Iraq on the Record

[michaeledward]

seems theres 2 different issues here.....is it that the war is "wrong" or the way we got into it is "wrong" ???

Are you sure they aren't part of the same discussion?

As I started this post, it was more about the statements that were used to bring about the invasion. The Bush administration used demonstrably mis-leading statements to bolster support for their course of action.

Without these mis-leading statements, would they have been able to launch an invasion?

Does the fact that the administration has made these statements, while knowing they were less than accurate, have any bearing on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the war?

Is it just that 'Might Makes Right' or that the 'Ends Justify the Means'?

Have we as a society become so shallow?

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

I see some similarities between the Roman Empire and the (growing) American Empire. But there are also some differences. I think one of the biggest similarities goes right to the US 'Checks and Balances'.

The constitution states that Congress shall have the sole authority to declare war, yet congress has abdicated this authority to the executive. It is embarrassing, I think.

Is it OK that the Administration used mis-leading statements to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Such as:

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency ... It has developed weapons of mass death." George Bush

"We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a neclear weapon." Richard Cheney.

"We said they had a neclear program. That was never any debate". Donald Rumsfeld

"The more we wait, the more chance there is for this dictator with clear ties to terrorist groups, including al-Qaida, more time for him to pass a weapon, share a technology, or use these weapons again." Colin Powell

"Had there been even a peep that the agency did not want that sentence in, or that George Tenet did not want that sentence in, that the director of Central Intelligence did not want it in, it would have been gone." Condolezza Rice (refering to the Yellowcake statement in the 2003 State of the Union speech).

Each of these statements was demonstrably misleading (or false in the case of Ms. Rice). My question is ... Of what consequence?

Mike

Roman began with check ands balances. It was not until the Senate basically gave it power away to the by allowing one dictator versus their power base of two executive leaders (* sorry for got the latin term *). At one time there were three because of the politcs, yet usually they had the two executive and the senate.

The U.S. Contitution creators, in my opinion, took these examples and drafted some nice frame work including a Senate and a House of Rep. as well as the two executive, with one being senior to the other. Later, forgot which admendment, the Pres and Vice Pres were allowed to run together. This was to avoid having a VP from a different party than the Pres, and causing politcal instability or possible assininations.



Thank You

 

[loki09789]

1. Yes it is valid to discuss terms of office for the equivelant of Congressmen when I am referring to limited terms of the POTUS relative to a Caesar. Right.

2. Oh, but the annual celebrations that involved sacrifices to the Caesar/or the established religion that all citizens - except for card carrying Jews - were expected to participate in wasn't a state relig?

3. I didn't say that they didn't have checks and balances, only implied that ours is in place and - it seems, doing a better job if we are discussing the justified use of force by the POTUS, this would have led to some very large scale executions/assasinations in Roman Days (here we go with modern assassiniation conspiracies ).

4. You are correct, for some reason I had a brain fart and was thinking Greek and talking Roman. Oops

5. All Roman citizens were male vets or people who bought into/earned citizenship or their children/family. I think the media would have a hay day with any story of refusal to voting access -especially if it involved a minority.

6. Actually western public education could be credited to quite a few points in history, the Spartans are an earlier possibility... depends on where you want to stop/start your finger pointing for analogy use. It is subjective. And, like citizenry in Roman culture, education predominately went to the male and was not available to all members. Even if it was available it was caste/gender specific. Women would get a different education on the average from the the men. Weavers would get a different education from the future leaders/citizens.... I know there is disparity, but it isn't THAT caste-like in the current day US.

7. Every culture could fit into a violence addicted comparison with the US from any historical point. Have you seen the anime comics that children of any age can purchase off the rack in Japan? The images of SHussein/POW's were publicized by the MEDIA not a state broadcasting forum like an execution. The purpose of having these POW's/SHussein 'parades' - within the context of military operations/politics is for varification and confirmation, and yes a demonstration of power (like lifting the Stanley Cup over your head, it that so bad?) but it is NOT the same as Gladitorial games or public executions. Like I said the difference between the values of the US citizen and those of the Roman citizen are the hugest difference I can see. I don't see people watching executions on prime time. Violence in culture isn't a direct or exclusive inheritance of the USA from Roman culture. Japan used prisoners for penetration tests of new Katana, Aztec sports events would finish with the sacrifice of the losing team. LaCrosse games with the Native American cultures was bloody and ended in deaths regularly.

Again, do you trust anyone in gov.? Is there anyone you have any faith in?
I know you are going to respond to this, but I will not continue this. Because of Rich and Bob’s prompting, I am going to try and stay closer to the topic.

 

[Makalakumu]

The Globalist Institute and Global Policy Org a part of the "establishment"??? Your tinfoil hats slipping..........Theyre probably as far from Republican/conservative as you can get. The other is from the BBC....???

I was thinking about proxies. The US commits atrocity through proxies. We had our hands full with genocide in the 1800s and the early part of this century and it was bad press. Once it is established that secondary linkages are orthodox methodology, the relationship between our times and the Late Roman Republic becomes even more concrete.

Also, Republican/Conservatives or Democratic/Liberal, it matters little. The label is a sticker pasted over the same people. This, is another trait that has many parellels...

 

[Tgace]

Are you sure they aren't part of the same discussion?

As I started this post, it was more about the statements that were used to bring about the invasion. The Bush administration used demonstrably mis-leading statements to bolster support for their course of action.

Without these mis-leading statements, would they have been able to launch an invasion?

Does the fact that the administration has made these statements, while knowing they were less than accurate, have any bearing on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the war?

Is it just that 'Might Makes Right' or that the 'Ends Justify the Means'?

Have we as a society become so shallow?

Mike

So what we needed was a legit "Pearl Harbor" to get us in? Like I said before, the roots of this conflict go back to Iraq not abiding to a cease fires terms...problem is we let things slide so long that we went back to needing an "excuse" for the war. Granted, turning up the heat with inspection demands and the like over a period of time would have been the better route than tossing the dice hoping that the expected weapons would be there.

 

[Tgace]

I was thinking about proxies. The US commits atrocity through proxies. We had our hands full with genocide in the 1800s and the early part of this century and it was bad press. Once it is established that secondary linkages are orthodox methodology, the relationship between our times and the Late Roman Republic becomes even more concrete.

Also, Republican/Conservatives or Democratic/Liberal, it matters little. The label is a sticker pasted over the same people. This, is another trait that has many parellels...

What does any of that have to do with the points the writers of those articles had??? Everybody but you has an agenda???

 

[Tgace]

"Some times the the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honor, virtue and courage mean everything. That money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Dosen't matter if they're true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing in."
-Second Hand Lions

This line best sums up to me why soldiers fight, what I believe about my country and what is "best" in people. Politics, Nations , Empires...they will always have "negative" motivations and historys (they have all throughout history). Not saying that you overlook wrongdoing or be nieve (sp?), fight to make reality match your faith, but if you find evil and wrongdoing around every corner what is the point of going on? And if you dont believe in these things in your heart than who/what is worth fighting for anyway??? I believe that all high intentions and noble causes need that belief. Our founding fathers were only men after all, with faults and our nation has its problems like all the others. But they believed in a nation of liberty, justice and freedom and so do I.

 

[loki09789]

"Some times the the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good. That honor, virtue and courage mean everything. That money and power mean nothing. That good always triumphs over evil. That true love never dies. Dosen't matter if they're true or not. A man should believe in those things anyway. Because they are the things worth believing in."
-Second Hand Lions

This line best sums up to me why soldiers fight, what I believe about my country and what is "best" in people. Politics, Nations , Empires...they will always have "negative" motivations and historys (they have all throughout history). Not saying that you overlook wrongdoing or be nieve (sp?), fight to make reality match your faith, but if you find evil and wrongdoing around every corner what is the point of going on? And if you dont believe in these things in your heart than who/what is worth fighting for anyway??? I believe that all high intentions and noble causes need that belief. Our founding fathers were only men after all, with faults and our nation has its problems like all the others. But they believed in a nation of liberty, justice and freedom and so do I.

Well, put Tom. Be prepared for the 'your just being a blind puppet' comments. God forbid that we hope for the best, that we aspire to be better, knowing that we are all a work in progress and believe the same in others. Teach fear/distrust, students learn to be afraid of themselves and everyone else, learn to face fear, students learn to see the best in themselves and project that belief/hope on others. Is that so wrong? On any scale, I think this works.

