Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
23-04.-2004, 01:47 PM
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
|
|
|
24-04.-2004, 12:53 PM
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote:
>http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html Aren't you glad the current administration finally got it right? What is really scary is that a thug like Saddam could have been the best ally in the area in previous times (a great indication that things do need to change in the middle / near east). Also, there are a couple obvious myths that found their way into the piece. In testimony to a Senate committee, Ambassador Glaspie claims the Iraqi account of the conversation "giving Iraq the green light to invade Kuwait" is a fabrication. She claims she actually said: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." The report continued: "In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction." http://search.csmonitor.com/durable...05/27/p23s3.htm It seems like Bush's opponents think if they accuse him of trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 enough times, it will become truth. Show me one instance - no one else has been able to. But hey, the sound track was nice. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
|
|
|
24-04.-2004, 01:26 PM
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote:
> Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote: > > >http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html > > Aren't you glad the current administration finally got it right? What > is really scary is that a thug like Saddam could have been the best > ally in the area in previous times (a great indication that things do > need to change in the middle / near east). > > Also, there are a couple obvious myths that found their way into the > piece. > > In testimony to a Senate committee, Ambassador Glaspie claims the > Iraqi account of the conversation "giving Iraq the green light to > invade Kuwait" is a fabrication. She claims she actually said: > > "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript > reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. > Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the > instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." > > The report continued: > > "In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, > gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a > green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told > USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong > reaction." > > http://search.csmonitor.com/durable...05/27/p23s3.htm > > It seems like Bush's opponents think if they accuse him of trying to > tie Iraq to 9/11 enough times, it will become truth. Show me one > instance - no one else has been able to. > > But hey, the sound track was nice. > Mark, what I found most troubling about all this is that the United States was the country that supplied Saddam with biologic and nerve agents, and then removed Iraq from its list of terrorist nations *after* he used those weapons on Iranians and Iraqis. Even Rumsfeld was photographed shaking his hand. Why does the US continue to hang out with and support such people? And now Bush gives his reason for attacking Iraq: terrorism, 9/11. Unfortunately the US helped Saddam along that way. The US government is currently throwing a hissy fit about photographs of the caskets of dead military personnel. I, for one, would like to see a lot more publicity. Not just for US soldiers, but of the thousands of Iraqi dead and injured. I don't think Bush and his crowd even want to know about that. -- Ted Bennett Portland OR |
|
|
|
24-04.-2004, 11:21 PM
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
>From: Ted Bennett
>I, for one, would like to see a >lot more publicity. Not just for US soldiers, but of the thousands of >Iraqi dead and injured. I don't think Bush and his crowd even want to >know about that. They know about it, and they know we know about it. They just don't want us to *think* about it, because public reaction to increasing casualties is on thing that finally broke the War Machine in the Viet Nam era. (snipping, mixing posts) >> It seems like Bush's opponents think if they accuse him of trying to >> tie Iraq to 9/11 enough times, it will become truth. Show me one >> instance - no one else has been able to. My goodness, Mark: "Iraq/Terrorists, terrorists/Iraq", over and over again by Bush on TV, reported on elsewhere and repeated. Repeated "enough times" to make the linkage with the American public. And all questions/doubts shouted down (paaaatriotism), secrecy abounding. And that "Clinton did less" again. Stop, please. Clinton got in trouble for everything he did (except for private Monica celebrations), including "depleting our missile stock to the point of compromising national security" (paraphrasing). Don't sweep the people who died and were horribly injured (plus the huge property losses) in the 9/11 attacks. Those deaths, as you well know, changed the President's options, to put it mildly. Even Bush I found the capture/killing of Sadaam politically "difficult" (or it was just a setup where the good 'ol boy network clobbered the little guys while letting the higher-ups go back to the palace. Your choice.) >> Aren't you glad the current >>administration finally got it right? (My understanding): The current administration lied in order to follow plans that had been in place for a long time before 9/11. --TP |
|
|
|
25-04.-2004, 09:51 AM
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
