"Before 2003 there was solid evidence from the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iraq had not restarted its nuclear weapons program.
That program had ended in 1992 with the first Gulf War.
The Bush administration simply ignored the facts in its pushing for the war."
If WMD were limited to nuclear weapons, I'd be inclined to agree with you.
As I mentioned, the war was "pushed" for a variety of reasons, primarily to obtain a strategic "high ground" in the theater from which to establish a fundamentally-sound base of operations. The WMD thing was, as I mentioned, used to pass political muster.
Carlos
Carlos_Helms
JoinedPosts by Carlos_Helms
-
39
Pathological President defends Iraq War
by nvrgnbk inbush defends iraq war in speech by steven lee myerspublished: march 20, 2008washington president bush used the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in iraq on wednesday to make the case for persevering in a conflict that could have many more anniversaries.
democrats accused him of lacking a strategy to win and withdraw.. mr. bush, speaking before members of the armed forces and defense officials at the pentagon, said in his frankest acknowledgment yet that the costs of the war, in lives and money, had been higher and longer lasting than he had anticipated.
but he remained unwavering in his insistence that the invasion of iraq, which began in march 2003, had made the world better and the united states safer.. "five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it," he said.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
-
39
Pathological President defends Iraq War
by nvrgnbk inbush defends iraq war in speech by steven lee myerspublished: march 20, 2008washington president bush used the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in iraq on wednesday to make the case for persevering in a conflict that could have many more anniversaries.
democrats accused him of lacking a strategy to win and withdraw.. mr. bush, speaking before members of the armed forces and defense officials at the pentagon, said in his frankest acknowledgment yet that the costs of the war, in lives and money, had been higher and longer lasting than he had anticipated.
but he remained unwavering in his insistence that the invasion of iraq, which began in march 2003, had made the world better and the united states safer.. "five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it," he said.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
"Before Bush's invasion of Iraq, that country was NOT overrun by fundamentalists."
Irrelevant. I am speaking of European countries who have welcomed Sharia with open arms...and are now regretting it.
"Before Bush's invasion of Iraq, that country was NOT overrun by fundamentalists. Saddam Hussein had them in check. The initial invasion of Iraq and the ongoing war (which you are defending here) was not about "terrorism"l." "
Sure it was, Gopher. As I mentioned, WMD was a technicality required to pass political muster.
"So you're saying that anyone who disagrees with the Bush/Cheney approach to fighting terrorism is on board with the terrorists?"
Is that what I said...or is that what you heard? What I said was that it surprises me that those with a common repressive experience could view their independence so lightly so as to allow their own freedoms to be trampled on by those whose only goal it is to trample on other's freedoms.
"So any ex-JW's who aren't on board with Bush's anti-terrorist plan are weak pacifists who don't want freedom and don't love their country?"
No, not necessarily. I haven't seen their alternatives. Perhaps you'd like to publish one?
"Bush's incursion into the Middle East has caused millions of young Middle Easterners who were indifferent about America to turn into America-haters. Bush's execution of his war on terror has in effect bred millions of new potential terrorists. If / when America ever gets the hell out of Iraq, then the America-hating leaders over there won't have any fuel for their fire."
Evidence, please. The America-haters were America-haters before the Americans ever arrived...and the Muslim extremists have taught the "great satan" rhetoric since the inception of terrorist training camps in the late-70s. There are no "American-hating leaders" over there. There are dictatorial ruling families and warlords...and religiously brainwashed automatons who follow blindly.
Carlos -
45
Does Wearing Your Nations Uniform Automatically Ensure a High Moral Ground?
by hillary_step ini realize that the contents of this thread may enflame the passions of those on all sides of the house.
if your sensibilities are easily damaged, you take yourself to seriously, or your humor is wanting, then be warned this may not be the thread for you.. i have been reading with interest a thread on this board today that is discussing the treatment of us veterans.
i have noticed that when such subjects are discussed there is an automatic assumption that those who don the uniforms of their respective nations, they somehow are automatically walking on a higher moral ground.. i find it all the more puzzling that those who cry the loudest for 'special' treatment for soldiers, and by special i mean as compared to the rest of the working masses, seem to be of an republican bent.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Thank you, Dinah!
Actually, anyone who enjoys freedom can be proud of "those who went before." Some paid a tremendous price, some the ultimate. It takes 12 soldiers to support the one who is on the line of fire. It takes 1000 citizens to produce twelve soldiers. It takes ten-thousand to make the twelve feel appreciated.