 

[michaeledward]

So what we needed was a legit "Pearl Harbor" to get us in? Like I said before, the roots of this conflict go back to Iraq not abiding to a cease fires terms...problem is we let things slide so long that we went back to needing an "excuse" for the war. Granted, turning up the heat with inspection demands and the like over a period of time would have been the better route than tossing the dice hoping that the expected weapons would be there.

Maybe we do not need something on the scale of 'Pearl Harbor' in order to invade the country because they have not met the resonsibilities of the 1991 Cease Fire.

This administration did try to make September 11, 2001 THE Pearl Harbor that justified the invasion of Iraq. And despite all the evidence, many people continue to believe that Iraq played some part in those terrorist attacks.

The facts show that Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11.
The facts show that Iraq was not an threat to the United States.
The facts show that Iraq was not assisting al-Qaida in any way.

What then justifies the invasion as part of the 'War on Terror'?

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Well, put Tom. Be prepared for the 'your just being a blind puppet' comments.

Very good Paul. But let's try to look at it in a way other than a statement, OK.

Is there any action a leader (or leadership group) can take that can dis-honor those beliefs in all that is good in men and princes?

While at the individual level, it is good to hold to the beliefs in man's better nature, can there ever come a time that actions prove that other do not share these beliefs?

A very good example of someone trying to believe in 'What is Good and Right' was in evidence last night on 60 Minutes. Richard Clarke's interview showed a person who believed his government was motivated by the better angels, (he has served in goverment for 30 years). It appears that he felt betrayed by the Bush Administration's thirst for Iraq, and the way in which it built support for the invasion.

Mike

 

[Tgace]

Very good Paul. But let's try to look at it in a way other than a statement, OK.

Is there any action a leader (or leadership group) can take that can dis-honor those beliefs in all that is good in men and princes?

While at the individual level, it is good to hold to the beliefs in man's better nature, can there ever come a time that actions prove that other do not share these beliefs?

A very good example of someone trying to believe in 'What is Good and Right' was in evidence last night on 60 Minutes. Richard Clarke's interview showed a person who believed his government was motivated by the better angels, (he has served in goverment for 30 years). It appears that he felt betrayed by the Bush Administration's thirst for Iraq, and the way in which it built support for the invasion.

Mike

Mr. Ward..First off, I have no problem with anything you have had to say here. You object to the way our country was launched into this war and you have every right to, thats what it means to be an American. I personally think that the war was long overdue but wish that the administration would have taken a more measured, less gambling route. You dont come across as a "this nation has been a corrupt, genocidal, den of vipers out to take over the world since 1776" type that my post was meant to address. Like I said, believing the best of my country dosent mean turning a blind eye to wrong. My problem with many protesters is that they follow the "hippy" burn the flag, spit on soldiers, this country is evil route and not a "this great country deserves better than this!" one.

 

[loki09789]

Very good Paul. But let's try to look at it in a way other than a statement, OK.

Is there any action a leader (or leadership group) can take that can dis-honor those beliefs in all that is good in men and princes?

Mike

Oh, there are many examples of this type of thing. SHussein, comes to mind for me relative to his country. Hitler, South African leaders who promoted Aparteid. POTUS in history who turned a blind eye on the rights of blacks,women,... through history come to mind. Institutions that express the lack of decency are headed or staffed by individuals/groups of individuals. The individual is the building block of the group. One bad apple and so on.

I think SHussein formed his own threat status separate from and lesser to the threat from Afg. I posted a little while ago of how I thought the process could have been more palletable for the countries approval. One thing that was never discussed was why, if the war was/is on Terrorism, Pakistan hasn't been taken to task in some fashion - either by regional nations in cooperation with the war on terrorism, diplomacy (yes, I know military action is a form of diplomacy ), Irag seemed like it could have sat on the back burner for a while. But then, that was how we treated Al Q and Mid East terrorist threats on the US and look where it got us.

Exercise your right to protest and scrutinize our nations leaders, I do it too. My criticism of political discussion on these forums - or in general - is the same one I have about most during meetings. We all sit around and whine and complain, feel releaved once it is off our chest - or worse, feel wound up and angry - and never get to the 'what can we do about it to make it better' phase. People, when they find a welcome aud., can have a tendency to take it as permission to say and do things that don't lead to resolving problems, but make them the center of attention and create more hate and discontent.

