[Rekd]

It looks to me as if the legislative branch has abdicated its responsibility over these matters to the executive branch.

In regards to the military action in Iraq, Congress ok'd it. Sorry to disappoint.

[Geof]

The reasons for war against Iraq was well stated. Premptive before Saddam became a nuclear power. Nuclear ability in Saddam's hands was unnacceptable. Look at the end of the 2003 state of the union speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

And to that end it's been a success.
.....

Well I guess considering he did not have any weapons of mass destruction and was nowhere near becoming a nuclear power it is possible to claim this level of success.

Seems like a lot of lives have been lost to do something that was not needed in the first place.

And don't trot out all the guff about terrorists acts before 9/11. This one was the catalyst for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

[ynneb]

The reasons for war against Iraq was well stated. Premptive before Saddam became a nuclear power. Nuclear ability in Saddam's hands was unnacceptable. Look at the end of the 2003 state of the union speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

And to that end it's been a success.

"Preemptive" Based on that argument, we should arrest all of humanity.
We sould arrest them on the basis that http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Com...cumentID=33522

Ok Sadam has been executed, there are no WMDs. Whats the excuse now.

You cant go and upset the majority of a countries people just because there are a few who are your enemy.

It would have been far better to send in a few snipers to take out the offending leaders than upset a whole nation.

Who was it that set up Saddam in the first place ?

Just admit it, our governments are not squeaky claen. You are not been dissloyal to your country by admitting this. On the contraray actually.

Enough is enough and its our duty to say so.

[massajamesb]

You cant go and upset the majority of a countries people just because there are a few who are your enemy.

It would have been far better to send in a few snipers to take out the offending leaders than upset a whole nation.

-quote


Okie dokie, I can think of another group or two of people who should have used this logic. Unfortunately for them and us, it doesn't seem to be that simple. I am pretty confident that a suggested assasination would still get the whole country up in arms (no pun intended).

This has turned into a supposed "holy war", one in which the West has taken up arms against Islam, according to the people we are trying to stop.
Kill one of them, all of them, or the leader of them, and they will still look at us the same, with complete and utter distaste.

The terrorists we are trying to stop or impede don't like the U.S., never have, never will. Being diplomatic with them doesn't make them like us any more. They hate us. The end. They cannot agree to disagree, and in fact loathe the very idea.
There are 3000 + soldiers who I am sure would have loved to see that ideal work, and it seems there is a growing number that would agree with them, sadly at it is.

How many years went by that we literally left Iraq, Bin Laden,Al Quaeda, etc. alone, and ignored them? That is pretty much the most nonviolent approach I can think of. How did that work out for the U.S. and other nations? Not well I suppose? Or have the many outcomes of our collective laziness been forgotten?

I am all for a better diplomatic approach to some of the issues here, but how can you get any more lenient than ignoring the problem completely?

Given this approach, I feel that the U.S. would still be under attack by a number of "bleeding hearts", for the way we handled the situation. I have noticed that I live in the most criticized country in the world, and no matter how much foreign aid we give, no matter how diplomatic we try to be, we are still looked down upon by a number of people as evil and arrogant s.o.b.'s

I knew I was doing something right.....

[martinw]

OK Class,

Let us try a brief experiment. There is no harm in that.

Over the week-end, ask all the people you meet a few simple questions

1) "Do you think that the invasion of Afghanistan has made you safer from a terrorist attack"


2) "Do you think that the invasion of Iraq has made you safer from a terrorist attack"

Answers on the desk on Monday morning.

Best wishes

Martin

[fizzissist]

OK Class,

Let us try a brief experiment. There is no harm in that.

Over the week-end, ask all the people you meet a few simple questions

1) "Do you think that the invasion of Afghanistan has made you safer from a terrorist attack"

2) "Do you think that the invasion of Iraq has made you safer from a terrorist attack"

Answers on the desk on Monday morning.

Martin

Ok Martin, let's try a brief experiment...no harm in that, right?

1) "Do you think that not sending troops into ANY country for ANY reason makes you safer from a terrorist attack?"

2) "In practical terms, the previous question not withstanding, what would make you safer from terrorist attacks?"

There. Easy questions, easy answers. Get 'em correct and you're qualified to be president.

-----------------------
Answers to today's homework:
1) Since we haven't experienced too many terrorist attacks on US soil since invading Afghanistan, I'd be inclined to think it could be true, if only slightly.

2)Since we haven't experienced too many terrorist attacks on US soil since invading Iraq, I'd be inclined to think it could be true, if only slightly.

For those of you in Jolly Auld England, you've got 5 surveillance cameras for every citizen on your streets, so you're already immune to terrorist attacks, huh?

[Geof]

....For those of you in Jolly Auld England, you've got 5 surveillance cameras for every citizen on your streets, so you're already immune to terrorist attacks, huh?

As always you exagerrate. I am sure I read somewhere it is only four.

And part of the reason for those cameras is because Jolly Olde England had a bit of trouble in the past with terrorists from Northern Ireland. Terrorists that received support in cash and equipment from sympathisers in the United States of America.

But I suppose it is the old story; one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[ynneb]

I want to issue a challenge to those who think its all ok to be invading others countries. Watch this video http://video.google.com/url?docid=11...-dykyCYLRW5PhQ

The challenge isnt to watch the video in its entirety. The challenge is to admit you have been tricked and lied to, the same way I have been tricked and lied to. Its very hard to admit when you are wrong or have been someone else's stooge. You could keep arguing to try and save face, but I think you are bigger than that.

[fizzissist]

I'll watch it...but I bet it's about oil. Evil Big Oil. Evil Big Old Oil...or as Rachel Ray likes to say, "E B Oh Oh".

Why no hue and cry when we went into the Balkans? Has everyone forgotten about the AMBO pipeline, Corridor 8, Macedonia, Unocal, and .... OIL???? And before someone tries to tell me all about how that was a humanitarian effort....in the words of Penn & Teller....B@## S&!%

Draw some lines on the big map between where the oil is, and the customers. That's where the pipelines go, either directly, or to the ports where the ships load it up.

Geez. I mean, its not like the russians wanted to take over Afghanistan to save the religious treasures from the Whack-a-bans, or even have the poppy fields for themselves.

Yes, we're in Iraq because of oil. We'd be in Iran too if we could get away with it...so would France, fer chrissakes.

Every single one of us in this discussion uses oil. Lots of oil. Lots and lots of oil. Be ye for it, or agin it, we're in those countries to achieve a 'stability' of commerce that is to our economic advantage. Always been that way.

Wanna change that? Then STOP CONSUMING OIL. Quit *****in' about Bush, and stop supporting the evil big oil machine. Bush'll go away...and that's what y'all want, right?

If you're not going to stop using oil at levels that require us to find it outside our borders, at prices you like to pay, then maybe you should consider supporting the guys that are trying to get it to ya.

[Geof]

....If you're not going to stop using oil at levels that require us to find it outside our borders, at prices you like to pay, then maybe you should consider supporting the guys that are trying to get it to ya.

What percentage of US oil consumption comes from the Middle East?

[dertsap]

Yes, we're in Iraq because of oil. We'd be in Iran too if we could get away with it...so would France, fer chrissakes.

Every single one of us in this discussion uses oil. Lots of oil. Lots and lots of oil. Be ye for it, or agin it, we're in those countries to achieve a 'stability' of commerce that is to our economic advantage. Always been that way.

Wanna change that? Then STOP CONSUMING OIL. Quit *****in' about Bush, and stop supporting the evil big oil machine. Bush'll go away...and that's what y'all want, right?

If you're not going to stop using oil at levels that require us to find it outside our borders, at prices you like to pay, then maybe you should consider supporting the guys that are trying to get it to ya.

wouldn t that be refered to as common thievery

[ynneb]

Every single one of us in this discussion uses oil. Lots of oil. Lots and lots of oil. Be ye for it, or agin it, we're in those countries to achieve a 'stability' of commerce that is to our economic advantage. Always been that way.

Wanna change that? Then STOP CONSUMING OIL. Quit *****in' about Bush, and stop supporting the evil big oil machine. Bush'll go away...and that's what y'all want, right?

Glad you can admit that it is about oil.
I wonder if the same amount of money that has been spent on the war (100 billion including clean up ? Estimating ) was spent on building solar fields or geothermal wells, would have solved the same problem. You would be world leaders in renewable energy, and never have to rely on another country for fuel. (See we have come full circle and this thread does belong in the global warming section )

http://video.google.com/url?docid=11...-dykyCYLRW5PhQ

[One of Many]

So I see, stating something I observe of the International community and gather in the media makes me ignorant and arrogant? Should I become emotionally distraught? Last I checked, criticism was not a one way street. Whether or not that's fair play, I leave up to the reader. If we are remotely equals in the scheme of these discussions, each point of view may state something factually true......although it may be hard to read let alone admit. Most reasonable men can still prosper from the exchange without umbrage.

Let me draw my distinction between having critical and cynical perspectives of our Governments to which our people are mutually represented.

Some of the fading support imparted by the critical media's constant harping over what is being done to the enemy verses what the enemy and its supporters are doing or having proclaimed intentions of doing around the world. The attention span and short term focus to fight barbaric attacks with tenacious care does not sit well with the 30 minute crime-drama mentality as packaged and delivered by the majority of these messengers. Making mountains out of a mole hills confuses and manipulates the plot enough to question who the real bad guy's are.

There are subtle differences between being critical of our nations decisions and cynical to the point of conspiracy by our troops against Iraq for their resources. I have yet to see anything that obligates Iraq to give us anything as far as I know. There is plenty to be critical about how it is being handled, but even many of those are hyperbolic faults while trying to doing the better of the lesser evils to be chosen in the bigger picture. The contagious cynical negativity portrayed in the media achieves nothing more than undermining the intentions in our valor as it erodes public support by capturing the attention of those predisposed to finger pointing. Moreover, ill will is multifaceted in terms of laying blame for the actions of a few on the many. Like when there is a terror attack on nations that support the war, no matter how trivially, where in the media and the public of that nation blames American involvement to be the one that brought it on them.

The big picture, I hope is to bring a gift of peace to middle east that they have never known. Although initially may have no vested cultural interest in it, due primarily to the Totalitarian Leadership they are accustom to . I speculate, only because they will not consider or embrace diversity in a mono-theocratic state, then expect that for the remainder of the world as superior to freedom and democracy.

I sincerely do not believe I am being ignorant or arrogant. Just like you, I am expressing my opinions based on what I gather as relevant to the situation. When ever I have issued complaints about a condition, to which I place myself as the complainer, whom has no positive outlook and/or obligation to help resolve that condition. The response is normally "Put up or Shut up and stay out of the way. You only complicate the issue without assisting in the solution." Obviously we are not fighting this alone, but some of the carping overshadowing the progress into disaster is intellectually disingenuous.



Let's take a look at the International commitment helping in this conflict. There is even less commitment to the global issues on terrorism. If it is a fact that most of the International community admits terrorism is an illegal act. How is it any reasonable person can call fighting its spread "illegal". The amoral ambiguity is deafening! That 13% is certainly due Honor and respect.Also lets not forget that these 147,000 total are trying to do the job of 300-400,000.


U.S. Forces in Iraq ~130,000
U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 3245


Non-US Coalition Forces: ~17,000
Non U.S. Deaths Confirmed By The DoD: 255

Australia 2
Bulgaria 13
Denmark 6
El Salvador 5
Estonia 2
Hungary 1
Italy 33
Kazakhstan 1
Latvia 3
Netherlands 2
Poland 19
Romania 2
Slovakia 4
Spain 11
Thailand 2
Ukraine 18
United Kingdom 134



1 United Kingdom ~7,200 1,300 ~8,500
2 South Korea ~2,300 ~2,300 ~1,100 (?)
3 Australia ~850 ~541 ~1,400
4 Poland 900
5 Romania 865
6 Denmark 460 ~35 (NATO and UNAMI) ~500
7 El Salvador 380
8 Georgia 300 550 (UNAMI) 850 ~2,400 (?)
9 Azerbaijan 150
10 Bulgaria ~150
11 Latvia 136
12 Albania 120
13 Czech Republic 100
14 Mongolia 100
15 Lithuania ~50
16 Armenia 46
17 Bosnia & Herzegovina 37
18 Estonia 34
19 Macedonia 33
20 Kazakhstan 29
21 Moldova* 12
UNAMI Fiji ** 150
Hungary *** 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Nicaragua 0 Withdrew troops: Feb. 2004
Spain 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Apr. 2004
Dominican Republic 0 Withdrew troops: Early-May. 2004
Honduras 0 Withdrew troops: Late-May. 2004
Philippines 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Jul. 2004
Thailand 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Aug. 2004
New Zealand 0 Withdrew troops: Late-Sep. 2004
Tonga 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Dec. 2004
Portugal 0 Withdrew troops: mid-Feb. 2005
Singapore**** 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Norway 0 Withdrew troops: Oct. 2005
Ukraine 0 Withdrew troops: Dec. 2005
The Netherlands 0 Withdrew troops: Mar. 2005
Japan 0 Withdrew troops: Jul. 2006
Italy 0 Withdrawal troops: End of Nov. 2006
Slovakia 0 Withdrew troops: End of January 2007

[phomann]

An argument can be made we’ve tried to make war to humane with high accuracy bombs minimizing collateral damage, maybe we should have used B52’s and kept our military men and women safer.

