HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stop confusing the issues on Iraq!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stop confusing the issues on Iraq!

    Aight guys, its time to lead follow or shut the fuck up!

    Read this, do not just post a dumb shit comment!

    Let's Quit Confusing the Issues on Iraq
    David Limbaugh
    Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005


    It's easy to blame President Bush for failing sufficiently to articulate his case for the war against Iraq, but he does have a nation to lead and a war to fight. Plus, he already made the case for attacking Iraq at the time it mattered – before we attacked.

    He convinced Congress – overwhelmingly – and the American people. Instead of our insisting that he spend all his time responding to the Left's distractions over this, more of us should do a better job coming to his aid on the issue.

    The anti-war Left has finally succeeded in turning public opinion against the war in Iraq with their endless assaults and distortions. The war's supporters, in our defensiveness, have unintentionally taken on a greater burden of proof than, by rights, we should bear.
    The truth is that we were morally and strategically justified in attacking Iraq, based on the information we had available at the time of the attack. Conversely, the wisdom and propriety of our decision to remain until our mission is complete – which we must – and the president's conduct of the war, depend on facts now in existence. But by all means, let's keep the issues separate.

    That is, even if we conclude we were wrong to have attacked Iraq – which we certainly were not – our decision is done and can't be retracted, even by withdrawing. Our decision to remain or withdraw must be based on what is going on today and the likely consequences of remaining or withdrawing.

    The problem is that the anti-war Left has conflated these issues. They have been so obsessed with establishing (through monomaniacal repetition) their fraudulent case that President Bush lied to get us into this war, they have literally paralyzed themselves from contributing anything constructive to any issues concerning the ongoing war effort.

    Stripping the issue to its bare essentials, my simple contention is that we were justified in attacking Iraq, among other reasons, because:

    We believed, based on the best intelligence available to us, that Saddam represented a threat to our security because of his lust to acquire and reacquire WMD, his prior use of them on his own people, and his willingness to use them against us and our allies. His abiding hatred for the United States and his harboring of and support for terrorists (from Palestinian suicide bombers to al-Qaida) exacerbated his dangerousness to the United States.

    That we have been unable to find WMD stockpiles in Iraq doesn't mean President Bush lied about their existence, nor does it change the propriety of our decision based on what we knew at the time. The fact that Democrat leaders have conveniently denied they assessed Saddam's threat to be at least as grave as President Bush did, both at the time of the attack and years before (during the Clinton administration), does not erase from history their well-documented and forcefully expressed opinion to that effect.

    The only difference between Republican and Democrat leaders on the subject is that Democrats just talked about it. Republicans took action.

    Saddam had repeatedly violated the post-Gulf-War treaty and U.N. resolutions and defiantly refused to honor his agreements or comply with international law, making a mockery of Gulf War I and the American lives lost during it. He played games with weapons inspectors, and, despite his burden of proving he'd complied with his agreement to divest himself of WMD, he filed a fraudulent 12,000-page document – both of which led us to believe our intelligence assessments about his WMD were correct. If he didn't have WMD or wasn't trying to produce them, why on earth did he do those things?

    He repeatedly violated the no-fly zone and fired on our planes.

    To be sure, magnificent consequences have resulted and continue to flow from our liberation of Iraq – from Libya's abandonment of WMD, to the end of real torture and massacre of Iraqi citizens by Saddam, to the development of a constitutional republic in the heart of the Middle East (and much more). But supporters of the war don't need to cite these developments to justify our invasion of Iraq, because our decision to attack was justified largely independent of those issues, based on our reasonable assessment of the threat he posed and his lawless behavior.

    Yes, let's meet head on the Left's charge that our mission in Iraq is neither part of, nor advancing our war on terror – which it emphatically is. But let's do so in the context of how we should prosecute the war now that we're there, instead of dwelling on the moot issue of whether we should have attacked in the first place.

    But, truth be told, the Left doesn't want to focus on the here and now, because by doing so they would have to forfeit the delicious political mileage they continue to accumulate against the president by confusing the issues.

