vitals):
1. The tactic of using Religion as a basis for war in the middle east as you proposed it.
2. Your thoughts on the religious jihad issue as rebuked by me (just curious here my friend).
3. Your thoughts on waging war on an ideal such as terrorism or religious zeal.
4. What are your thoughts on how Kerry would affect this world we find ourselves in if in fact he is elected into office?

This issue of a myopic viewpoint is basically a mute point as it is true. All nations tend to keep a myopic view of what affects their nations and their economies. One issue that must be present in all of our thoughts is that no nation is an island unto itself any more. Our economies are all intricately inter-linked to each other and it is to our benefit to learn to cooperate with each other. In order to do so though we must learn to become much more tolerant of each other's systems of government and to learn to trust each other even more. Granted there are still bad people out there and there always will be. It is up to the more intelligent and the more farsighted to find a solution to this problem that can and will not involve the innocent slaughter of lives. Otherwise I'm afraid that McArthyism may in fact raise it's ugly head once again and instead of the Red Scare we may end up with the Muslim scare.

I will answer your post soon, have to let it digest first.

Wraith aka Jack

 

There is no difference between the secular and the religious in Islam. To dismiss radical Islam in general as merely a religious matter is both foolhardy and ignorant. Bin Laden, the Wahabbists who molded him, and their ideological comrades want nothing less than to spread their version of Islam over the entire planet and make all of us submit to them or we can die like the Godless dogs they view us as. For them, the only assurance of Heaven is martyrdom, and the end result is terrorists willing to buy their way into Paradise with the damned souls of infidels, apostates, and pagans. The war in Iraq was fought for all the usual reasons, but only a fool would believe it's only a religious matter. They are only three outcomes they will accept: we submit to them, we refuse and die, or we make them martyrs for Allah.

 

Don't you see that apathism is not the answer here Suesman? I agree that currently we don't have a viable candidate for the Presidency (or at least not one that is in position to win). Personally I feel we need to take the money completely out of the election process or at least reduce it to a manageable level. Say for instance to allot each candidate only 2 million dollars apiece for their campaign (minus salary expenses and office space rental). The monies donated to the campaigns should be placed in a combined pool to support ALL viable candidates (by viable I mean those whom meet the requirements for being placed on all states ballots). This would allow the third parties to be equally represented and heard by all of the country, not just their own constituents. Unfortunately there is too much money to be earned by keeping the status quo so it will never happen.

And btw the tax idea, nice idea but it won't work. Seems the more a person makes the more they wish to make and keep. I would say it is some type of mental illness but then again, you would get no doctor to verify that one.

Wraith

 

Depends on the level of fear. Fear that we might meddle in their affairs could easily provoke action against us. Fear that we could, and WOULD, utterly destroy what means most to them tends to breed co-operation. Just ask Libya.
Not all countries that support and tolerate the terrorists do so because they're committed to their cause. Some support them because it's easier than fighting them, and because some percentage of their citizens support them, and would raise hell if the government took a strong stand against them. Pakistan was one of those. Pakistan decided that we were a bigger threat than the terrorists were, and got off the fence... on OUR side.

Who, me?

Mm, yes and no. As far as the government support of the terrorists, some ARE committed to the religious concept of conquering the world forIslam, some are simply playing politics. Hussein was primarily playing politics, but Afghanistan's Taliban were committed to the religious concept, all the way. But for the most part, Islamic governments are support groups, not the terrorists themselves. The terrorists, Islamic radicals, ARE committed to Islam, specifically THEIR view of Islam ruling the world. As are the Wahabi "schools" that teach nothing BUT Islam, instead of useful subjects that could help their kids do something useful when they grow up, and help their countries rise out of abject poverty.

Islamic expansion is what fuels the terrorists, and what gives legitimacy to the movement in the eyes of the less radical Muslims that may "regret" all the killing, but still defend the killers.

We separate the religious problem from the political problem at our peril, since the religious concepts are what are fueling the movement and their motivation. Whether we intend to or not, we ARE attacking that religious concept when we attack the terrorists. And part of the long term solution is to get the Islamic countries to close down those Wahabi schools, insure that their kids get real educations, and learn about the rest of the world. Lebanon used to be such a country. Until they were conquered by Syria.

Ah, but relations with whom? The Kurds, Sunnis, or Shiites? All 3 groups hate each other, and whichever one ended up on top of the heap would return to persecuting the other 2 groups. Either we forceably split Iraq into 3 separate countries, or they've got to learn to live together without killing each other. A lot of them are in favor of that, but not those likely to end up in power.

No, we don't always know best. And I don't have great confidence that Iraq will end up stable with everybody hugging each other. But now that we've removed one horrible dictator, what exactly do you propose that we do to help them carry on?

Really? The Nazi ideal of the superiority of the "Arian Race" was a philosophical ideal that was used to motivate the masses. We defeated that pretty thoroughly. By totally anihilating the hard core, and freeing the rest from the fanatics. Most people forget that AFTER Germany was "defeated" in 1945, we had elite squads in Germany for about 2 years, hunting down and killing hard core Nazis that continued to attack our troops, bomb our facilities, and in general refused to give up. We may well have to kill all the hard core, eventually, but we need to free the more rational from their clutches, and from their indoctrination. Too big a job for one nation, even us. I really hope the rest of the free world wakes up and joins us soon.

Not quite. The Viet Cong won South Viet Nam, and killed many thousands of people after we left, enslaved many thousands more, and to this day, Viet Nam is far poorer and less successful than it's more free & liberal neighbors.

China has allowed, reluctantly, some of the motivational dynamics of capitalism in, simply because it works far better than what they were doing. But they've kept an iron control on every other aspect of their country. The're neither free nor tolerant. Tieneman Square lives. Or died, depending on how you want to look at it.

(shrug) George Bush isn't my first choice for leader right now either. I could wish for Winston Churchill reincarnate, or even John Kennedy. Both of them knew a threat when they saw it, had guts enough to stand up to them, and were far more eloquent in defending their positions. But Bush & Kerry are what we've got, and I don't think Kerry recognizes the threat, and I know he doesn't know how to react to a threat, other than to hand it off to the U.N. to be debated to death. Until the rest of the world, and/or the U.N. wake up, I'm not all that interested in their opinion. I'm more interested in protecting US, even if it's by ourselves.

LOL. Hopefully not much further; my fingers are getting tired.

 

Ditto. And I live here,

This election is the most polarized election I can ever recall. Regardless of who you support, I'll be glad when it is over.

 

You're not alone.