Think about where you are today and from whence you came. If you feel fortunate (or-if you have squandered your opportunities to feel fortunate), someone(s) somewhere made that available to you. That is a real source of pride, whether it involves a front-line soldier, a support role, or a population who values their freedom and their history.
My own history is filled with those "who did their part." One great-grandfather, who was an officer in the 51st Indiana Infantry, was wounded twice during the Civil War. One grandfather and one great-uncle who saw action in Cuba during the Spanish-American War. A great-great uncle who, as an Army Colonel, was territorial governor of the Philippines after that same conflict. Another grandfather who enlisted and fought in France during WWI. A father who enlisted during WWII and then saw action as an officer in Korea...along with an uncle who did the same. Ethos and tradition are sources of pride for me - as it is worthwhile fight for what's worth fighting for. I feel no different about the situation today. There are those who would harm me or mine to satisfy their "zeal" without a second thought. If it's up to me, they won't get the chance.
Carlos -
39
Pathological President defends Iraq War
by nvrgnbk inbush defends iraq war in speech by steven lee myerspublished: march 20, 2008washington president bush used the fifth anniversary of the start of the war in iraq on wednesday to make the case for persevering in a conflict that could have many more anniversaries.
democrats accused him of lacking a strategy to win and withdraw.. mr. bush, speaking before members of the armed forces and defense officials at the pentagon, said in his frankest acknowledgment yet that the costs of the war, in lives and money, had been higher and longer lasting than he had anticipated.
but he remained unwavering in his insistence that the invasion of iraq, which began in march 2003, had made the world better and the united states safer.. "five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it," he said.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
When your country is completely overrun by fundamentalist nutters who demand and receive their "right" to practice their bizarre, repressive religion at the expense of everyone else, you MAY one day come to appreciate Bush's tactics in the conduct of the war on terrorism. Strangely, after a common JW experience, presumably understanding the mindset, most here are apparently on-board with the idea that small groups of criminal maniacs can blow up buildings or airplanes or trains or military bases or embassies, killing hundreds to thousands per event...and somehow that is an excusable, "better" option. I am probably alone in my beliefs here...but it is difficult for me to digest the idea that so many who have previously been denied their independence have so little appreciation or regard for the right to pursue happiness that they're willing to allow a small group of anti-social religious zealots to abuse them (again) and then rob them blind.
BTW...there were WMD. Anyone who crossed the Turkish-Iraqi border to Kirkuk in 1991 saw the effects and can attest to the fact. By frustrating and confounding UN-appointed inspectors for more than ten years in their efforts to determine if certain suspect facilities were still producing WMD, the Iraqi military scientists were, for all intents and purposes, permitted to operate with impunity. As far as anyone knew, that threat continued to exist in 2001 and - in my book (and having seen what I've seen) - no right-minded person could afford even the possibility that an unstable leader with a history of using WMD for the purpose of "ethnic-cleansing" could continue to possess WMD.
But that was just a justification required to pass political muster. What is generally overlooked was/is to be found in the conduct of the war itself. Iraq's critical strategic significance in the war on terror is found in its geography. The challenge has always been locating difficult-to-identify, not associated with any particular country, enemy combatants. As a predetermined geographical "center" in a borderless asymmetrical war, its positioning was/is highly advantageous to Coalition Forces in attracting Al Queda insurgents, like moths to a flame. You may recall that Iraqi borders were (and continue to be) largely unsecured, allowing whomever to cross unimpeded from Syria, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. This tactic is a simple variation on two popular strategies that have been taught in war colleges for thousands of years: concentration of effort and economy of force. This, combined with a convenient REMOVAL of obstacles to engagement provides for perhaps the only executable strategy in an asymmetrical war. I believe the tactics to be strategically superior and effective.
Carlos -
30
Worship Me
by changeling ini was bored.
after a countless eternity alone, i was bored.
we spent a few eons alone together so he could get to know me well.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Funny, but it still sounds bitter.
By not allowing men to tell them what to think...it seems that some have allowed bitterness to tell them how to think. Two sides of the same coin...and both are problematic.
Carlos -
45
Does Wearing Your Nations Uniform Automatically Ensure a High Moral Ground?
by hillary_step ini realize that the contents of this thread may enflame the passions of those on all sides of the house.
if your sensibilities are easily damaged, you take yourself to seriously, or your humor is wanting, then be warned this may not be the thread for you.. i have been reading with interest a thread on this board today that is discussing the treatment of us veterans.
i have noticed that when such subjects are discussed there is an automatic assumption that those who don the uniforms of their respective nations, they somehow are automatically walking on a higher moral ground.. i find it all the more puzzling that those who cry the loudest for 'special' treatment for soldiers, and by special i mean as compared to the rest of the working masses, seem to be of an republican bent.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Not all men and women in all uniforms.
