PDA

View Full Version : Kerry Presidency would violate US Constitution



Leodom
14th September 04, 01:42 PM
Upon return to the United States after his 4 month stint in Vietnam, John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy by his actions as a member of "Vietman Veterans Against War" and by his testimony in front of Congress. Many POWs lives were made worse because of this testimony.

Article 14 of the US Constitution forbids anyone from being President who has provided aid and comfort to the enemy after having pledged an oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Kerry had to take such a pledge to be an officer in the Navy.

The Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 3 (also known as Amendment 14, Section 3) states in relevant part:

"No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof . . ."

When John Kerry became a Naval officer, he took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Afterward, upon his return from Viet Nam, he openly, publicly, and proudly, gave aid and comfort to America's enemies.

Having given aid and comfort to America's enemy, while a Naval officer of the United States, John Kerry is clearly and unequivocally disqualified, barred, by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution, from serving as a Senator or as President.

Xango
14th September 04, 01:46 PM
No, Leodom. In America we are innocent of all accusations until proven guilty. That is to say, no one is a thief until they've been convicted of theft, and no one is a traitor until they've been convicted of treason.

Kerry has not even been accused, in court, of the crime of treason or "aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war", let alone tried, let alone convicted.

Which is to say, legally, Kerry can serve in both the Senate and the Presidency. So sorry.

cyrijl
14th September 04, 01:52 PM
In America we are innocent of all accusations until proven guilty.
Actually you are wrong. There is a difference between legal guilt, implied guilt and actually doing it. You are innocent in the eyes of the state until the state has proven your guilt. But this has nothing to do with actual guilt. Under your premise two things would be true.
1-no one in jail is innocent
2-everyone out of jail is innocent.

I don't know if kerry fits this bill quite as defined by the law. Comfot to the nemy in this case is too vague. If the enemies picked up a feed from bush they cou7ld find quotes and lines to comfort themselves. Intent plays a big part....

I think you are fishing on this one Capt.
(BTW, i am not voting for bush or kerry)

Xango
14th September 04, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl
Actually you are wrong. There is a difference between legal guilt, implied guilt and actually doing it.

Legal guilt is the standard for legal matters, such as assuming the Presidency. A brainiac such as yourself could have picked up on that, and saved himself a post. :rolleyes:

garbanzo
14th September 04, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by Leodom


When John Kerry became a Naval officer, he took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Afterward, upon his return from Viet Nam, he openly, publicly, and proudly, gave aid and comfort to America's enemies.



Does excercising one's Constitutional right to free speach constitue aid and confort to the enemy?

I certainly hope not.

Leodom
14th September 04, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Xango
No, Leodom. In America we are innocent of all accusations until proven guilty. That is to say, no one is a thief until they've been convicted of theft, and no one is a traitor until they've been convicted of treason.

Kerry has not even been accused, in court, of the crime of treason or "aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war", let alone tried, let alone convicted.

Which is to say, legally, Kerry can serve in both the Senate and the Presidency. So sorry.

Xango, of course you are correct. In order for Kerry to be dis-qualified per article 14 of the US Constitution, he would have to be tried and convicted of the violation in question. Although I and many others consider him guilty, this does not carry the strength of a conviction and is therefore not enough to disqualify him for the presidency.

It is interesting to consider, however, the possibility of an impeachment after the fact if he is elected. (It would never happen, just interesting to consider)

cyrijl
14th September 04, 02:03 PM
I think you missed the point of my post. But it is ok, i know high school is tough for you.

Legal guilt is the standard for the state. But there is much more in Capt.'s post than actually consideration for the post of president.

The legal consideration is null since no one is going to pursue a legal remedy. HOWEVER, the idea of kerry comforting the enemy is one which can be used in a civil manner to keep the issue in the fronts of the minds of the people. Then kerry's ppl must decide how to address the issue. They cannot flatly deny it, we have him on tape.
Their move next has to be to decide how to make it seem as though comfort is not the intent. Even if kerry never went to trial that does not make him innocent of the charges outside of a court. Here we are talking about opinionb of a man running for president not whether this man should be on trial.

Leodom
14th September 04, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
Does excercising one's Constitutional right to free speach constitue aid and confort to the enemy?

I certainly hope not.

In some cases, it can. This is one of the constitutional restrictions to free speech. It would require, however, a conviction to be relevant.

Leodom
14th September 04, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl

I think you are fishing on this one Capt.
(BTW, i am not voting for bush or kerry)

Cyrijl,

Are you confusing me with CaptShady?

cyrijl
14th September 04, 02:06 PM
PPL who serve this country have restrictions on their rights. It is part of the contract. IN the army you can't just go where you want when you want. That issue is null and void.



2-If you steal you are a thief. It is like saying you are not a liar until you have been found guilty in a court of law. Unfortunately that is not how the world works. If you lie to me many times i do not have to prove you are lying to take action. In fact i can call you a liar all day long, and it is up to you to prove you are not. That is how libel works in the US

cyrijl
14th September 04, 02:07 PM
actually i was, sorry. I am so used to replying to capt...i forgot to see who wrote the original...sorry.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
Does excercising one's Constitutional right to free speach constitue aid and confort to the enemy?

I certainly hope not.

It absolutely can. The first amendment is not an absolute right.

Did Kerry give aid and comfort to the enemy? Probably. Was that his intent? Probably not. If nobody has pursued this charge during his tenure in the Senate is it likely they will now? Probably not. In short, this is a non-issue.