Ted Bennett <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> wrote: >Mark, what I found most troubling about all this is that the United >States was the country that supplied Saddam with biologic and nerve >agents, and then removed Iraq from its list of terrorist nations *after* >he used those weapons on Iranians and Iraqis. Even Rumsfeld was >photographed shaking his hand. Why does the US continue to hang out >with and support such people? The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to Kennedy. I guess it's one of those "the enemy of your enemy" things, but it does seem pretty questionable in retrospect. >And now Bush gives his reason for attacking Iraq: terrorism, 9/11. >Unfortunately the US helped Saddam along that way. One out of two ain't bad. Or maybe you can find a link where Bush mentions that Iraq was directly involved in the 9/11 attack (no one else has been able to do that - it's just an "election year legend"). >The US government is currently throwing a hissy fit about photographs of >the caskets of dead military personnel. I, for one, would like to see a >lot more publicity. Not just for US soldiers, but of the thousands of >Iraqi dead and injured. I don't think Bush and his crowd even want to >know about that. I think they should show a lot more coverage of the mass graves as well - but that's the way it is with US TV. OTOH, Al Jezeera more than makes up for any squeamishness on our part. I heard a report the other day that the reason they didn't broadcast the execution of the Italian contractor was that he struggled with his captors and said "now I'll show you how an Italian dies". If that's true I guess it wouldln't help with the propaganda war much... Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
|
|
|
25-04.-2004, 09:57 AM
|
#6 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote:
>>From: Ted Bennett > >>I, for one, would like to see a >>lot more publicity. Not just for US soldiers, but of the thousands of >>Iraqi dead and injured. I don't think Bush and his crowd even want to >>know about that. > >They know about it, and they know we know about it. They just don't want us to >*think* about it, because public reaction to increasing casualties is on thing >that finally broke the War Machine in the Viet Nam era. It's likely to get worse as those who oppose a democracy in Iraq get more and more desparate to derail the process. It'll be interesting to see what happens after the June 30 handover of power. >(snipping, mixing posts) > >>> It seems like Bush's opponents think if they accuse him of trying to >>> tie Iraq to 9/11 enough times, it will become truth. Show me one >>> instance - no one else has been able to. > >My goodness, Mark: "Iraq/Terrorists, terrorists/Iraq", over and over again by >Bush on TV, reported on elsewhere and repeated. Repeated "enough times" to make >the linkage with the American public. And all questions/doubts shouted down >(paaaatriotism), secrecy abounding. Sorry, but I don't spell "terrorism" with a 9 and a couple 1's. I don't think many others do as well. >And that "Clinton did less" again. Stop, please. Clinton got in trouble for >everything he did (except for private Monica celebrations), including >"depleting our missile stock to the point of compromising national security" >(paraphrasing). Don't sweep the people who died and were horribly injured (plus >the huge property losses) in the 9/11 attacks. Those deaths, as you well know, >changed the President's options, to put it mildly. Even Bush I found the >capture/killing of Sadaam politically "difficult" (or it was just a setup where >the good 'ol boy network clobbered the little guys while letting the higher-ups >go back to the palace. Your choice.) I don't disagree with you. I do think his decision to scale down our intelligence agencies was a mistake, but I stop FAR short of "blaming him" for 9/11. >>> Aren't you glad the current >>administration finally got it right? > >(My understanding): The current administration lied in order to follow plans >that had been in place for a long time before 9/11. --TP If the current administration did NOT have a contingency plan to take out Saddam before 9/11 they'd be idiots. The Woodward book (the whole book, not select quotes out of context) tells the story of a plan that came together over months, and a growing acceptance of the fact that the UN was going to refuse to back up any action to remove Saddam from power / enforce all the UN resolutions. Think back to the time and tell me that anyone thought it was unlikely that we'd end up going in to take him out. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
|
|
|
25-04.-2004, 11:26 AM
|
#7 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> writes:
> The Woodward book (the whole book, not select quotes out of context) > tells the story of a plan that came together over months, and a > growing acceptance of the fact that the UN was going to refuse to > back up any action to remove Saddam from power / enforce all the UN > resolutions. I've not had the opportunity to read the whole book, but the reactions to it are interesting. The pro-Bush contingent seems to think that it shows Bush as a dynamic, decisive leader. The anti-Bush crowd seems to think it shows him as an out of touch, right wing whacko disregarding reality at the behest of his god. I guess that means Woodward's book is "fair and balanced." |
|
|
|
25-04.-2004, 11:52 AM
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
Tim McNamara wrote:
> Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> writes: > > >>The Woodward book (the whole book, not select quotes out of context) >>tells the story of a plan that came together over months, and a >>growing acceptance of the fact that the UN was going to refuse to >>back up any action to remove Saddam from power / enforce all the UN >>resolutions. > > > I've not had the opportunity to read the whole book, but the reactions > to it are interesting. The pro-Bush contingent seems to think that it > shows Bush as a dynamic, decisive leader. The anti-Bush crowd seems > to think it shows him as an out of touch, right wing whacko > disregarding reality at the behest of his god. I guess that means > Woodward's book is "fair and balanced." Don't know about the book but I was catching up on my newspaper reading today and there was a disturbing article in the Apr 11 LA Times by some Hoover Institution folks. The subject was Bush's profound beliefs in Armageddon and that in private he admits the war in Iraq is a religious war, not a war against terrorism. "George sees this as a religious war. ...we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity then they will ever know." Substitute Jews for Christians and that sounds like War Criminal Sharon. If we had a president who was interested in combatting only terrorism we'd be out of Iraq in no time. Instead we bomb mosques. And the Hoover folks ain't exactly what you would call liberal. Greg |