    Besides, with the exception of a few of their extremists, they (including all of their legitimate presidential hopefuls) know we can't legitimately talk about withdrawing, which is why they are not offering – not even pretending to offer – any alternative plans.

    Let's debate all the Left's spurious allegations, but, for the sake of our mission and our troops, let's try to keep the issues separate and discrete at least for the purpose of making prudent decisions from this point forward.
    GoodGameTV.com

  • #2
    Good read Reps given
    Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

    Comment


    • #3
      ...he already made the case for attacking Iraq at the time it mattered – before we attacked.

      He convinced Congress – overwhelmingly – and the American people.
      Congress gave the president the authority to use force against Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up his weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. The Administration brought their case for war to the United Nations and failed to get approval. They then broke the UN charter by invading Iraq, claiming America’s national security was at risk from what they claimed to have absolute definitive proof of: Saddam Hussein’s active weapons of mass destruction programs. It was later revealed that...

      “Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting.”

      After learning the Administration’s claims were “not supported by intelligence,” both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that Congress would NOT have given the President the authority to attack Iraq if they had seen the actual information pertaining to Iraq’s alleged programs. Before the war (“when it mattered”), this information was only available to members of the CIA and the Bush Administration, who, at the time, intentionally distorted the information when presenting it to Congress, the United Nations, and the American people.

      Perhaps the most influential of the Bush Administration’s claims, and certainly the one given the most attention during Colin Powell’s speech to the United Nations, was in regards to mobile biological weapons facilities. This claim was completely untrue.

      According to the Republican Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a single informant, code-named Curveball,"really provided 98 percent of the assessment as to whether or not the Iraqis had a biological weapon." However, "...nobody inside the U.S. government had ever actually spoken to the informant—except [for a single] Pentagon analyst, who concluded the man was an alcoholic and utterly useless as a source.”

      So why was this information used to justify a war? Because, like the original “Downing Street Memo” says, the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” This is why the Pentagon analyst mentioned above, after voicing major concerns about Curveball being used as the primary source for Colin Powell’s speech, was told by his superior...

      "Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.”

      Facts being fixed. Period.

      You can piss and moan all you want about why you think the war is justified regardless, but the bottom line is that Congress would not have approved the war if they knew then what they know now.
      Yes, let's meet head on the Left's charge that our mission in Iraq is neither part of, nor advancing our war on terror – which it emphatically is.
      Not quite...

      “Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents...

      Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total...

      "Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data. ...

      Under the standards used by the government, "significant" terrorist attacks are defined as those that cause civilian casualties or fatalities or substantial damage to property. Attacks on uniformed military personnel such as the large number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are not included.

      The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, where attacks rose to about 45, from 19 the year before.”
      But let's do so in the context of how we should prosecute the war now that we're there, instead of dwelling on the moot issue of whether we should have attacked in the first place.
      This statement is made in various ways throughout the article, however, not once does he actually move on discussing how the “war on terror” could be better fought. Instead he goes on and on about how lame the Left is and how he thinks they have distorted the public’s perception of the war.

      If this guy wants a strategy from the Left, here it is: START PULLING OUT NOW.

      Oh, I almost forgot, “we can't legitimately talk about withdrawing.”

      The only thing the Right has been able to come up with is “stay the course,” which basically means continuing to spread terrorism and instability.

      Moreover, the Administration has done anything but stay the course. They’ve lied about the course, changed the course, and have been unable to remain on course.

      As mentioned at the beginning of my post, the original “course” was based on weapons of mass destruction. Now we’re supposedly spreading democracy. In actuality, the war is about maintaining American hegemony during the upcoming energy shortages.

      In 2000, just before transferring over a dozen members to the Bush Administration, the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think-tank founded by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and other current Bush Administration officials and policy makers, released their most comprehensive paper to date. Entitled Rebuilding America’s Defenses, the report outlines the ideal foreign policy of those who wrote the Bush Doctrine, launched the war on terror, and made the case for invading Iraq.