Did Kerry hurt a lot of American servicemen - predominantly drafted enlistees with no choice but to serve - deeply? Yes. His exercise of free speech hurt a lot of people. As I've stated since his nomination: If the Republicans are effective in opening these wounds and reviving the "Hanoi John" image, it will be very tough for Kerry to win the election.

garbanzo
14th September 04, 02:41 PM
It is not an absolute right, however, opposing a war in the manner that Kerry did is very likely protected.

As far as politics goes, I think Kerry has miscaluated. Vietnam is still an open sore.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
It is not an absolute right, however, opposing a war in the manner that Kerry did is very likely protected.

As far as politics goes, I think Kerry has miscaluated. Vietnam is still an open sore.

The turning point of this election was when Kerry "reported for duty" in the DNC. It was offensive to millions and, IMHO, the reason why he did not see a bounce (but Bush did).

garbanzo
14th September 04, 02:48 PM
I'm too depressed to argue.

Stick
14th September 04, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Did Kerry hurt a lot of American servicemen - predominantly drafted enlistees with no choice but to serve - deeply? Yes. His exercise of free speech hurt a lot of people. As I've stated since his nomination: If the Republicans are effective in opening these wounds and reviving the "Hanoi John" image, it will be very tough for Kerry to win the election.

Not to be too much of a smart ass, but I dare you to guess what hurt more people more deeply.

It starts with a w and ends with an r.

And with each passing week I resign myself more to the thought of 4 years of abyssmal foreign policy that makes any work I will do over seas drastically more difficult.

PeedeeShaolin
14th September 04, 02:55 PM
I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that Bush sending kids to die in Iraq for make-believe weapons of mass destruction has done more damage than Kerry giving a speech.

Over 1,000 dead and countless maimed and fucked up; and thats a DIRECT result of George Bush's actions and decisions.

Stick
14th September 04, 02:57 PM
Last count I saw- back in July for god's sake- the maimed and fucked up count is over 5,000

garbanzo
14th September 04, 02:59 PM
1,015 Americans dead.

7,026 U.S. troops wounded.


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html


As someone who actively opposes the war in a wide variety of public ways, I have to acknowledge that there must be a fair amount of service personnel who would like to disembowel me with a combat knife.

But the insuatation that I am giving aid and comfort to the enemy by speaking freely is somewhat offensive.

PeedeeShaolin
14th September 04, 03:04 PM
"Maimed and fucked up" Garbanzo, not wounded, theres just no color in "wounded" :D

Now that these soldiers are in those great military care facilities they can get lots and lots of pain killers for their horrific stumps and when they get OUT and the military tells them to fend for themselves they'll end up broke and homeless begging for my change in Time Square so they can get their next painkiller and bottle of wine.

Just like in Vietnam and the Gulf War, the U.S. really CARES for its wounded vets.

I think Gulf War Syndrom is still not covered under many vets insurance.

Leodom
14th September 04, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
Last count I saw- back in July for god's sake- the maimed and fucked up count is over 5,000

Which is MUCH fewer than the dead, maimed, and raped by Saddam and his two goons of sons.

Trying to morally equate the damage done by the Ba'athist regime to the damage caused by a war for liberation is intellectually dishonest.

The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi. They are Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian, etc... from many other nations in the area who do NOT want to see a Democratic Iraq. They fear that if the Iraqis achieve a Democratic Government that their citizens will then see that it is possible and they could lose power.

See the "Good News From Iraq" thread.

garbanzo
14th September 04, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Which is MUCH fewer than the dead, maimed, and raped by Saddam and his two goons of sons.

Trying to morally equate the damage done by the Ba'athist regime to the damage caused by a war for liberation is intellectually dishonest.

The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi. They are Iranian, Syrian, Jordanian, etc... from many other nations in the area who do NOT want to see a Democratic Iraq. They fear that if the Iraqis achieve a Democratic Government that their citizens will then see that it is possible and they could lose power.

See the "Good News From Iraq" thread.

No one has made such an equation.

These are Americans we're talking about.

To call this a "war of liberation" in intellectually dishonest.

By the way, have you conducted a poll of the insurgents? You seem rather confident as to their demographics.

The "good news" site also features a number of interesting features including such notable topics as the Loch Ness Moster, Big Foot and Roswell. The originial source for the data is a "Coalition" website. Propaganda as news.

Stick
14th September 04, 03:09 PM
Cute, now let's hear about how Kerry's words in an effort to stop the war were somehow more damaging than that most mistaken of military ventures our nation has ever participated in: the Vietnam War itself.

Leodom
14th September 04, 03:10 PM
You're right, they are acting as if the US war actions are WORSE than what Saddam did.

In reality, the goal of the war was to remove a ruthless dictator and then return control of the country to the Iraqi people. If that's not liberation, what is?

PeedeeShaolin
14th September 04, 03:10 PM
By the way, have you conducted a poll of the insurgents? You seem rather confident as to their demographics.

He just believes what the TV tells him. Every word as long as its what he wants to hear.

garbanzo
14th September 04, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
You're right, they are acting as if the US war actions are WORSE than what Saddam did.

In reality, the goal of the war was to remove a ruthless dictator and then return control of the country to the Iraqi people. If that's not liberation, what is?

How old are you?