|
|
|
25-04.-2004, 09:36 PM
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
Mark Hickey wrote:
> The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to Kennedy. Quite a long time before he came to power, then? -- Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/ They're parking camels where the taxis used to be |
|
|
|
25-04.-2004, 11:48 PM
|
#10 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>Don't know about the book but I was catching up on my newspaper reading >today and there was a disturbing article in the Apr 11 LA Times by some >Hoover Institution folks. The subject was Bush's profound beliefs in >Armageddon and that in private he admits the war in Iraq is a religious >war, not a war against terrorism. Hmmm. the LA Times, and a "private admission". Heh. >"George sees this as a religious war. ...we the Christians will strike >back with more force and more ferocity then they will ever know." >Substitute Jews for Christians and that sounds like War Criminal Sharon. Whose opinion was that, anyway? Unnamed sources maybe? Political enemies, certainly. >If we had a president who was interested in combatting only terrorism we'd >be out of Iraq in no time. Instead we bomb mosques. You think we should just cut and run and let Iraq struggle with its internal problems? Eeeek. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
|
|
|
26-04.-2004, 01:47 AM
|
#11 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
"Ted Bennett" <tedbennett@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:tedbennett-DC19C1.21471722042004@news5.west.earthlink.net... > http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html > > -- > Ted Bennett > Portland OR Nice web site too - a few quotes from the front page. "There are three constituencies that are at the core of Bush's hopes for election: The Ultra-Rich, the Stupid, and the Religious Right. Unfortunately, there aren't enough millionaires to ensure his victory in the upcoming election, but, fortunately, there are plenty of stupid couch-potatoes that will march steadilly forth from their television sets to cast their vote for ol' George. Unfortunately, one can count on half of the stupid to be distracted by something shiny en route to the voting booth, and thus will never make it far enough to actually cast their ballots. This leaves Bush with one core constituency to count on- the five million or so religious protestant Bible thumpers than have been testing the limits of generational inbreeding in the red states. These folks have a blind adulation for Bush Jr that just boggles the mind." Good stuff. You wonder why its difficult to take these people seriously. You use slide shows put to music by anti Bush fanatics as your intellectual ammunition. Myself, I prefer respectable news and opinion sources from across spectrum, but at least you have so much fun. Kyle |
|
|
|
26-04.-2004, 03:37 AM
|
#12 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
Mark Hickey <mark@habcycles.com> writes:
> "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote: > >>If we had a president who was interested in combatting only >>terrorism we'd be out of Iraq in no time. Instead we bomb mosques. Ah, well, terrorism is only the excuse for this war in Iraq, not the reason. But you can't convince the Bush faithful of this even though the plan for war was written- and made public- by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al while Clinton was President. The purpose of the war was to re-establish American military pre-eminence that was damaged by the "ragged ending" of the first Gulf War. There are many who think that America should order the world as it sees fit, to the benefit of Americans first and foremost. We have failed to learn the lessons of history as to the fate suffered by all imperial powers- Alexandria, Greece, Rome, England. In less that 100 years, under the course charted by the Bush Administration, America will be the same sort of second rate backwater than England, Italy, Greece and the Middle East currently are. > You think we should just cut and run and let Iraq struggle with its > internal problems? Eeeek. Given that we created their problems, it would be rude of us to just dump them now. But just watch, this is what will happen and Iraq will fall into a deadly civil war. The Bush Administration hasn't got a clue how to get themselves out of the mess they've walked into. That's what happens when you keep putting the same old fossilized set of reprobates into power- they've had sixteen years between the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations and they've just kept screwing up. Unfortunately too many Americans are too hypnotized by their single fanatical issues to notice. |
|
|
|
26-04.-2004, 03:41 AM
|
#13 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
Keith Willoughby <keith@flat222.org> writes:
> Mark Hickey wrote: > >> The "support" for Saddam goes all the way back to Kennedy. > > Quite a long time before he came to power, then? He came to power through the aid and intervention of the CIA and the American government, beginning in the Kennedy Administration. This is a well-known matter of public record. While the Democrats would love to pin this all on the Republicans, it can't be done because both parties are bloody to the elbows as far as the Middle East is concerned. The Democrats set the current Iraqi crisis in motion 40 years ago, and in particular the Republicans have managed to build upon that foundation with great efficacy thanks to a devotion to doing what is expedient rather than what is right. (Both parties suffer from that, too). |