Phil,

Whether you thust a knife into ones belly, or push a button a couple of hundred miles away, the result is basically the same, someone dies. In fact more innocent victims dies with the

high accuracy bombs

A case in point. When the chase for Sadaam was one, coallition intelligence, and I use the term loosely, believed Sadaam was meeting at a restaurant he frequented. So what did they do? They dropped a "high accuracy" bunker bomb on the restaurant. Rased a city block as I recollect. Killing scores of innocent people. Oh, by the way no Sadaam.

Who in there right mind would order such a thing? Would this person have ordered the same strike if Sadaam popped up in a local New York Restaurant? I don't think so. So does that mean that the Iraqi civilian's life is less valuable that that of a New Yorker? Or just that there are more lawyers in New York?

And then there was the Smart Bomb on a truck load of terrorists in Pakistan. Oh, thats right, they weren't terrorists at all, it was a wedding party. But anyone could make that mistake.

Smart bombs kill more innocent vistoms than their intended targets. BTW they are not as accuract as the media portray. You only get to see the nose camera video of the ones that work.

On of the most disgusting images on the Iraq invasion was that of some 700+ cruise missles being launched of the coallition ships at the start of the invasion. The Military and Media were reacting like it was a New Years eve fireworks show.

Did any one realise that each and every one of the missiles has to land somewhere?

The problem with Smart bombs is that they are only as smart as the thick-head pushing the button.

Don't be fooled by the 'Smart bomb' spin of the military, there is nothing humane about them. That also goes for 'surgical strike' and the other buzz words.

By the way, collateral damage is a term for how many people you kill. Made up by arms salesmen to help them sleep at night.

Cheers,

Peter.

[dertsap]

. Like when there is a terror attack on nations that support the war, no matter how trivially, where in the media and the public of that nation blames American involvement to be the one that brought it on them.


Let's take a look at the International commitment helping in this conflict. There is even less commitment to the global issues on terrorism. If it is a fact that most of the International community admits terrorism is an illegal act.

ignorane and arrogance was not intended as a direct shot at you personally

noone is blaming the US for terror attacks being brought onto other nations ,
it needs to be understood that the rest of the world is concerned about attacks as well as you are , the coporation my wife works at has a white powder scare almost weekly , this crap hits home for many people not only the US ,


what i don t understand is how one country can stand up and say we are going to war and either your with us or against us ,then expect everyone to follow , especially when that country turned it s back to the UN
you are either part of the UN or you are not
you want to go to war , go for it , thats your choice

the iraq war was started because it was quote "they HAVE weapons of mass destruction" which they didn t ,
now the iraq soldiers who are fighting in their own home land against invaderers are refered to as terrorists ,
look at the kids who grew up in an honest hard working family who have watched their parents die and lost what comfort they did have , how do you think they are going to look at the rest of the world as they grow up , they will be a true product of their environment
will revenge become part of a 1000 years of fighting ,some of those countries have been fighting each other so long i'm sure they have forgotten what started it , these things can carry for a long time

it is quite clear that many there don t agree with the way we live but at the same time it is quite clear many here feel the same toward them ,and it is due to ignorance and miss understanding on both sides , we know what we know and its easy to make assumptions of what the other guy is doing based on hearsay ,
i used to know some young guys who had escaped iraq , because of their religion they were nearly gutted
they were very smart very pleasant and very interesting gentlemen who loved and appreciated the freedom of north america just as many of those people have or had the impression north america was a utopia where people held there hands out to help others who were perfect stangers
we can t destroy that image for the decent people who live under those circomstances because for them the world really does become an evil place with no utopia
for them what would there be to live for but to do for the good of man and destroy the evil ones

[jackson]

House 1:
The four-bedroom home was planned so that "every room has a relationship with something in the landscape that's different from the room next door. Each of the rooms feels like a slightly different place." The resulting single-story house is a paragon of environmental planning.

The passive-solar house is built of honey-colored native limestone and positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the 4,000-square-foot residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground.

These waters pass through a heat exchange system that keeps the home warm in winter and cool in summer. A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern.

The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the four-bedroom home, (which) uses indigenous grasses, shrubs, and flowers to complete the exterior
treatment of the home.

In addition to its minimal environmental impact, the look and layout of the house reflect one of the paramount priorities: relaxation. A spacious 10-foot porch wraps completely around the residence and beckons the family outdoors.