Stick
14th September 04, 03:17 PM
Then that should have been the case Bush presented rather than "Iraq poses a direct threat to the US and has weapons of mass destruction that they are willing to give to terrorist agents if not use themselves". I supported the war in the beginning, and not even for the given reason, I really do feel that Saddam was a dirt bag who deserved to be ousted. I defended this action for months, this wasn't a war for oil, no, absolutly not; the Haliburton got all those sweet government contracts that they subcontracted for less than half the fucking price to smaller companies. Haliburton truck driver making several times what our troops are for driving a 3 or 4 mile circuit every day, a job that could easily be performed by an Iraqi for a fraction of the cost (whle still getting paid in similair fashion to, say, a truck driver here in the US).

You know what, I'm not even going to go into all teh details of how this has fucked up, I am just going to say this; Citing the fact that Saddam needed to go in no way changes the fact that the way we've handled the whole affair is pittiful.

Yese it's a job that needed to be done, a job that needed to be done better.

And no that's not a criticism of our troops, they mounted the fastest fucking invasion in history and have done well enough in the effort to keep civ casualties low.

The very idea that Kerry is ineligble for the presidancy for taking the correct stance in the 1970's is absolutly ridiculous.

DJeter1234
14th September 04, 03:22 PM
back to the origonal topic, one coud also argue that since Vietnam was meerly a policing action, and the police aren't the enemy of the people they police ...

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
Not to be too much of a smart ass, but I dare you to guess what hurt more people more deeply.

It starts with a w and ends with an r.


The answer is clear: The Vietnam War.

Freddy
14th September 04, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl


2-If you steal you are a thief. It is like saying you are not a liar until you have been found guilty in a court of law. Unfortunately that is not how the world works. If you lie to me many times i do not have to prove you are lying to take action. In fact i can call you a liar all day long, and it is up to you to prove you are not. That is how libel works in the US

Actual if you call someone a liar (depending on the circumstances and extent of damages) and they are not they can sue for slander.

garbanzo
14th September 04, 03:25 PM
Dai:

What do you consider a low level of civilian casualties?

If the WMD/direct threat argument is discounted, why do you still assert that it was
a job that needed to be done by the U.S.?

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo

As someone who actively opposes the war in a wide variety of public ways, I have to acknowledge that there must be a fair amount of service personnel who would like to disembowel me with a combat knife.

But the insuatation that I am giving aid and comfort to the enemy by speaking freely is somewhat offensive.

No Garbanzo, I do not believe that is true. Protesting is fine.

However, what Kerry did went far beyond protesting.

Leodom
14th September 04, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
Then that should have been the case Bush presented

I think you are confusing the goal of the war with the reason for the war. The goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and then return control of Iraq to the Iraqi people. Regime change in Iraq as a United States' goal was in place since 1998. Your beef seems to be with how it is being accomplished rather than the what or the why. Please look into the Halliburton claims a bit more (and not just on left wing sites) Halliburton first received no bid contracts from the Clinton Administration. Many Halliburton employees have been killed in Iraq. If they had hired Iraqis to drive the trucks, then the Iraqis had been killed doing so, the uproar would have been even worse than what we hear now. Before you condemn what is done, consider the alternatives and the ramifications of them.

Garbanzo, I am 38 years old if you must know.

garbanzo
14th September 04, 03:27 PM
How so?

Leodom
14th September 04, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by DJeter1234
back to the origonal topic, one coud also argue that since Vietnam was meerly a policing action, and the police aren't the enemy of the people they police ...

This is a valid point. If we never had a Declaration of War against the North Vietnamese Kerry probably could have sold them weapons and given them maps to US positions and not be guilty of providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Some lawyer would then parse the meaning of the word "enemy" and get him off.

Freddy
14th September 04, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Which is MUCH fewer than the dead, maimed, and raped by Saddam and his two goons of sons.

Trying to morally equate the damage done by the Ba'athist regime to the damage caused by a war for liberation is intellectually dishonest.




Originally posted by Leodom
I think you are confusing the goal of the war with the reason for the war. The goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and then return control of Iraq to the Iraqi people. Regime change in Iraq as a United States' goal was in place since 1998. ...

Least we forget it was the U.S. government who supported Saddam/Ba'athist regime just befor the first Gulf War. Least we should forget when Saddam gassed the Kurds all he got was a slap on the wrist and nothing about it was brought up till prior to the first Gulf War.

"liberation" line was a line that the U.S. government figure could sell to the public. Neither Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are democracies but yet they have been embraced the goverment. Not to mention it was quite recently Khadafy of Libya was also embraced by the government and they aint no democracy either.

Freddy
14th September 04, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
You're right, they are acting as if the US war actions are WORSE than what Saddam did.

In reality, the goal of the war was to remove a ruthless dictator and then return control of the country to the Iraqi people. If that's not liberation, what is?

For control of one of the world's biggest oil supply. That ruthless dictator was TIME LIFE Man of the Year and was propt up by the U.S. goverment itself.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Stick
14th September 04, 03:41 PM
"Low level" is not a specific number, it's "they are hiding their shit near schools and hospitals, this could get real ugly" and then doing your best to keep it less ugly.

Granted I don't think I could say that to a person who'd last a child to an American bomb, but I have to say it to myself or I'll go nuts.

And Leo, for god's sake man, Cheney ran that fucking company, do you realize how very much that wreaks? Even if, magically, it isn't a corrupt as hell deal (mmmm, kickbacks) do you realize how incredibly bad that makes us look to the world at large?

Leodom
14th September 04, 03:45 PM
The United States supported Iraq against Iran when Iran was a greater threat/enemy to the United States than Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not openly hostile to the United States. The Iraqi government, soon to be elected by the Iraqi people control the Iraqi oil. Any oil obtained by the United States is paid for. If we wanted to take it by force, we could. We are, generally, a moral nation and would not do such a thing.