      It says...

      "At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible. ...

      With this in mind, we began a project in the spring of 1998 to examine the country’s defense plans and resource requirements. We started from the premise that U.S. military capabilities should be sufficient to support an American grand strategy committed to building upon this unprecedented opportunity.”


      In other words, the paper is saying that in order to remain the world’s one and only superpower, American “defense plans and resource requirements” must meet a certain criteria. Mainly, this is to (1) gain access to the resources and areas of the world necessary for American dominance, and (2) prevent potential superpowers from gaining access to those same resources and areas. The paper goes on...

      “The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests.”

      The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) mentioned above was written by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby (Cheney’s current Chief of Staff, PNAC founder, and co-conspirator in the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity). That document states...

      “In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.”

      That’s pretty black and white. Now, back to the 2000 paper...

      “Although the experience of the past eight years has modified our understanding of particular military requirements for carrying out such a strategy, the basic tenets of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound. ...

      ...it will be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain the role of global guarantor without a substantial overseas presence.”


      In case you don’t know, this is what most people would call imperialism.

      In regards to Iraq, as many have previously noted, the paper clearly states that the main objective is to establish a “permanent...substantial American force presence in the Gulf” by using Saddam Hussein as the “immediate justification”; and the paper continues...

      “From an American perspective, the value of such [Gulf] bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.”

      This is the policy for which the facts were, and continue to be, fixed.
      "When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny."
      --Thomas Jefferson

      Comment


      • #4
        what a pathetic attempt to win sympathy for the Bush agenda. Congratulations on providing an article that directly admits that Bush is an inadequate president and has gotten way over his head, and is stretched to the max of his abilites to the extent that 5 week vacations are mandatory. Bush has gotten the Americans into it soooo deep that "Besides, with the exception of a few of their extremists, they (including all of their legitimate presidential hopefuls) know we can't legitimately talk about withdrawing, which is why they are not offering – not even pretending to offer – any alternative plans." Because there is no TURNING BACK WHEN IT COMES TO WAR AND THE LIBERALS DONT WANT TO GET THEIR HANDS COVERED IN REPUBLICAN SHIT!!! But for the most part I agree with the article, Bush is inadequate, yes America is in a state it can not turn back from, yes your completely fucked and I doubt there is gonna be a Bill Clinton to save you this time. Good luck with that.

        Worst president on every level, thanks for making it abundantly clear.
        Last edited by gdillinjah; 09-09-2005, 03:14 PM.
        One convienient location...... somewhere in Africa.

        Comment


        • #5
          liberals arent a cohessive party, they annoy me.
          conservitives are merely stupid, they annoy me.

          although, we probly could have held off attacking iraq for a little while... but the past is the past, some of you are obsessed with it...
          www.supremacyracing.com


          I Honda

          Comment


          • #6
            Bush is definatly an inadecuate leader! I'll say this though, thank god John Kerry isn't president!
            So you can blame most people for voting for Bush because of a lack of options!
            The article does help reforce the fact that liberals today are bitches. And can't even wine well enough to win votes!
            What the fuck would I want to vote for a party like that?
            GoodGameTV.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Either we get out now, and Iraq immediately descends into civil war.
              Or we get out later, and Iraq immediately descends into civil war.

              Before invasion: lots of nations harbour terrorists that want to attack America.
              After invasion: lots of nations harbour terrorists that want to attack America.

              Comment


              • #8
                /\ Wow those are some great statements! Your probably right! Just like Germany still harbors Nazi's!!!!
                So you must have a PHD in I know the future!
                GoodGameTV.com

                Comment


                • #9
                  ^ Simply common-sense. The occupation is a rallying point for insurgents - iraqi and foreign, once it ends so too does a great recruiting tool. The divisions in the country are deep, conflict between the groups jockeying for power is inevitable (its already happening), withdrawing the troops now removes one major element a key recruiting tool. The conflict between the two major groups is likely to happen regardless of when the troops leave - but perhaps if they leave sooner rather than later a lot less blood will be spilt as a major grievance would be removed.
                  "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race."