With few hallways to speak of, family and guests make their way from room to room either directly or by way of the porch. "The house doesn't hold you in. Where the porch ends there is grass. There is no step-up at all." This house consumes 25% of the energy of an average American home.

(Source: Cowboys and Indians Magazine, Oct. 2002 and Chicago Tribune April 2001.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------
House 2:
This 20-room, 8-bathroom house consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year. The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, this house devoured nearly 221,000 kWh, more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, the house burned through 22,619 kWh, guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of this energy consumption, the average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Also, natural gas bills for this house and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, this house had nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for 2006.

(Source: just about anywhere in the news last month online and on talk radio, but barely on TV.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
House 1 belongs to George and Laura Bush,
and is in Crawford, Texas.

House 2 belongs to Al and Tipper Gore,
and is in Nashville, Tennessee.



Practice what you preach

[fizzissist]

Crude oil imports into the US as of Jan '07 (1000barrels/day)
Canada 1851
Saudi Arabia 1563
Mexico 1435
Nigeria 1106
Venezuela 955
Those 5 countries account for 72% of US imports. We're currently importing 514 from Iraq.

As of 2005, the US imports about 60% of it's oil...and we consume some 320,500,000 gal of gas per day.

(for the record...my vacation to Thailand with friend totaled over 16,856mi, divided by 52mpg, = over 324gal of fuel....minimum. That's just me alone! I'm wasting it, but Algore is saving the planet...)

-----------------------------------------
On the linkage of Iraq to terrorists....from the DOJ, Nov 4, 1998 (that's Bill Clinton's team, btw) we have this:
"...Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the
National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and
its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically
including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Maybe some will recall that Bill Clinton, champion of the warm and fuzzy peace for all the republicans can do no good party, bombed a Sudanese factory and religious retreats (that his administration tried to label as terrorist training camps) in Afghanistan.

...To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.

Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11
commission.

He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."

I gotta say, I'm confused. Why is it that there's a clear link in '98, but after Bush is elected it's bad intel? While I believe that the current administration is headed by people with a clear agenda, there is a clear continuity in the overall mission from one party to the next......

.....and that mission is to make money for the people in control.

[martinw]

Answers to today's homework:
1) Since we haven't experienced too many terrorist attacks on US soil since invading Afghanistan, I'd be inclined to think it could be true, if only slightly.

2)Since we haven't experienced too many terrorist attacks on US soil since invading Iraq, I'd be inclined to think it could be true, if only slightly.

For those of you in Jolly Auld England, you've got 5 surveillance cameras for every citizen on your streets, so you're already immune to terrorist attacks, huh?

Dear fizzissist,

The Government of the UK attempted to convince a highly sceptical population that our country was in danger from Iraqi WMD and that UK forces should form part of the coalition forces for the Iraq invasion. As it turned out subsequently, the "evidence" of WMD that the government produced was extremely thin, if not bogus. Anyway, UK forces were deployed.

A while later four UK citizens who had been to some radical establishment in Pakistan killed about 50 people with suicide bombs on the London Underground. Before doing so, two of them made videos stating that they were "fighting" because of the UK's position on Afghanistan and Iraq. An opinion poll later indicated that a worrying number of Muslims in the UK had at least some sympathy for the bombers' views.

Since then, this UK government (which has always had a tendency for control-freakery) has attempted, with some success, to introduce quite repressive legislation curtailing our civil liberties and increasing State snooping.

Naturally, the public is told that these measures are needed for the "War on terror". What a mess.

I think that the latest figures for spy-cams is one for each 12 citizens in the UK. Yes, the cameras tracked the bombers, and no, they didn't make a blind bit of difference.

Best wishes

Martin

[Geof]

...Since then, this UK government (which has always had a tendency for control-freakery) has attempted, with some success, to introduce quite repressive legislation curtailing our civil liberties and increasing State snooping...

I think there are a lot of initials or names that can substitute for UK.

[Rekd]

Phil,
In fact more innocent victims dies with the

high accuracy bombs

A case in point. When the chase for Sadaam was one, coallition intelligence, and I use the term loosely, believed Sadaam was meeting at a restaurant he frequented. So what did they do? They dropped a "high accuracy" bunker bomb on the restaurant. Rased a city block as I recollect. Killing scores of innocent people.

And compared to, say, only 5 B-52's dropping tons of dumb bombs over a minimum of a square mile in the same area to try to achieve the same effect with the same intel would have killed LESS people?

Wow. Just, wow.

Must be the new math.

Yeah, I guess you're right, sending a bomb into a window of a building is much worse than blowing up the entire block.