The Ayatollah Khomeini was also Time's man of the year. It is not always a positive acclamation. Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize and he is one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. Finally, Time is not run by the US Government.

As for former support of Saddam. People change. Past mistakes should not require us to ignore current problems.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
The United States supported Iraq against Iran when Iran was a greater threat/enemy to the United States than Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not openly hostile to the United States. The Iraqi government, soon to be elected by the Iraqi people control the Iraqi oil. Any oil obtained by the United States is paid for. If we wanted to take it by force, we could. We are, generally, a moral nation and would not do such a thing.

The Ayatollah Khomeini was also Time's man of the year. It is not always a positive acclamation. Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize and he is one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. Finally, Time is not run by the US Government.

As for former support of Saddam. People change. Past mistakes should not require us to ignore current problems.

The US support of Saddam has more to do with the Soviet Union than Saddam.

Leodom
14th September 04, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Dai-Tenshi
"And Leo, for god's sake man, Cheney ran that fucking company, do you realize how very much that wreaks? Even if, magically, it isn't a corrupt as hell deal (mmmm, kickbacks) do you realize how incredibly bad that makes us look to the world at large?

I've said it many times. Cheney resigned from Halliburton before running for VP. His stock in the company (which has lost money BTW) was placed in a trust. Since Cheney was in charge of the VP search committee for Bush, he could have placed some puppet in there and continued to rake it in while working for Halliburton. Cheney took a tremendous pay cut to serve as VP. Halliburton is a huge company which has been working on Government contracts for decades. Was Halliburton supposed to never get another government contract because a former CEO was now US Vice President?

Leodom
14th September 04, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
The US support of Saddam has more to do with the Soviet Union than Saddam.

You're right, I had forgotten about that. The cold war did cause some strange bedfellows.

Freddy
14th September 04, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
The United States supported Iraq against Iran when Iran was a greater threat/enemy to the United States than Iraq. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are not openly hostile to the United States. The Iraqi government, soon to be elected by the Iraqi people control the Iraqi oil. Any oil obtained by the United States is paid for. If we wanted to take it by force, we could. We are, generally, a moral nation and would not do such a thing.



That seems like a great apologist line. How was Iran a greater threat to the U.S. ? During the Iraq regime the U.S. government KNEW Saddam torture people. Infact Saddam was only given a slap on the wrist when he gassed the Kurds. That doesnt excused it. The whole concept of spreading "democracy" is a farce giving the fact that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan arnt democracy and they do TORTURE their own people. Niether is Libya a democracy. Women are treated even worst in Saudi Arabia than were in Iraq.
Actually the oil is beling distributed and control by the U.S. forces.
It was the U.S. Gov. who suported the Shah of Iran who tortured his own people. And it was the U.S. Gov. who supported Pinochet of Chile a mass murderer and they let him go.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 04:01 PM
My forehead is bruised and bloodied from smacking it against the desk every time a post identifies the reason for this war in Iraq as "liberation" or "WMD" or "corporate greed". It's entirely frustrating that so few people really have a friggin clue about the world we live in. This board has brought me to the conclusion that a large percentage of martial arts practitioners are mildly retarded.

Enough of that rant. Here's a new one.

Based upon what we know today, I believe the war was ill-advised. It was a mistake. But arguing about whether or not we SHOULD have gone in there in the context of voting for a political leader/party (future oriented) is completely missing the point. It's a sunk cost.

The real question is what do we do now, or in the future to deal with this problem? Aside from the obvious partisan shots like "get rid of the jackass who got us into the situation", discuss how we solve the problem. That is what we should be focusing on.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
And it was the U.S. Gov. who supported Pinochet of Chile a mass murderer and they let him go.

...and WHY do you think they did that Freddy?

Freddy
14th September 04, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
The US support of Saddam has more to do with the Soviet Union than Saddam.

Not entirely accurate. The US. Gov support for Saddam was much more greater. Not to mention it was U.S. Government (ask our friend Donald Rumsfeld) who sold anthrax to Saddam.

Freddy
14th September 04, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
...and WHY do you think they did that Freddy?

First of all does that justify torture and murder. Does it justify the action of all the Death Squads murders in South America?
Please define what Democracy is about. Or does Democracy applies to only what you agree to.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
First of all does that justify torture and murder.
Please define what Democrcy is about.

I'm not supporting Pinochet as the right choice. But several thousand thermonuclear devices pointed at the US along with a foriegn leader jumping pounding his shoe in the UN swearing the "bury" the US created a certain fear and mindset which everyone pointing out the flaws of the US seem to quickly forget.

Freddy
14th September 04, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
I'm not supporting Pinochet as the right choice. But several thousand thermonuclear devices pointed at the US along with a foriegn leader jumping pounding his shoe in the UN swearing the "bury" the US created a certain fear and mindset which everyone pointing out the flaws of the US seem to quickly forget.

Actually historically speaking the USSR did not support Pinochet. Cuba was much closer not to mention lots of Soviet Nuclear subs.

Even after the fall of the USSR Death Squad style murders are still happening.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
Not entirely accurate. The US. Gov support for Saddam was much more greater. Not to mention it was U.S. Government (ask our friend Donald Rumsfeld) who sold anthrax to Saddam.

It IS accurate. The US would not have supported Saddam if the Red Navy was not attempting to enslist Saddam and position itself in the oil shipping lanes. With the gas CRISIS of the 70's a recent and stinging memory, the Soviet Navy forced the US hand.