|
|
|
26-04.-2004, 09:05 AM
|
#14 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
>From: Mark Hickey
>It'll be interesting >to see what happens after the June 30 >handover of power. That's when our people, soldiers and "mercenaries" alike, need to start coming home. The sooner the better. >Sorry, but I don't spell "terrorism" with a 9 and a couple 1's. I >don't think many others do as well. The linkage was made, over and over again. Terrorists-9/11. "We're fighting terrorism in Iraq". >I do think his [Clinton] decision to scale down our >intelligence agencies was a mistake, but I stop FAR short of "blaming >him" for 9/11. Um, I agree with me on that point, too. Imagine Clinton going to war on the Bush scale prior to Monica. Impeached even sooner. >If the current administration did NOT have a contingency plan to take >out Saddam before 9/11 they'd be idiots. It goes to "why" they wanted him out. What real purposes were served, not the terrorist/911 etc. etc. pretext that was used to sell a frightened populace on an undeclared war. > The Woodward book (the whole >book, not select quotes out of context) tells the story of a plan that >came together over months, and a growing acceptance of the fact that >the UN was going to refuse to back up any action to remove Saddam from >power / enforce all the UN resolutions. Think back to the time and >tell me that anyone thought it was unlikely that we'd end up going in >to take him out. I thought Bush and Co. might listen to those who didn't agree. Silly me. Again, goes to the real motivation to take Saddam from power. Saddam had months and months (during which no further terrorists attacks were seen in the US, despite the known, demonstrated gaps in security) to get ready for something he knew was coming. We walked over him again. Saddam, delusional about his own powers, Bush and Co. delusional about Saddam? --TP |
|
|
|
26-04.-2004, 10:13 AM
|
#15 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: OT, but a nice summary for Mark and other Bush apologists
dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote:
>>From: Mark Hickey > >>It'll be interesting >>to see what happens after the June 30 >handover of power. > >That's when our people, soldiers and "mercenaries" alike, need to start coming >home. The sooner the better. I agree - but we'll need to be there long enough for a reasonable amount of stability to set in. And it's not the most inherently stable place on earth... I hope to see some serious stepping up by the Iraqi security forces. >>Sorry, but I don't spell "terrorism" with a 9 and a couple 1's. I >>don't think many others do as well. > >The linkage was made, over and over again. Terrorists-9/11. "We're fighting >terrorism in Iraq". Which is entirely different than what you said previously (implying that Bush made the case that Iraq was connected to 9/11). Terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Iraq did sponsor terrorism. >>I do think his [Clinton] decision to scale down our >>intelligence agencies was a mistake, but I stop FAR short of "blaming >>him" for 9/11. > >Um, I agree with me on that point, too. Imagine Clinton going to war on the >Bush scale prior to Monica. Impeached even sooner. Maybe... partisan politics should have no part in these issues (either way). >>If the current administration did NOT have a contingency plan to take >>out Saddam before 9/11 they'd be idiots. > >It goes to "why" they wanted him out. What real purposes were served, not the >terrorist/911 etc. etc. pretext that was used to sell a frightened populace on >an undeclared war. You're not gonna make me go through all that again, are you? Here's the Clif notes version. Known stockpiles of WMD, believed to be in existence by everyone who mattered (including the UN and previous administration). Known support of terrorist groups. Refusal to disarm per cease-fire agreement in '91. Genocidal behavior and a destabilizing force in the (crucial) region. And his tailor wasn't too good. >> The Woodward book (the whole >>book, not select quotes out of context) tells the story of a plan that >>came together over months, and a growing acceptance of the fact that >>the UN was going to refuse to back up any action to remove Saddam from >>power / enforce all the UN resolutions. Think back to the time and >>tell me that anyone thought it was unlikely that we'd end up going in >>to take him out. > >I thought Bush and Co. might listen to those who didn't agree. Silly me. Again, >goes to the real motivation to take Saddam from power. Saddam had months and >months (during which no further terrorists attacks were seen in the US, despite >the known, demonstrated gaps in security) to get ready for something he knew >was coming. We walked over him again. Saddam, delusional about his own powers, >Bush and Co. delusional about Saddam? Iraq was only one of the states openly sponsoring terrorism, but one with the greatest ability to harm us directly. I believe taking him out was the right thing to do on that count alone, never mind the horrors he committed among his own people (and those of Iran and Kuwait). The other really great thing about it is that the rules have now changed - states aren't so willing to sponsor and support terrorist organizations any more (heck, even the Saudis are cracking down hard enough to cause themselves to be targeted by the terrorists). Khadafi is giving it up, Iran too. Or we could have waited and hoped for the best. Call me overly cautious, but I don't think that would have been a particularly good idea. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame |
|
|
Linear Mode
