posted on February 13, 2002 10:02:23 PM new
BS Twinsoft. Go to Bed.
Stusi,
I will tell you what I think about sucking up. Since 911, Democrats have been paralized with only a few exceptions. They have supported this crazy, power play called war aganist Afghanistan. The democrats did nothing. They have quietly ignored domestic issues while Bush reduced the poor country of Afghanistan to rubble. Again there was no objection from the Democrats. Enron elicited a few questions that carefully avoided a political connection. The Democrats sat quietly. The media was in their place paid well and again sitting quietly. Domestic issues are ignored and what do the Democrats do? NOTHING. This is called sucking up.
I am personally sick of it. WAKE UP you Democratic sob's and do something!!!!!
What is this phenonmenom? Is it fear? Is it patriotism? What-ev-ver, It is called sucking up and that is what the Democrats are doing...SUCKING UP TO THE MOST EVIL DOER IN THE WORLD....GEORGE BUSH.
posted on February 14, 2002 07:00:40 AM new
hjw- Forgetting the politics for the moment- I don't think there are many who feel good about innocent people being bombed. But when the terrorists who attacked us on our own land are scattered underground throughout a country we have only two choices-one is to attempt a long ground search, which would cost us many lives in direct combat and the risk of many more lives here, as such a search would give them that much more time to plan additional attacks; a second is to bomb the hell out of them, crippling and disrupting the terrorist network, giving us a reasonable chance to capture their leaders. It is always a trade-off between innocent civilian lives and preventing many more lives from being lost. Do you not see this?
Back to the politics- the "liberal"(DEM) press has been incessant in their accusation of the Enron execs- what papers and/or TV news shows are you NOT reading/watching? While it is true that the Dems are having some problems with their leadership, I believe that they will ultimately get their act together.
posted on February 14, 2002 07:35:12 AM new
Really Stusi? And just how many innocent civilians equal one uniformed soldier?
Or do you mean that since our innocent civilians were killed we should kill in kind? One civilian for one civilian, is that your "tradeoff"? Or is two for one more to your liking, or three? more? Since, after all, they ARE just worthless civilians how many will it take to complete your "tradeoff"?.
Funny, but it seems like all of the civilian killings done as a preventative against terrorism doesn't reassure anyone that any terrorism is detered. We do continue to receive dire warnings of imminent terrorism, don't we? So you would say that the answer to that is clearly that we haven't killed sufficient innocent civilians yet, and must kill more? The "tradeoff" must not be complete.
posted on February 14, 2002 08:47:30 AM new
The action in Afghanistan has succesfully disrupted the terrorist network, it is not a complete victory yet, but nobody said it would be after Afghanistan.
Innocent civilians losing their lives in a war is always a possibility and a reality. Our soldiers ARE worth more than civilians in beligerent countries. Being a U.S. soldier doesn't mean you lose your humanity. Our service people are sons, daughters, husbands, wifes, brothers and sisters to many. Just because they serve to protect our country doesn't mean that they are fodder to assure that no "innocent" of the beligerent country doesn't get hurt to soothe someone's conscience.
However, civilian casualties have been minimum in Afghanistan. In fact they are far less than with the Russian invaision, and probably less than the Taliban executed.
Yes, I understand your position. perfectly but I just don't agree. After bombing the hell out of Afghanistan what have we accomplished? As far as terrorists are concerned, we have only temporarilly disrupted their organization. I just heard this morning that already a new leader has emerged who is reportedly more terrible than bin Ladin. He is always on the move so we can't bomb a country with any hope of disrupting this terrorist's
world wide influence.
It's my opinion that covert operations and increased and improved intelligence is the only way to deal with terrorists. Freezing their assets should be a number one priority. Instead, before this tragedy, we have been funding Osama bin Laden.
This war was waged to promote political power ONLY.