This nonsense that the US sold Iraq WMD is just nonsense (until someone can point me to some credible evidence to the contrary).

garbanzo
14th September 04, 04:12 PM
Here's one more bruise for Punchingdummy (how else can I fuck up a Republican who could easily kick my ass?) :D


President Bush engaged in a rare display of honesty during his acceptance speech at the RNC.

He outlined, in his own deceptive way, the neo-conservative fantasy that is the true reason for this war. The fantasy has been expalined repeatedly by ex-spook John Woolsey and others in what is euphomistically called "the intellegence community" for some time now.

The fantasy goes something like this:

We invade Iraq. We set up a pro-American "democracy" in a country that has little or nothing in their history to prepare them for that system of government.

Pro-American democracy then spreads throughout the Mid-East. Saudi Arabia, a pro-American oligarchy becomes a pro-American democracy. Kuwait too. Syria also. Maybe even Iran. Soon the whole region, with the exception of the West Bank and Gaza will be pre-American and democratic.


This line of thinking contains many problems.

Pro-American does not imply democratic, or vice versa.

Whatever replaces the pro-American oligarchy in Saudi Arabia is likely to be neither pro-American
nor democratic. It is no accident that Bin Ladin (remember him?) and most of the 911 hijakers were/are Saudis.

The same is true of the pro-American bastion of democacy called Kuwait, where men are men and women still can't drive.

Much of this effort is based on public relations. By our reluctance to "create linkage" with the
Palestinian-Israeli issue we undermine that effort.

Democracy is a particular form of government that evolved in the West, due to the unique history thereof.

Other countries have adopted it, but it has never been imposed on a country that lacked a developed apitalist economy and some miniman democratic institutions.

It is a big leap to presume that the entire Islamic world wasnt to be democratic.

The list goes on.

Is it all about oil? No.

Would we have "liberated the Iraqi people" if their economy was based on the production of soy beans? I think not.


My answer: get rid of the jackasses (yeah, yeah, I know).

I don't think we can clean up a mess when the folks who did it are still in power and refuse to admit that it is a mess.

I also don't think that we can clean up the mess when the neo-conservative fantasy outlined above is the ideology that is in play.

I also don't think we can clean up the mess without substantial international cooperation and one of the first casualties of this war was our diplomatic influence.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
Actually historically speaking the USSR did not support Pinochet. Cuba was much closer not to mention lots of Soviet Nuclear subs.

Of course not. But Pinochet was the US alternative to a Chilean leader who was friendly, or atleast warming up, to communist support.

Yes, Cuba was much closer. If you recall, we came terribly close to destroying the world during 13 days in October over that very issue.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
Here's one more bruise for Punchingdummy (how else can I fuck up a Republican who could easily kick my ass?) :D


We'll have to break out the walkers and canes and head to a throwdown and find out! :-)

(...and I'm not a Republican)

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo

Is it all about oil? No.

Would we have "liberated the Iraqi people" if their economy was based on the production of soy beans? I think not.


My answer: get rid of the jackasses (yeah, yeah, I know).

I don't think we can clean up a mess when the folks who did it are still in power and refuse to admit that it is a mess.

I also don't think that we can clean up the mess when the neo-conservative fantasy outlined above is the ideology that is in play.

I also don't think we can clean up the mess without substantial international cooperation and one of the first casualties of this war was our diplomatic influence.

If it were not for oil and exportation of terrorism we would not give a rats ass about the middle east.

Instead of debating the reasons for the war, let's get back to what we should do. To address your last three sentences:

First, we have already incurred much of the downside to this administration's approach. We cannot get that back. So while dumping these clowns may make people feel good, it might..MIGHT..be counter-productive.

Forget the fantasy of democracy. Think about the reality of Iran and Syria and exportation of terrorism. That concerns me a hell of a lot more than establishing democracy in the middle east.

Saying you prefer more international cooperation is like a candidate running on the idea that we should stop childhood diseases - it's a great idea but the reality is quite different. Bill Clinton - the man himself - came out in Newseek defending Bush on this very issue.

So the question still is what will Kerry do differently that Bush to resolve this problem??? Forget all the other chaff, that is what the debate should really boil down to.

Freddy
14th September 04, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
It IS accurate. The US would not have supported Saddam if the Red Navy was not attempting to enslist Saddam and position itself in the oil shipping lanes. With the gas CRISIS of the 70's a recent and stinging memory, the Soviet Navy forced the US hand.

This nonsense that the US sold Iraq WMD is just nonsense (until someone can point me to some credible evidence to the contrary).

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm



http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm

http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthrax sold by U.S.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/1022iraq.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm

http://mediafilter.org/shadow/S43/S43anthrax.html

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01012002/0101200243.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

garbanzo
14th September 04, 04:31 PM
I'll get right on it...

Not being Bush is a good start though.

Deadpan Scientist
14th September 04, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
I'll get right on it...

Not being Bush is a good start though.
wow, you didn't read anything punchingdummy said did you?

cyrijl
14th September 04, 06:10 PM
freddy (from a few ages ago)
In the US, if you sue someone for slander, you have to prove the accusations are false. So until you can prove the statements are false they are valid and binding.

DJeter1234
14th September 04, 06:20 PM
actually, if you sue someone for slander, yo have to prove that they were negligent in their claims, which means that you have to produce enoguh evidence to show that your accusation is based in reality.

"The charge must be false; the falsity of the accusation is to be implied till the contrary is shown."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm

Dochter
14th September 04, 06:40 PM
Punching dummy,

While it may be facile to say that the war was about a or b, that is in fact what the administration did. The reasons they claimed warranted the action have not been borne out.

To then think it is reasonable to remove those claims from discussion of the administration's performance internationally is in my opinion missing the picture.

Sure invading Iraq may be important in containing an unpredicatble Iran etc. That however is not the reason Bush gave, nor is it the reasoning upon which congress agreed to send my brother into Iraq (or to send him back in a few months).

Freddy
14th September 04, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl
freddy (from a few ages ago)
In the US, if you sue someone for slander, you have to prove the accusations are false. So until you can prove the statements are false they are valid and binding.

I believe its the other way around.
If for example someone in the media makes a statement that McDonalds uses rat meat in their burgers and this causes financial damage to McDonalds and their reputation etc. McDonald does not have to prove this accusation is false but rather that the accuser has to have supporting evidence of his statements or he is open to libel for slander.

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
Punching dummy,

While it may be facile to say that the war was about a or b, that is in fact what the administration did. The reasons they claimed warranted the action have not been borne out.

To then think it is reasonable to remove those claims from discussion of the administration's performance internationally is in my opinion missing the picture.

Sure invading Iraq may be important in containing an unpredicatble Iran etc. That however is not the reason Bush gave, nor is it the reasoning upon which congress agreed to send my brother into Iraq (or to send him back in a few months).

My point was that the vast majority of the debate has been focused on the poor decisions - and they were poor - and little has been focused on how to fix them. While many may be satisfied with simply punishing and removing the first party, it is not a substitiute for critical analysis of what the second party will do.

Dochter
14th September 04, 07:17 PM
Fair enough.

I guess many of us are just a bit incredulous that so many others don't ever make the concession of "and they were poor".

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
Fair enough.

I guess many of us are just a bit incredulous that so many others don't ever make the concession of "and they were poor".

They were beyond poor. They made a series of horrible decisions. We have and will pay a price for them. But the questions in my mind are (a) what is the alternative that Kerry proposes, and (b) what is the cost (not in economic terms)

Dochter
14th September 04, 07:29 PM
Those are the questions I'd like answered as well. I'd be willing to bet that the reason there has not been a substansive discussion about this is that no one is going to like the answers given. By either side. We without a doubt cannot and should not pull out right now. There will be a further cost in american lives. That is why the "why" remains so important.



I personally have other issues that are in actuality more important which, compounded by iraq, make my "the other guy is a better choice vote" locked in. Iraq is one that is very important to me because of familial involvement.

patfromlogan
14th September 04, 07:30 PM
Huh? What's the problem with poor choices and bad decisions?

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/imgs/vietnam2.jpg

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm



http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm

http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthrax sold by U.S.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/1022iraq.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-09-30-iraq-ushelp-list_x.htm

http://mediafilter.org/shadow/S43/S43anthrax.html

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/01012002/0101200243.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

A few of these are good articles which I have seen before; some of the others are from baised rags. The following passage from the Washpost sums it up pretty well:

"Wheaton, Md.: I hear pro-Saddam activists often claim that Reagan supplied Hussein with chemical weapons. I've seen no evidence to support these claims. Is there any truth to this?

Joyce Battle: I have not personally seen documents that indicate that the Reagan administration supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. However, the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons. "

Clearly the US demonstrated a moral compass that spins with the problem of the day. A consistent problem in US foreign policy. However, there is a huge difference between selling precursers and selling WMD outright. There are allegations out there, but I have not seen documentation which substantiates them.

Freddy
14th September 04, 07:43 PM
You forget this.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/1022iraq.htm

Now this does not mean WMD was sold (per say) but the U.S. gov was aware of it.

Dochter
14th September 04, 07:44 PM
"However, there is a huge difference between selling precursers and selling WMD outright."

Huge? Depends on the precurser doesn't it?

punchingdummy
14th September 04, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Freddy
You forget this.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/1022iraq.htm

Now this does not mean WMD was sold (per say) but the U.S. gov was aware of it.

Exactly.

Deadpan Scientist
14th September 04, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
Huh? What's the problem with poor choices and bad decisions?

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/imgs/vietnam2.jpg
http://people.brandeis.edu/~timcraig/nap0wned.jpg

garbanzo
15th September 04, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
If it were not for oil and exportation of terrorism we would not give a rats ass about the middle east.

Instead of debating the reasons for the war, let's get back to what we should do. To address your last three sentences:

First, we have already incurred much of the downside to this administration's approach. We cannot get that back. So while dumping these clowns may make people feel good, it might..MIGHT..be counter-productive.

Forget the fantasy of democracy. Think about the reality of Iran and Syria and exportation of terrorism. That concerns me a hell of a lot more than establishing democracy in the middle east.

Saying you prefer more international cooperation is like a candidate running on the idea that we should stop childhood diseases - it's a great idea but the reality is quite different. Bill Clinton - the man himself - came out in Newseek defending Bush on this very issue.

So the question still is what will Kerry do differently that Bush to resolve this problem??? Forget all the other chaff, that is what the debate should really boil down to.


I am not campaigining for Kerry, so I don't want to be his mouth piece. I ain't no politician.

His positions are available on www.johnkerry.com

I don't see the points I've raised as "chaff", and a large part of the debate, in my opinion, should revolve around on the ideology that led to our invasion of Iraq. That ideology is still driving our foreign policy and, in my opnion, putting us all in danger.

International cooperation is not as nebulous as it sounds. George W's dad was an expert at using diplomatic and military alliances in the service of protecting and defending this countries interests, as he defined them.

While I have little or no faith in the U.N. to do anything other than getting innocent people killed, an internationalist approach to foregin policy does not mean hoping that the UN will fix everthing.

Kerry's approach, as I understand it, is, broadly speaking, internationalist which is our only way out of this mess.

Leodom
15th September 04, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by garbanzo

While I have little or no faith in the U.N. to do anything other than getting innocent people killed, an internationalist approach to foregin policy does not mean hoping that the UN will fix everthing.

Kerry's approach, as I understand it, is, broadly speaking, internationalist which is our only way out of this mess.

I feel compelled to address this. George W. HAS had an internationalist approach to Iraq. There are many countries supporting the US, many of which have had their soldiers die because of it. France, Germany, and Russia do not the international community make. Those countries which opposed the US action had a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power (UN oil for food debacle) or they were already hostile to the US and would be against ANYTHING the US did.

Do not belittle the support of the many nations who are working with the United States. The list of supporting nations is much longer than the list of opposing nations.

This is another partisan press urban legend, also known as "conventional wisdom" which is so often wrong.

garbanzo
15th September 04, 09:04 AM
Oh please.

Leodom
15th September 04, 09:08 AM
Please what? Kerry's approach would be to appear to perform the same actions as Bush but beg for the French & German governments to say they like it now. He would likely offer concessions which would harm US security and sovereignty. He has all but stated that he would take no action without UN approval. I repeat, France, Germany, & Russia are NOT the international community. Do I need to provide a list of Nations supporting US action in Iraq versus those nations who oppose it?

garbanzo
15th September 04, 09:21 AM
To call this a genuinely international effort is naive to the point of stupidity.

Yes, I know, Albanian supports us.

But it wasn't Albania that lied to the UN security council.

It wasn't Albania that bombed Bagdhad.

I don't know how many Albanians, if any have died, but it isn't Albanians
troops who have been given an impossible job with no exit strategy.

Over 1000 Albanians have not died.

Albanians were not responsible for the 11,000 + civilian deaths.

Leodom
15th September 04, 09:22 AM
Here is a web-site which lists nations which have sent troops to support US action in Iraq. This doesn't include those nations which support the action in principle but have not sent troops.

This IS an international coalition.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

Anytime someone says this is NOT an international coalition, they are belittling the support of the following nations:

United Kingdom
Italy
Poland
Ukraine
Spain
Netherlands
Australia
South Korea
Romania
Japan
Bulgaria
Denmark
Thailand
Honduras
El Salvador
Hungary
Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Singapore
Mongolia
Azerbaijan
Norway
Latvia
Portugal
Lithuania
Slovakia
Philippines
Czech Republic
Albania
Georgia
New Zealand
Estonia
Kazakhstan
Macedonia
Moldova
Tonga
Armenia

Belittiling the support of so many nations is hardly what I would call "diplomatic"

garbanzo
15th September 04, 09:25 AM
Yes, I know. The Mongolian hoardes have invaded Iraq.

garbanzo
15th September 04, 09:30 AM
And of course New Zealand has sent over a few sheep.

How do the 10 Norwegians cope with the heat, I wonder?

Xango
15th September 04, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by patfromlogan
Huh? What's the problem with poor choices and bad decisions?

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/imgs/vietnam2.jpg

Oh, pat? Where is she now?

And garbanzo...learn to concede a point, man.

Freddy
15th September 04, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
Exactly.

WMD was a broad term. (No complete units.) I was specifically stating Anthrax. It was the U.S. who gave Saddam starter cultures of anthrax.

Rigante
15th September 04, 12:53 PM
Freddy why would the US give Saddam anthrax? Is this just a rumor or is there some documentation for that. Just curious as that would be an irresponsible thing to do.

cyrijl
15th September 04, 02:12 PM
Freddy in the US if i slander you, you have to prove the accusations are not true. This is different than in the UK where McDonalds sucessfully sued fomr protestors. IN court the protestors had the burden which is wyh McD went after them.

EuropIan
15th September 04, 02:14 PM
isn't that what is refered to as the iran contra?
or is that something completely different?

Freddy
15th September 04, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Rigante
Freddy why would the US give Saddam anthrax? Is this just a rumor or is there some documentation for that. Just curious as that would be an irresponsible thing to do.

Heres some links. Theres alot more links over the net. I just dont want to spend to much time searching for all the links. But for starters:

Anthrax
http://www.globalpolicy.org/securit...01/1022iraq.htm (Sorry some of the sites sine yesterday just got removed or moved around. Try the one below or use the search function on their website.)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2001/1022iraq.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...help-list_x.htm

http://mediafilter.org/shadow/S43/S43anthrax.html

http://www.milligazette.com/Archive.../0101200243.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As for why the U.S. Government gave Saddam anthrax? I presume was because at one time he was an allied in the Middle East.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
http://nsarchive.chadwyck.com/igessayx.htm



http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/w...attle022703.htm

http://www.rense.com/general29/wesold.htm

Freddy
15th September 04, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl
Freddy in the US if i slander you, you have to prove the accusations are not true. This is different than in the UK where McDonalds sucessfully sued fomr protestors. IN court the protestors had the burden which is wyh McD went after them.

