No, THIS is what going crazy must feel like.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 13059
PAGE 7 of 15
So far as I know, with one or two exceptions, all senators were treated to specious data regarding Iraq, including a supposed Prague-terrorist connection. All of it turned out to be untrue, but years too late to affect the vote.
Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
Rue:
Since all of these senators have correctly stated on the record in one form or another that 9/11 and Iraq were not linked, can you tell me why they would vote for a resolution that supposedly implies the exact opposite?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ohh, so they were duped? That Wile E. George Bush did it again! Getting duped by a supposed moron doesn't bode well for their future I'd imagine.
Then again, Sen. Clinton at least used her own sources according to statements she made to the Code Pink organization back in 2003.
I don't think it is a huge stretch to believe that the other senators did not rely solely on information spoon fed to them by the Bush administration either.
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You give waaaayy to much credit to the moron in chief. You need to think about president Cheney and his advisor Rove.
The Senators that I knew of at the time of the vote sent out form letters to their constituents (whoever wrote to them) saying they had classified information that made their yes vote necessary. That information was that diddled threat estimate they were assured was true. That's what they said at the time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm sort of going thru this thread piece by piece....
CARTOON:
Quote:The United States give less per capital than seven other developed nations.
After a while, however, I imagine that it will dawn on many of them that the nation who single-handedly has given more to the rest of the world (its enemies, included) has stopped sending the checks, and sadly, the era of global welfare will have ended.
www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-p
er-capita
OTOH, as reigning power, the United States has used its power over the last six decades to force unfair deals on various client nations. "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man"
Quote:At this point there are many nations who no longer want... if they ever did in the first place... USA "protection". Western Europe, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Israel greatly benefitted from our interference. Africa, Asia, and Central/South America would have prolly done better w/o us for the most part, since we coddled and aided dictatorships in many nations.
They will also likely realize (in relative short order) that the nation which could consistently be depended upon to bail their posteriors out of the fire was conspicuously missing. "Oh dear! There's no one standing between that nasty neighbor and me anymore!! And I don't like the way they're eyeing-up my resources/wealth/citizenry/take your pick..."For all of the U.S.'s faults (and yes, we've had plenty) the U.S. could've played the card the Soviets had in Eastern Europe, and occupied all of Western Europe with satellite, puppet regimes. They could've pulled out of Europe altogether, and let Stalin march to the Atlantic (and then some). They could've ignored a lot of their neighbor's "little problems", for which they consistently and willingly shed the blood of their youth for causes which (in no way) had any bearing on the way we lived our lives back here in the good old U.S.A.
Quote:Only time will tell.
In summary, I can only hope (for the sake of those who have been the ungrateful recipients of America's good will) that when that day does come, that whoever succeeds the U.S. to the top of the pile will demonstrate at least a fraction of compassion and generosity that the U.S. has over the past six decades. After all, there's no guarantee that the next top dog has to be a Truman or Marshall. He (or she) could just as well be a Nero, Ghengis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In case Auraptor, Cartoon, Finn and others have forgotten the past, this is the driving force behind the Iraq invasion, and the tenor of the time:
"WASHINGTON: The United States will soon abandon a diplomatic solution to the crisis over Iraq, White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday, revealing Washington's frustration with resistance to a possible war.
"We are in a diplomatic window, but it cannot last very much longer," she told NBC. "It will have to come to an end pretty soon." She said Washington would welcome another UN Security Council resolution on Iraq if it would advance the goal of disarming the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but was determined not to allow Saddam to escape his obligations by splitting the council.
"We don't want a security council resolution that somehow is a delaying tactic," Rice said and added: "The security council cannot continue on this path for much longer. I don't understand how anyone can say the inspections are working," Rice told Fox.
Senator John McCain, a leading lawmaker from Bush's Republican party, echoed Rice's frustration. "There's got to come a time where we say 'enough is enough,' and I think the United States and Britain are at this point," he told Fox.
US officials, meanwhile, declined to indicate their next move, with White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo saying Bush "still hopes for a peaceful resolution, and that is up to Saddam Hussein."
Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated the administration was now uncertain it would seek a second resolution to approve use of force against Iraq. But if Iraq has still fails to disarm, Washington is ready "to lead a coalition of nations that would be willing to join the United States in the disarmament," Powell said.
At the same time there was no respite in the global anti-war protests, besides a convoy of anti-war protestors, ready to serve as human shields in the event of an attack on Iraq arrived in Baghdad on Sunday, the spokesman for the group Torben Franck said in London. A separate convoy of protestors is due to arrive in Baghdad on Monday, when 50 volunteers are to fly from London's Heathrow airport to Amman in Jordan. More peace activists are due to fly out of London February 21.
Global anti-war protests on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War, coming after a majority of the UN Security Council backed further inspections in a bid to assure Iraq's disarmament, have left Washington increasingly isolated. More than 400,000 people demonstrated across Australia again on Sunday, after London saw its biggest protest yet, with at least 750,000 filling Hyde Park on Saturday."
The Iraq invasion was DESPITE the UN. Let's get that clear and stop quoting UN resolutions as some sort of rationalization. Okay?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CARTOON:Quote:The United States give less per capital than seven other developed nations.
After a while, however, I imagine that it will dawn on many of them that the nation who single-handedly has given more to the rest of the world (its enemies, included) has stopped sending the checks, and sadly, the era of global welfare will have ended.
www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-p
er-capita
Signym:
The site defines economic aid as:
Quote:
DEFINITION: The net official development assistance (ODA) from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations to developing countries and multilateral organizations. ODA is defined as financial assistance that is concessional in character, has the main objective to promote economic development and welfare of the less developed countries (LDCs), and contains a grant element of at least 25%. The entry does not cover other official flows (OOF) or private flows." Per capita figures expressed per 1 population.
I believe Cartoon was including private donations in his statement as well as the government sponsored assistance included in your citations numbers. Does this mean you only beleive government funded assistance is valid assistance?
-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie
"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Enforcing UN resolutions was a legitimate rationalization for the war. The US and the UK voted for and helped draft each of those resolution. And more importantly, the US and the UK were responsible for enforcement of those resolutions under the auspices of the UNSC. One of the reasons, bin Laden gave for 9/ll was the existence of US bases and operations in Iraq and Saudi Arabia in response to UN resolutions. So the US had direct responsibility in drafting these resolution, direct responsibility in enforcing these resolutions and they were taking casualties because of it. So the enforcement of UN resolutions by the US and the UK is absolutely a legitimate rationalization.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The Senators that I knew of at the time of the vote sent out form letters to their constituents (whoever wrote to them) saying they had classified information that made their yes vote necessary. That information was that diddled threat estimate they were assured was true. That's what they said at the time.
Annnnnnnnnd...
This brings us right back to how secrecy under the bullshit veil of "National Security" completely wrecks the entire process, disenfranchising the people and their representatives because they do not have valid, accurate information to base their decisions on.
GIGO.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I mentioned, you act as if that tiny remark about 9/11 is ALL that was mentioned, when in fact it's barely commented at all. Fully 99% of the Congressional resolution is about Iraq and the U.N. Try looking through the other end of the microscope.
rue- just because they were 'big stories' doesn't mean they were true. There's all manner of trumped up fairy tales by the media which , after some careful examination, turn out to be nothing remotely like what the initial story was portrayed.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
Originally posted by daveshayne:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It seems that the REASONS for going to war never changed
You mean to find all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction? We went, we looked, they don't have any. Time to come home.
David
Oh, sure. And then be blamed for leaving Iraq in a revisiting of The Killing Fields, like we saw in Cambodia, circa 1970's. Do you REALLY want that to happen again for humanity?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
The U.S. recognized Pol Pot as the legitimate leader of Cambodia. Therefore we're ever so slightly responsible for what happened there. Never mind the damage we caused in the country that led to his uprising.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wisconsin sucks. I don't want to be here.
~Forsaken Forever
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME