|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Gawd, awe-inspiring essay. (Reply to this comment)
by virtuelle2
It'll be hard to top this excellent, cogent, incisive piece here on epinions. Thank you, nsign. All still truer today, and tomorrow or Thursday (26 or 27 October), we hope to see indictments announced on the Valerie Plame case, which should be just the beginning of a wider investigation into the deliberately false case made by this admin. for the Iraq war.
Stay tuned.
|
Oct 25 '05
9:34 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: thanks for your intruding comment in my reviews,here's yours (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
By the way,hypocrite,where I found this comment below,I also found spelling errors of your own(lame) :
"I don't believe we can stand by with our thumbs up our asses while genocidal dictators butcher, rape and torture whole two-digit percentages of their own countrys' populations. Sometimes it takes a cataclysmic event like 9/11 to wake us up; so be it. It amazes me how soon after we put our horribly-murdered friends and relatives into the ground that we're able to sink back into our dogmatic slumber and the reality-barrier provided by our engaging in our daily routines. How many of those innocent people who widowed their spouses or orphaned their kids after being melted alive in a pool of flaming jet fuel, if given a second chance at life, do you suppose would feel comfortable going back to THEIR daily routines; the very routines in which they had been engaged when our previous lapse in vigilance enabled terrorists to perpetrate genocide, unchecked, right here in our own (i.e., U.S. citizens) backyard? How many of those anti-war protesters do you suppose would attempt to actively continue thwarting the liberation effort if they were forced to spend even a day as an Iraqi citizen under Hussein's bloodthirsty rule? I can't imagine there'd be many...
From the "Success has many fathers; (alleged-)failure is an orphan" Dept: I, along with many others, not the least of whom included such "luminaries" as fork-tongued John Kerry and his equally disingenuous ex-running mate, Edwards, initially loudly and visibly supported invading Iraq and eliminating Hussein, with or without the U.N.'s support. Contrary to your assertion that the Iraq invasion has been a failure, it has actually been a noteworthy success. Bush made it clear to all who had ears to listen, that the elimination of Hussein and his minions would likely be a long drawn-out affair because it wasn't a matter of just going in and surgically-removing the cancer; we would have to fit the metaphoric body's amputated limbs with "government" prosthetics, then train the body how to sustain itself again. Bush could have done a popularity-poll pandering, kill Hussein & run hatchet-job, but he realized Iraq would have to be able to govern itself or another Hussein-type would pick up where Hussein left off, creating the same political instability and failure of government that crippled Iraq at the time of the 1990 Gulf War. I believe it would be disastrous to pull out of Iraq without ensuring that the Iraqi people can govern themselves once again. Would you have the Iraqis fend for themselves against either a genocidal Hussein dictatorship or lawless anarchy?
Call me foolishly idealistic, Steve, but when I search my conscience to determine which is the greater of the two evils; the lives of a few thousand soldiers who prepared for, and had the opportunity to die in battle, fighting for a worthy cause, seems like a drop in the blood-bucket compared to the imagination-challenging numbers of death and torture casualties that Hussein and his principles have wrought on Iraqi innocents, whose only "crime" was to be born within Iraq's country borders. As long as I'm on a hokey-ideals roll, I genuinely believe one of the responsibilities (and believe it or not, one of the "REWARDS") of "being free" is to help liberate others who aren't lucky enough to be born on the "free citizen" side of a country border. Nothing worth having comes without a sacrifice. If and when it does, it goes unappreciated.
It's one thing to talk about oppression in the abstract, when we can simply "change the subject" when it becomes unpleasant to ponder, but I wonder who of us; who of those supposedly "peace-loving" anti-war protesters, put in a position where he or she had to stand by and watch innocents being tortured, mutilated, maimed, imprisoned and raped around the clock, every single day, would not willingly do everything in his or her power to stop it; particularly if you had the resources and manpower to actually accomplish your goal? Would YOU stand by? My mother used to tell me, "the full pig never notices the hungry pig walking by." I had hoped that ugly aspect of human nature might not be universally true, but the global anti-war demonstrations seem to me to suggest otherwise.
The anti-war protesters don't want peace; all they really want is a cessation of any loud, ugly, visible reminders that people just like them, in other parts of the world, have to live in mortal fear and dictator-oppressed bondage, while they take their unthreatened freedom benefits for granted. They seem to presume that they have their freedom because THEY deserve it, but that people who aren't free deserve their inherited oppression. They're perfectly content to go on about their mindless daily business if they aren't forced to confront the ugly, daily, behind-closed-doors/closed-borders bloodshed and brutality that occur on a daily basis to innocent people just like them, but whose circumstances they aren't forced to confront, thus aren't "real." What human being EVER knows peace if s/he lives in a country regulated by a government that has declared war on them? "Stop the war." Exactly. ...Or else just get fluck out of the way of the people who genuinely want to help the oppressed attain TRUE peace. Those, perhaps well-meaning, but nevertheless misguided, protesters don't march for peace; they march for, what amounts to, "the silence of the lambs."
So yes, Steve, I'm for the war in Iraq and any other war that targets a human-butcher's nationwide enslavement of human beings. I was for Hussein's removal when we initially invaded Iraq and I'm for ensuring that Iraq has a stable government now that he is gone. I believe this current Iraq conflict is the inevitable, unavoidable completion of the left-unresolved 1990 Gulf War; a conflict that Iraq began/provoked when it invaded Kuwait. Rather than complete what we and our U.N.-member neighbors started, by routing out Hussein, his henchman and his brutal regime, we (in our naive desire to prove to the world we interceded to "help," not to "usurp,") foolishly allowed the U.N. to negotiate and sponsor U.N. Resolution 687 (1991). Our 2nd huge mistake was to trust the U.N. to uphold and honor its worthless resolution when Hussein, very soon afterwards, began to abusively, repeatedly, regularly and openly breach most of its material terms. Per U.N. Resolution 687 (1991)'s own, mutually-agreed upon terms, the U.N., the U.S. and Hussein all acknowledged that Hussein and his regime were a death statistic waiting to be actualized, the moment Hussein breached any one of Resolution 687's unequivocal terms, in any degree. There was no 687 "statute of limitation;" those terms were in effect forever or until Hussein was annihilated because he opted to use the UN/U.S. armed forces to commit "suicide by breach of Resolution 687 term."
Our recession back into "head-in-the-global-sand" isolationism during the Clinton's eight "presidential office and resource-abusive" years (I say this because no previous U.S. President since Millard J. Fillmore did more to squander and abuse the benefits of a "prior-administration achieved" booming economy, nor did more to guarantee an economic bubble-burst and resultant recession for his successor admin to inherit and work through, than Bill "Goodtime-Charlie" Clinton) encouraged Hussein to test UN/U.S.'s Resolution 687 term-preservation resolve.
After discovering he could breach any one of the terms with complete impunity, Hussein began to deliberately make a circus sideshow of thumbing his nose at the U.N and the U.S. by brazenly and openly breaching the terms as a way to boost his status and profile in the eyes of the Moslem-nation community. With the covert assistance of France and Russia, who made an invasion of Iraq all but inevitable by underminding, or rather, making a complete joke out of, any attempts to enforce a U.N. trade embargo, by secretly entering into very lucrative, wery "illegal" (but illegal in the "oh, its only the meaningless U.N. resolution international law" sort of way) oil for embargo'd-resources and money deals, brokered by none other than the U.N.'s own Kofi Annan's own son (still think the U.N. isn't a mockery of the rule of law?), Iraq's Hussein humanity-butchering regime thrived, flourished, and grew progressively bolder until Hussein believed himself invincible.
Why wouldn't he? Hussein/Iraq knew that any attempts by the U.S. to achieve U.N.-sanctioned enforcement of Resolution 687 would be dragged out, then inevitably shot down, because the lucrative, secret, Kofi Annan's son-brokered oil deals had been secured on double-dealing scumbag, Jacques Chirac's and Russia's guaranteed Hussein-supportive U.N. member votes. This meant that the U.S. neither could, nor would, EVER be able to achieve the necessary vote consensus it required to get the U.N. to back its U.N. Resolution 687 (1991)-guaranteed Iraq invasion support! Unbeknownst to the U.N.'s LAW-ABIDING member-nations (one of which is the U.S., who's invasion of Iraq was fully-sanctioned by U.N. Resolution 687), but WELL KNOWN to the impossibly-corrupt KOFI ANNAN (!!!), France's treacherously two-faced, back-stabbing Jacques Chirac, Russia, and SADDAM HUSSEIN (!!!), the U.S.'s time/money/effort-consuming attempts to petition the U.N. to follow through with its Gulf War-halting resolution commitments were doomed right from the very start! "
--29th
|
Aug 05 '05
8:00 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: thanks for your intruding comment in my reviews,here's yours (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
Were you dropped on your head as a child, perhaps? You certainly should have been
I hearby give forewarning that I plan to steal that line at some point in the future and may or may not recall who to credit it to.
DisclaimerDoc
|
Aug 05 '05
7:09 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: thanks for your intruding comment in my reviews,here's yours (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
You don't expect me to believe that comment do you??
Talk about intelligence!!
No I wouldn't expect you to believe it. Or to come up with any kind of rational, reasoned, well-thought out response which addresses any facts or issues. I would expect you to post yet another utterance of barely coherent jingoistic fascist crap though, and you haven't let me down. Truly, you are a source of endless amusement to me, and many others.
And you use a typing error to bolster your point!!
Yes, I think it's a rather good way of illustrating how confused you must be. Were you dropped on your head as a child, perhaps? You certainly should have been.
How vacuous, hollow and lacking in mental powers you are, ginzo. You have used someone else's comment to respond to the points I've raised here ( a comment far more intelligently written than anything you could ever come up with ). And you've cut-and-pasted it into your own review! Are there no original thoughts to be found rattling around in that poor head of yours, along with the tumbleweeds and swastikas? I fear not. Why don't you try writing a review? I notice your output is less than prolific, to say the least.
Talk about intelligence!
Let's not, you don't want to embarrass yourself. Oh, too late.
Sincerely
Steve
|
Aug 05 '05
2:11 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: thanks for your intruding comment in my reviews,here's yours (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
Heh heh(groan)
You don't expect me to believe that comment do you??
Talk about intelligence!!
And you use a typing error to bolster your point!!
Lame!
P.S. the terrorist (muslim extremist)are killing Iraqis or ANYONE else that believes in freedom.
Ya they're in your back yard and mine,as well.
The ONLY way to deal with this sick murderers is to go on the attack
Now we're talking FACTS.
|
Aug 04 '05
10:05 am PDT
|
|
Re: thanks for your intruding comment in my reviews,here's yours (Reply to this comment)
by nsign
Intruding comment? Do you find official Iraqi civilian casualty figures to be rather inconvienient? A nasty reminder of the tragic and pointless cost in human lives that this catastrophic war has been responsible for? Of course you do, silly me.
"Keeping us safe from terrorism", you say. Yes, the war in Iraq has certainly made us feel much safer here in the UK, especially on the Tube. The funny thing is, the people that have decided to start blowing themselves up over here aren't Iraqis, or Saudis, or any other faceless evil foreign types Bush & Blair would like us to think are plotting the downfall of civilisation. They're young British muslims who have lived here all their lives, and who would probably never have dreamed of doing anything like this had the US and the UK not murdered so many thousands of innocent muslims in the name of "freedom". I firmly believe there will be more of them, too, and its only a matter of time before they spring up inside your own borders. Enjoy them.
Incidentally, if you're going to try and make a point and be taken seriously, try and spell "attacks" right. It kind of shows you up as being the ignorant tit many people already suspect you to be. It doesn't take much effort, on a text-based site, to make your stuff vaguely literate. Plus, your comment would carry more weight if it wasn't the same one you've cut and pasted elsewhere about fifty times now.
Sincerely
Steve
|
Jul 28 '05
12:52 am PDT
|
|
thanks for your intruding comment in my reviews,here's yours (Reply to this comment)
by ginzo
THANK GOD ALMIGHTY FOR THE PATRIOT ACT AND THE SECURITY IN PLACE THAT THE TERRORIST HAD FEW OPTIONS FOR THEIR ATTACTS AND WE CONTINUE TO BE SAFE !!
Where Bush Got His marching Orders.
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
>
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
>
> "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
>
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
>
> "We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
> - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
>
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
>
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
>
> "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
> - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
>
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
>
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
>
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
>
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
>
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
> - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
>
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 200
Jul 14 '05
10:06 am PDT
|
Jul 27 '05
12:05 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Well Done. (Reply to this comment)
by travelgall
I am in complete disagreement (well with the exception of your comment on Rumsfeld who is taking away money from the US armed forces to spend on high budget items such as the F-22 raptor). Nevertheless I am interested in your comments, and enjoyed the piece. And won't Not Helpful for something I disagree with. If you want I'll debate your essay.
Yours Aye
A Low-Watt brain
PS The actor Larry Hagman is against the War in Iraq.
|
Jul 01 '05
3:08 pm PDT
|
|
Well Done. (Reply to this comment)
by drdevience
I am in complete agreement.
Doc
|
Jul 01 '05
10:58 am PDT
|
|
Many low-wattage brains here! (Reply to this comment)
by vicfar
You say:
Bush's contemptible assertion that what is happening in Iraq now is a "necessary sacrifice" is an insult aimed at the remaining low-wattage brains who still think Bush is the righteous crusader for peace and freedom he would like us to think.
I did not watch his speech.because I am allergic to his face and to his voice, but I am not surprised his strategy has not changed, because it has paid off so far. He ignores facts and evidence and continues to equivocate on connections (Iraq-9/11) that informed people know do not exist. His approach bets that the majority of Americans cannot distinguish reality from delusion, and they will buy the nonsense he feeds them forever. He has no other approach because all facts are damning for him and his sidekicks.
It has worked so far, because you should not misunderestimate [a famous Bushism] the number of low-wattage brains in the US who have no clue about what is going on. They may still be a slight majority!
Very articulate essay....
Vittorio
|
Jun 30 '05
9:20 am PDT
|
|
|
|