Not from what I understand. In part lets say it was Coca Cola. If they were to prove the accusations were not true it would mean they would have to disclosed trade secrets (I beleive theres a specific law dealing with patents, copy rights and specifically trade secrets). The case of the claim of someone finding a syringe in a coca cola can comes into mind. Would that mean Coca Cola (TM) has to open every can of coke got they had distributed to prove that this allegation to be false? I dont think so. (If I recall correctly they successfully sued and won in this case.)

cyrijl
15th September 04, 03:32 PM
but coke wouldn't sue over that.

Remember that in a slander case it is for preponderance of the evidence not reasonable doubt. The plaintiff has to prove that the accusaitons are false in order to prove his case. So, the accusations against the plaintiff stands until he can prove they are false.

Freddy
15th September 04, 03:33 PM
(Rigante Theres more articles over the net. Here is just one example.)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm

Published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland)
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot

THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.

The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.

The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.

The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'

This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.

Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'

Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.

It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.

However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.

According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.

Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.

Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'

He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.

The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons program.

Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.

'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'

©2002 smg sunday newspapers ltd
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freddy
15th September 04, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl
but coke wouldn't sue over that.

Remember that in a slander case it is for preponderance of the evidence not reasonable doubt. The plaintiff has to prove that the accusaitons are false in order to prove his case. So, the accusations against the plaintiff stands until he can prove they are false.

Actually if I recall correctly they did. It was in the news a number of years ago.

cyrijl
15th September 04, 03:38 PM
i would need to see the case on that.
Coke would not have to prove the accusations were false if they could prove the person making the allegaiton had no idea what they were tlaking about. They would just need to impeach their credibility

punchingdummy
15th September 04, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by garbanzo
I don't see the points I've raised as "chaff", and a large part of the debate, in my opinion, should revolve around on the ideology that led to our invasion of Iraq. That ideology is still driving our foreign policy and, in my opnion, putting us all in danger.

International cooperation is not as nebulous as it sounds. George W's dad was an expert at using diplomatic and military alliances in the service of protecting and defending this countries interests, as he defined them.

While I have little or no faith in the U.N. to do anything other than getting innocent people killed, an internationalist approach to foregin policy does not mean hoping that the UN will fix everthing.

Kerry's approach, as I understand it, is, broadly speaking, internationalist which is our only way out of this mess.

Garbanzo,

I didn't mean to come accross saying your points were chaff. Just that the issue I personally find most salient is the solution going forward (and I am less concerned than others with punishing the people who got us to this point).

The point about international cooperation is that both apporaches (that and unilateralism) often wind up in the same place. That was one of Bill Clinton's main arguments in defending Bush against the left (as odd as that sounds).

Why would others want to put their troops into that mess at this point? There's too much downside and too little upside. There may be some takers, but I am not hopeful.

punchingdummy
15th September 04, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by Dochter
We without a doubt cannot and should not pull out right now.

This is one of the issues I am wrestling with. I agree not now. But we might need to at some point. As horrible as an option that is, it may be the right approach (at some point).

Freddy
15th September 04, 07:00 PM
I suppose one has to weigh the cost of the war. Both financially and in the cost of human lives.

patfromlogan
15th September 04, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Xango
Oh, pat? Where is she now?

And garbanzo...learn to concede a point, man.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/kimphuc/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/kimphuc/gfx/book_cover.jpg
That photograph, taken June 8, 1972, was printed on front pages of newspapers around the world. Suddenly, the image of an innocent child fleeing napalm horror became part of our collective conscience. It won a Pulitzer Prize for Nick Ut, and instant fame for the subject of the photograph. From that moment on, wherever she travelled in the world, Kim Phuc would never escape her picture. She would always be recognized as that girl…the girl in the picture.

Kim, now a Canadian citizen living in Ajax, Ontario
had it not been for that picture, and for the recognition factor it gave her, she would probably have died. She would never have received the first-class medical attention she did, or recovered as well as she has. Kim Phuc is now a Canadian citizen and a UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador.

http://mapage.noos.fr/moulinhg2/1945.2000/Vietnam/kim.phuc.2001.jpg

DJeter1234
15th September 04, 09:44 PM
Cryill


Originally posted by DJeter1234
actually, if someone sues you for slander, you have to show that you were nto negligent in your claims.

"The charge must be false; the falsity of the accusation is to be implied till the contrary is shown."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s052.htm

edited for clarity

garbanzo
16th September 04, 08:31 AM
Punchingdummy:

Agreed.

I don't really see any good outcome to this situation at this point.

punchingdummy
16th September 04, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Ian G.R.
isn't that what is refered to as the iran contra?
or is that something completely different?

Something completely diffrerent.

cyrijl
16th September 04, 09:53 AM
yes derek you prove my point.

The accusations stand against the person being slandered until the person being slandered can sohw they are false.

DJeter1234
16th September 04, 01:40 PM
cryli, I beleive you are misinterpretting. The site is saying that the charge (slander) msut be false, and teh falsity of the accusation (slander) is implied till the contrary is shown. My reaasoning: In context, they are talking about what one needs to sucesfully sue for slander, so "charge" must mean teh slander.

kikkoman893
17th September 04, 05:53 AM
so, did the iraqis even want the americans in iraq in the first place? did they ask for help? i dont seem to remember them doing so. but i guess it doesnt matter now.

DJeter1234
17th September 04, 10:53 PM
^^ worst point ever

you do know that that Saddam would have killed them for voicing that they wanted him out of power, don't you? But even the democracy now reporters reported that Iraqis in general wanted Saddam out. At least in the cities.