I grew up/hung out in a small town with a big Irish American pride feel, part of that heritage is political debate (though I think it happens everywhere) and believe me I have heard and participated in the pointless political complaining -veiled as debate - at coffee shops/pubs. It makes people who feel powerless comforted, but it doesn't really change a hell of a lot. Voting, research, education on critical thinking, cooperation...teamwork - from the my POV as a teacher, would be more productive use of time.

You write with a strong opinion, but not with a fantatacism/paranoia.

 

[Makalakumu]

You write with a strong opinion, but not with a fantatacism/paranoia.

Where is the line drawn between educated and rational vs fanaticism and paranoid? What if the vast majority of education is just a mechanism to reduce the latter in order to support order? Take a look at Peoples History of the United states and Lies My Teacher Told Me in order to understand what I'm talking about.

 

[Makalakumu]

Again, do you trust anyone in gov.? Is there anyone you have any faith in?
I know you are going to respond to this, but I will not continue this. Because of Rich and Bob’s prompting, I am going to try and stay closer to the topic.

Yes, there are people who I trust and have trusted in politics. Unfortuneately, they end up being assassinated...I guess a question I could ask you is that who, exactly, have you met that has been worthy of your trust?

Also, I would like to invite you to continue this discussion on this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13669

This has been a very enjoyable discussion, thank you.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Makalakumu]

Wow, I'm a MT blackbelt!

I was listening to NPR and heard an interview of Richard Clarcke. His job was to lead a high level counter terrorism task force. This is a man who will be testifying infront of the 911 commission and this was a man who was aforementioned to have served this country for 30 years. He says that the Bush administration ignored his memos regarding an "imminent" Al Qaeda attack. Furthermore, after the attacks, he states that the Bush administration made every attempt to "force" a connection to Iraq.

How is this possible for a "dedicated public servant"? More importantly, how can anyone seriously consider this administration worthy of the White House?

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

Hmmm took this long for the whistle to blow...and during election time??? Must just be coincidence. Or book $$$ greed.

 

[michaeledward]

Hmmm took this long for the whistle to blow...and during election time??? Must just be coincidence. Or book $$$ greed.

Sounds like somebody was listening to Laura Ingraham today. Her program is broadcast at night in Boston, and those were exactly the talking points she was hitting. Of course, she does not allow discussion on her program, just her one-way rants, like Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. (Oh, and you missed the one about the books publisher, Simon & Schuster, is owned by Viacom, which also owns CBS, so it must be a [liberal media] conspiracy).

Do the facts stand on there own? Did the Bush adminstration reduce the counter-terrorism position from a Cabinet level position to a Staff level position?

Were there any meetings concerning terrorism during the transition from Clinton to Bush? (Yes ... a mininum of 10 - one of which NSA Berger informed NSA Rice that Osama bin Laden would occupy more of the adminstrations time than any other item - hmm).

Here's something to think about.

After September 11, 2001, the Bush adminstration was able to quite rapidly launch a counter attack in Afghanistan (approximately 3 weeks). That is a pretty quick time frame for such a big operation. How do you suppose all that came together so quickly?

Could it be because the plans were sitting on Richard Clarke's desk. That the plans he assembled at the request of President Clinton after the bombing of the USS Cole were waiting to be acted upon. Clarke completed plans to attack and eliminate al Qaeda and submitted them to NSA Berger on 12/20/2000 (one month before Bush was to take office).

All of these facts have been in plain site for quite a while.

Thanks - Mike

 

[Makalakumu]

Hmmm took this long for the whistle to blow...and during election time??? Must just be coincidence. Or book $$$ greed.

According to an interview on CNN, I witnessed this morning, Richard Clarcke's book needed to be "cleared" by the White House security staff before it could be released for publication. The auther stated that he wanted to release this book over a year ago, but the White House sat on it until now. The timing of the book's release is a direct result of the actions of the White House.

Interesting...

upnorthkyosa

 

[Tgace]

Hey...Im not debating the factual points of the book...just questioning his adgenda/motivations......the fact that he makes $$$ off of its just an added perk huh??

 

[Makalakumu]

NPR is broadcasting the 911 commission hearing all day. I would recommend that people listen to as much of this broadcast as possible. In next few day, the things that are going to come out are going to be spun uncontrollably by both sides and it will be difficult to discern what was actually said. So far, it is very interesting. Right now, ex-secratary of state Madalaine Albright is testifying...

upnorthkyosa