For a Marine, it's called "ethos."
But I can only reply from a Marine Corps perspective where "high moral ground" is a critical element of USMC core values. The ethos, the tradition, is what makes a Marine a Marine.
Carlos -
20
where to write?
by bite me inokay, so i know this guy in the kindomhall who is having sex with his lady friend, they are over the age of 18 so that is not the problem.
to annonymously inform the hall of wrong doings going on in their hall, where would one write?
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Are you ready to clean up the mess?
Why do you care if they're in or out?
Carlos -
4
The Brooklyn pen pushers have blood ink wells.
by edmond dantes inconsidering that the bible is not infallible and certainly not a medical reference book is it wise and safe to interpret the drinking of blood as the same as the tranfusing of blood and because it is a life and death matter wouldn't jesus accept the principal of "you must not kill" as the overiding principle in the matter?.
because the leaders of the new world society have been wrong on so many occasions is it not sensible to accept the best possible medical advice during a critical medical situation?.
have the rank and file no common sense at all or do they put their faith in mere mens instructions who have had no medical training whatsoever and isn't it about time they started thinking and standing up for themselves?.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Ancient Biblical health codes addressed the need for sanitation and a healthy select people who lived without without microscopes, centrifuges, periodic tables of elements, or PhDs. It started with two-million Jews wandering around lost (and without hospitals, research facilities, vaccinations, or cough syrup) in the wilderness. By the time of Christ and into the middle ages, there continued to be a high possibility of contracting plagues that could wipe out entire populations. By eliminating the POSSIBILITY of contracting disease via contaminants, prohibited activities, foods, etc - and delineating other activities and proper means of waste disposal, the population remained healthy and intact in order to accomplish "the will of the Lord."
In ancient times there were few separations of church and state. Generally speaking, religious law was THE law. Some modern-day religions have taken these ancient texts and elevated them, once again (only this time, unnecessarily), to the level of "law." Because these "laws" serve no useful purpose, they exist completely at the whim of legalistic religious authorities to whom religious adherents have entrusted their eternal souls. It is as if certain activities (or prohibitions thereof) act as a sort of talisman to please an arbitrary and fickle god who enjoys messing with his people to amuse himself.
It is when these religious rites and ceremonies become sacrificial that they focus laser beams of negative attention on themselves...and rightfully so. Self-sacrifice is one thing; but sacrificing the unwilling or the deluded is as purely evil as Ammonite child-sacrifices to Moloch.
In the book of the prophet Micah, one asks, 'Shall I give my firstborn for my sin, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?'(Micah 6:7), and receives a response, 'It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what the LORD doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.'(Micah 6:8)
This isn't brain surgery. A prohibition on transfusing blood to save lives is superstition of the highest order...and those who sacrifice their children (or would willingly do so) are idolaters worshiping a false god.
Carlos -
11
Banging my head against a brick wall - and I go back for more !
by LouBelle inyup i do - when it come to trying to reason with my cousin - who is still disfellowshipped but believes it's the truth.. i asked him if i could disprove the 607 date thus throwing 1914 and that out the window would he still go back - knowing they had decieved him.
yes - he *&*$(@)&%)(@#$ said yes - i think the look of total shock/horror on my face could have said it all - i was lost for words - i might have growled though.. i know *i* can't make him see it but i keep trying.
i've tried to keep quiet, i've tried reasoning, i've tried shock tactics, i've tried humour, i've tried it all - i know i can't do it - but i'm a sucker.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Welcome, Wee John!
Carlos -
36
So it happened...I met with my Mom and Dad...
by Confession inbrief historical recounting.... 3rd generation of 4 generation jw family.
elder for three years.
realized "the truth" wasn't in september of 2004. tried to fade by moving from michigan to southern california in june of 2005 with my (then) 17 year old daughter (who eventually left the organization herself.
-
-
Carlos_Helms
Agreed.
I tend to be as forthright as I can be, but I'd have to wonder about the humanity of delivering the letter under the current scenario. If "pride" is the only thing you have on your side, it's best to keep quiet. To "strike hard" at old people is not the advice I'd follow (not that you would ever do such a thing, Confession).
Mr Zagor is right about one thing, it would be a "goddamned" letter if you did.
Carlos