Unfortunately, the American people went along with the patriotic message and a wish for revenge. The kind of support that Bush achieved in Afghanistan may be lost when he begins to take on the entire mid east. Even now, we are losing support from our allies in that region.
posted on February 14, 2002 10:28:33 AM new
These are a few newpapers...that I read or have used...not all that I agree with and I tried to make them all clicable...but may have missed a few
posted on February 14, 2002 10:32:20 AM new
krs- Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you a veteran? Did you serve in a war without civilian casualties? Or did you just have a change of heart? Do you really believe that with irrational zealots living in caves in a country like Afghanistan that we have a viable alternative to stopping WTC type attacks? Perhaps negotiation? Perhaps a two or three year non-artillery ground operation causing many additional deaths of our own troops while allowing the Al-qaeda to plan and carry out more such attacks? What exactly are you suggesting?
posted on February 14, 2002 10:35:43 AM new
hjw- You seem to be well read but your reading is apparently dominated by foreign publications. It is not surprising that you would miss something as obvious as the Dems attack on Enron and Ashcroft's policies. Please see above to krs.
I also subscribe to the Washington Post and I watched the hearings that were televised.
It's interesting to see both sides of an issue. You have to pay attention to what is not said also...especially witht he Bush administration.
I read American newspapers that are not on the list. The LA Times is one of my favorites in this country.
posted on February 14, 2002 11:49:18 AM new
George Bush's Permanent War
by Matthew Rothschild
There was something almost pathetic about George W. Bush's attempt to make his fight against terrorism akin to the fight against the Nazis.
In his State of the Union address, he evoked the comparison when he said that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, "and their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil."
That's a big stretch.
North Korea and Iran have both showed signs of opening up to the West over the last four years. Diplomatic efforts could bring them even closer to a rapprochement. Bluster and stigmatas will only alienate them.
(By the way, Bush could have used a fact-checker. He said that "an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom." Check your almanac, George. Iran's President Mohammad Khatami, a moderate reformist, was elected in 1997 and reelected last June.)
What's more, the idea that North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are somehow working together to take over the world as Germany, Italy, and Japan did is laughable. Iran and Iraq hate each other and waged a devastating war against each other in the 1980s--back when the United States was supporting Saddam Hussein.
There is no evidence today that they are allied together or with North Korea.
So Bush was falling on his axis when he tried to make that claim.
He also hyped the threat against the United States when he said, "Freedom is at risk." As horrific as the attacks of September 11 were, freedom was never at risk and the existence of the United States was never in peril. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did commit an unspeakably grotesque crime when they killed thousands of Americans, but they never posed a threat to the survival of this country. During World War II, the survival of the free world was at stake, as were the lives of millions of innocent people.
Today, the terrorists may be able to carry out a few individual acts of horror, but they do not hold the balance of freedom in their hands.
Bush is exaggerating the risk for several reasons.
First, it solves his existential dilemma. Before September 11, he was the most immature 55-year-old in the country, with little clear idea of why he became President. The attacks gave meaning to his life, and the graver he makes them out to be, the more important his role.
Second, by magnifying the threats, he is able to play to the traditional Republican strength in the polls, since the American public has more confidence in the Republicans to defend the nation.
Third, it allows him to expand the Pentagon budget to unseen heights. "My budget includes the largest increase in defense spending in two decades, because while the price of freedom and security is high, it is never too high," he said. "Whatever it costs to defend our country, we will pay it." The enormous Pentagon budget not only satisfies Pentagon contractors, it blackmails Democrats, who might want to spend on some urgently needed social programs. Said Bush: "Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short term so long as Congress restrains spending and acts in a fiscally responsible way."
Note that Bush views himself as unfettered by Congress and the Constitution to wage his worldwide campaign against terrorists and regimes that sponsor terrorism. In the first sentence of his address, he declared, "Our nation is at war," but he never asked for or received a formal declaration of war from Congress.
And when Congress gave him authorization to use force in September, it said that such use of force had to be limited to individuals, groups, or nations connected to the attacks of September 11. Congress did not give him carte blanche to wage war against any and all terrorists everywhere, or against regimes that seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.
He has taken that power unto himself, as he enunciates the Bush doctrine of permanent war.
It's a war that won't risk global annihilation, like World War II or the Cold War did. That is some solace. "A common danger is erasing old rivalries. America is working with Russia, China, and India in ways we have never before to achieve peace and prosperity," he said. The bouquet to China was well-thrown, since Bush's missile defense plans, reiterated in his speech, look ominous to Beijing.