                  -Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    /\ and what of the new government that has no security force in the country?
                    Then the whole D12world message board and its members could arm them selves and take over Iraq!
                    GoodGameTV.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by PassitOn
                      This statement is made in various ways throughout the article, however, not once does he actually move on discussing how the “war on terror” could be better fought. Instead he goes on and on about how lame the Left is and how he thinks they have distorted the public’s perception of the war.
                      Exactly, he never answers his own questions regarding the war on terror. He just bitches like an oldy lady about the Left. The article is a joke and so is anyone who takes it seriously.
                      Originally posted by ethan20
                      There's a correlation between cervixal cancer in women and un-circumsized penises. Not to mention it almost cuts your bacteria count on the penis in half.
                      Originally posted by reservoirGod
                      Ethan sure does know alot about dicks

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PassItOn
                        This statement is made in various ways throughout the article, however, not once does he actually move on discussing how the “war on terror” could be better fought. Instead he goes on and on about how lame the Left is and how he thinks they have distorted the public’s perception of the war.
                        Originally posted by kEgBeGgEr
                        Exactly, he never answers his own questions regarding the war on terror. He just bitches like an oldy lady about the Left. The article is a joke and so is anyone who takes it seriously.
                        With all due respect, both of you need to read the title of the article before you lecture on the direction it should take. It never pretends to be a discussion on fixing the problem. It was an intentional bitchfest towards the left.
                        Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          ^^ Okay. He says the left needs to stop confusing the issue. Presumably, you would think that he would step in and clear up the issues for us by stating what he thinks and what should be done. He does neither, he just bitches some more about the left.

                          I should just automatically start ignoring articles written by anyone named "Limbaugh" or "Coulter".
                          Originally posted by ethan20
                          There's a correlation between cervixal cancer in women and un-circumsized penises. Not to mention it almost cuts your bacteria count on the penis in half.
                          Originally posted by reservoirGod
                          Ethan sure does know alot about dicks

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kEgBeGgEr
                            Presumably, you would think that he would step in and clear up the issues for us by stating what he thinks
                            I think he did that?

                            and what should be done.
                            He supports what is being done, so why would he lecture what should be done differently? 2#:-(

                            I should just automatically start ignoring articles written by anyone named "Limbaugh" or "Coulter".
                            Ann Coulter is funny sometimes
                            Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SlimCorn82
                              Aight guys, its time to lead follow or shut the fuck up!
                              I'll ask questions instead of accepting what im told
                              If I can kick drugs, I can deliver a baby

                              Charlie RIP
                              LOST

                              Comment

                              Post ad widget 300x250

                              Collapse

                              LATEST POSTS

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by carriebowler, 06-29-2021, 11:47 PM
                              1 response
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post sadieosborne  
                              Started by nehasharma16, Today, 02:26 AM
                              0 responses
                              1 view
                              0 likes
                              Last Post nehasharma16  
                              Started by Wes_Belvy, 03-06-2007, 04:06 PM
                              1 response
                              26 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post vowk
                              by vowk
                               
                              Started by sabiahmedabad, 07-19-2020, 03:17 AM
                              1 response
                              9 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post MasterFX  
                              Started by greenfastdietus, Today, 02:10 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post greenfastdietus  
                              Started by greenfastdietus, Today, 02:08 AM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post greenfastdietus  
                              Started by Damien J., 06-01-2007, 01:27 AM
                              1 response
                              41 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post noahharry  
                              Started by warnerolaa, Yesterday, 11:24 PM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post warnerolaa  
                              Started by LakiU9, 11-21-2021, 09:52 AM
                              2 responses
                              7 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post jesi
                              by jesi
                               
                              Started by KristenMahon, Yesterday, 09:58 PM
                              0 responses
                              2 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post KristenMahon  
                              Working...
                              X