But Bush's permanent war will likely sow seeds of discord among our European allies and stir pots of resentment throughout the Islamic world.
It will likely drain our Treasury of much-needed funds for rebuilding schools, ending poverty and homelessness, and providing universal health care.
And it will likely result in the U.S. military killing tens of thousands of Third World civilians, if not more.
posted on February 14, 2002 01:45:00 PM new
Well Helen,that picture could have been taken before the war. You should also take a look at the Afghan men, woman and children being brought into a soccer stadium and shot in the back of the head by the Taliban. Our cushy moral standards here in the U.S. simply will not apply in much of the world, much less in a terrorist war.
The people in Afghanistan however are much better off now than they were under the Taliban.
If you want to attack Bush, best to stick with domestic issues. After the murder of thousands of Americans, berating the prosecution of the war on terrorism thus far isn't going to work. The worst political thing Bush could do is pull back on the war on terrorism. That's when he'll lose my support.
Innocent people in Afghanistan killed ? Too bad. The U.S. govt has my blessing to do whatever is necessary to protect our country and with the fewest losses of our servicemen and women, even if that means innocent civilians are harmed.
posted on February 14, 2002 01:59:35 PM new
The article is also wrong about the Constitutional issues.
Congress has the power to pull the funding any time it wants. As long as Congress funds Bush's activities, the activities are with Congress' consent. At this point, whether "war" was declared is a political question, and non-justicable, the court would just say that Congress has the power to un-fund the activities anytime it wishes. The system is working just as intended - the power to direct the war in one branch separated from the purse to fund it in another branch. If Congress doesn't want the war waged, they can grind it to a halt overnight. The language in the resolution and the funding resolution are defacto declarations of war.
But regardless if one thinks war was declared or not, Congress has the power to stop the action any time it wishes. It had the power before the war powers act and still does.
posted on February 14, 2002 02:22:53 PM new"The action in Afghanistan has succesfully disrupted ... etc."
REAMOND, I can't believe that you actually wrote something like that ENTIRE post! Unbelieveable!
Also, REAMOND, I wanted to just point out that you are not on course with the U.S. Constitution. It ain't a War unless Congress declares it a War. Period. The authority to Declare Ware is solely with Congress and explicitly not with the executive branch. Therefore, we are not at War until then and no amount of LIES from the White House is going to make it so!
During the Reagan years, it was acknowledged that times have changed since the writing of the constitution and that a little provision was made due to R.R.'s Cowboy Diplomacy. It reads that a President has LIMITED AUTHORITY to act on his own to meet a real crisis in a timely manner; such as, China landing troops on the West Coast of America or rescuing students in Granada and destroying the communist threat there. It does NOT give the President the authority to plan a large-scale, full-body response over several months of planning!
Furthermore, Congress giving their ascent through budget decisions is totally absurd! Congress is supposed to act by the Will of the People -- that's what they get elected for! Politicking on budget issues is hardly in the same class as a Vote to Declare War. Therefore, Bush is committing a Federal Felony by his illegal entry into Afghanistan, his illegal bombing of Al-Queda and the Taliban, and should be tried by the World Court for the MURDERS that are his sole blame to have when it comes to everyone killed over there!
I know you'll want to respond to this, but I urge you to read your history of the Fight for American Independence. That the Founders of this country were damned SICK AND TIRED of Kings (read: Presidents) declaring constant War and those who had to participate had no say-so! And the FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR of Dumbya is taking us right back to Square One!
Sorry. I did not mean to pound on you, but rather, put to rest this nonsense that Bush is acting lawfully.
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 14, 2002 02:33:35 PM new
chococake
Compared to the hard hitting style of a writer such as Cheryl Seal, is seems rather limp. I agree that he has some good ideas but he could probably improve the article by elaborating on his ideas. Or, am I thinking along the lines of an attack? It's a quick read.
REAMOND
I should replace that picture with one of the dead and wounded. Maybe a few folks with their feet blown off by land mines. These poor people have been fighting year after year and nothing has changed. Most of them are so poor and uneducated that they don't know Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush.
You say that the U.S. govt has your blessing to do whatever is necessary to protect our country and with the fewest losses of our servicemen and women, even if that means innocent civilians are harmed. I don't feel at ease with that decision in the hands of the George Bush corporation.
Actually, I don't feel at ease with any decision made by that group.
posted on February 14, 2002 02:38:40 PM new
Borillar- It doesn't make a wit of difference whether you, I or anyone else thinks the resolutions passed by Congress were declarations of war. The fact is that the Congress funded the activities/war and passed a resolution to allow Bush to pursue those activities/war.
Don't you kinda think that Congress knew what it was doing ? Do you think that the situation would be any different if Congress changed the wording of the resolution to suit you or me that it was absolutely a declaration of war ?
You can call the resolutions a declaration of peace if you want, or a declaration of use of deadly force, or a declaration of sending planes and personal to capture criminals. It doesn't make any difference if the wording doesn't explicitly declare war, what we are doing is war, and we are doing is what the resolutions demanded and funded.
Whenever Bush does something that the Congress doesn't want him to do, they can pull funding. Bush can't move a private first-class across the street without funding.
posted on February 14, 2002 02:49:31 PM new
Helen- you can replace the picture with a land mine victim- but be sure and point out who planted the land mines.
The people of Afghanistan are better off now than they were. We're not finished, but we're closer to our objectives.
I bite my lip and support Bush's war efforts just as many republicans supported Roosevelt in WWII and Truman in Korea.
If you're right and Bush is screwing up, the mid-term elections coming up will tell. There should be a landslide of Dems coming into Congress.
But in the meantime, we're still under threat of attack, and we have troops in the field. When Bush messes up in prosecuting the war, I'll be the first to say so, but I would never allow my partisanship to allow me to call black white and right wrong when our country is under attack.
posted on February 14, 2002 03:22:02 PM new
Helen, I don't agree that the article is limp. I like the idea that it's not yelling and just name calling. Sometimes people stop reading if that's all they see. Using a softer edge might bring some people around.
posted on February 14, 2002 06:51:43 PM new"Don't you kinda think that Congress knew what it was doing ?"
Yes, and that's another reason why I've been saying that the Democrats are acting like jackasses. The Congress - made up of lawyers, trained in Law, are all well aware of the legality of the situation. That since they and they alone have the ability to declare a War and the President is NOT ALLOWED to use military force, except in extreme immediate emergencies (China lands troops on the West Coast) and only for a limited time period, THIS MILLITARY ACTION IS ILLEGAL and they know it! The question is, does the rest of America know about it?
"Do you think that the situation would be any different if Congress changed the wording of the resolution to suit you or me that it was absolutely a declaration of war ? "
ABSOLUTELY! It would make a tremendously positive difference! 1) We would be acting within the force of Law, not the W-H-I-M of a madman! 2) Any prisoners taken would IMEDIATELY be covered under the Geneva Convention! Not this, this ... ILLEGAL detainment! 3) Most importantly, it would put this whole affair into the hands of the elected Congress - your and my representatives in government elected by us to act for us in our best interests -- not the Executive Branch.
There are many more benefits. So, you have to ask yourself WHY don't they do it? Why doesn't Congress want to declare a State of War? Without this authorization from Congress, the President can do any damned thing that he pleases and is accountable to no one. I mean, what're we going to do? Arrest every Congressman and put him on trial? What their lack of responsibility has done to help create a TYRANNY. Can't all you people get that through your heads yet?
As far as the bombed civilians and such go and "enemies" go, REMEMBER that last spring, our government and the Taliban and Osama bin-Laden were all kissing each other in bed together. That BUSH's INEPTITUDE and his personal dealings (oil interests) MADE enemies out of bin-Laden and the Taliban! He THREATENED that he planned to ATTACK their country last October. Osama and the Taliban IN DEFENSE went a made a pre-emptive strike to bring home the point that America is not invulnerable to retaliation. That's BUSH'S FAULT -- not ours, not theirs!
So, the World Court at The Hague should issue an arrest warrant for George Bush and we should cheerfully hand the bastard over for trail for his War Crimes!
Now, is all this clearer to you?
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 14, 2002 08:04:43 PM new
I dont understand the point of all this. Perhaps its just Chain pulling and thats the point. Mabe its the sport of setting up a good fun argument and seeing where it leads. Id like to know the position of those making the grumpy faces. You hate the republican party and the president, tolerate the Democratic party but are miffed because they support military action. Reading your posts I can almost hear the teeth grinding when you say America. What exactly do you support ? Believe it or not There are people out here who get a chuckle when we hear this kind of anti-America drivel being shoveled into plates. Ive lived enough places in the world to know better. Give me a break lol
posted on February 14, 2002 08:13:20 PM new
ok4leather
The point of all this is that we don't believe that one man, George W. Bush should have the authority to take this country to war without the approval of congress.
posted on February 14, 2002 08:19:02 PM new
And by the way, it's not anti American drivel. It's pro American, pro constitutional Anerica that we are supporting. The framers of the constitution would roll over in their graves if they could see how their carefully crafted document is being shredded by the current administration.
posted on February 14, 2002 09:01:48 PM new
Helen, I think that the only reason you think that about Bush is because he is in the Wrong Party. If his name were Clinton or Gore then there would be nothing to talk about. For some its not political - For some reason its fashionable to pretend they are an outsider in support of a group or faction who hates our way of life (regardless of political affiliation). I dont know why some people take this road.
I believe there are good people in office on all sides (Democrat, Republican and Libritarian) who do what they think is best for the country.
posted on February 14, 2002 09:27:56 PM newok4leather, I can understand your skepticism. Helen, KRS, and other are long-time posters on AW's RT. I've been in the RT for just over a year, so it is perfectly understandable for you to suspect those things that you are wondering about us.
We usually find a mainstream media article, post a link in here with a quote or two, then we have at it. KRS tends to bring in quite a few shockers about the Bush administration. Helen tends to bring in a more compassionate side with her links, and I tend to react to both of them. Others, long-timers, do provide links to good articles to debate as well.
What this amounts to is that our attitudes tend to be educated, rather than foaming off at the mouth as one often sees in other less disciplined message forums. That what you are reading here should seem confusing to you; that it appears that we are only saying irrational things or trying to pick a fight; or that we have no true stance at all. That isn't so.
Unlike most Americans who view political party affiliation as another sporting event to watch and to root for, there are those of us who really do get involved in the issues and have honest opinions about them that are worth a damn. We'd be happy to educate you on any comments of ours that you are wondering about.
Helen pretty much said it a few posts above: that I am not a Democrat, nor a liberal; but I dislike Fascism and that Republican party has been subverted to a full Fascist regime. All it needs is the swastika seal of approval and we'll all be on our way.
I like to think of myself not as a patriotic American, but as an American Patriot. The first one swallows Geo. Bush's lies hook, line, and sinker then regurgitates it wherever they go. Being an American Patriot means believing in the principles of self-government that our founding fathers laid out for us; that they are just as valid today as they were then; that their many sacrifices made and the many sacrifices made since then through many wars to protect our freedom have not been in vain; that a fee people must have freedom to feel secure, not give up their rights to the state and become slaves. That persons are elected to Congress by the Will of the People - not through funneling millions of dollars into their private bank accounts from corporations, the Rich, and the Powerful who want to control and dominate the rest of us who merely want to be lef alone in peace and freedom. That we are a country ruled by Law, and that nobody is above that Law. Certainly not Congress, who can not be investigated for any crimes; nor a President who can do whatever he pleases in his own name and his own personal interests.
That given a choice between Clinton and Gore and a Blowjob on the news, and this Depression, War, outreaching for Global Domination by a retarded madman, the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) which is the beginning of the Police State (Fascism), and all of the corruption that the Republicans brought in? I'd take the scandal of the Blowjob, please.
I do not urge people to vote Democrat either: just DON'T vote Republican if you value your own freedom!
Does that do it for you?
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
am I thinking along the lines of an attack? It's a quick read.