Business History Books » Business Plans » OT: Senator Byrd — Courageous patriot or cowardly traitor?

OT: Senator Byrd — Courageous patriot or cowardly traitor?

Question:

His reputation as a master of pork barrel delivery for his state notwithstanding, here’s one American politician who’s not afraid to call it like he sees it. Whatever your stance on the pending war with Iraq, this speech is well worth reading. Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences by US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech — Wednesday, February 12, 2003 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world — wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our — or some other nation’s — hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time — honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti — Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short — staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration’s domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders. In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order — keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come. Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant — these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on. The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace? And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq’s oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation’s oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a disruption of the world’s oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income? In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq — a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 — this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare — this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Response:

He’s a worthless fossil and hypocrite, hiding behind false concerns and incorrect assumptions. The impending action on Saddam is not so much pre-emptive – it’s a result of his constant non-compliance and trickery over the past 11 years. 11 years !! This is not an overnight reaction as so many would have us believe. Enough is enough.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> His reputation as a master of > pork barrel delivery for his > state notwithstanding, here’s > one American politician who’s > not afraid to call it like he > sees it. Whatever your stance > on the pending war with Iraq, > this speech is well worth > reading. > Reckless Administration May Reap > Disastrous Consequences > by US Senator Robert Byrd > Senate Floor Speech — Wednesday, February 12, 2003 > http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm > To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human > experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of > battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors > of war. > Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully > silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the > nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. > We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our > own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only > on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive > discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular > war. > And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple > attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, > represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning > point in the recent history of the world. > This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary > doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The > doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other > nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently > threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist > on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in > contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being > tested at a time of world — wide terrorism, making many countries around > the globe wonder if they will soon be on our — or some other nation’s — hit > list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear > weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. > What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of > uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital > economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? > There are huge cracks emerging in our time — honored alliances, and U.S. > intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. > Anti — Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and > alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid > alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. > Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with > little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family > members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the > duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are > being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other > essential services are also short — staffed. The mood of the nation is > grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon > spike higher. > This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be > judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. > In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large > projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken > us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This > Administration’s domestic policy has put many of our states in dire > financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our > people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed > economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as > the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been > slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This > Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous > borders. > In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin > Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his > forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split > traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International > order — keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This > Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide > perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This > Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, > labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the > intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have > consequences for years to come. > Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, > denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant — these types of crude > insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive > military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We > need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well > as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our > awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another > devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. > Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the > augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not > just sign letters cheering us on. > The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is > evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in > that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace > in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in > that remote and devastated land. > Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration > has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to > embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in > Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that > after winning the war one must always secure the peace? > And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the > absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq’s oil > fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply > of that nation’s oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose > to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? > Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks > on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the > Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, > bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? > Could a disruption of the world’s oil supply lead to a world-wide > recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous > disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the > global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more > lucrative practice for nations which need the income? > In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant > Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous > consequences for years. > One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage > attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having > only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is > nearly impossible to exact retribution. > But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely > destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is > currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with > the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the > greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements > made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word. > Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of > horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the > nation of Iraq — a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age > 15 — this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we > send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of > chemical and biological warfare — this chamber is silent. On the eve of > what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our > attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. > We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I > pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not > in for a rudest of awakenings. > To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a > last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of > any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a > nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of > our country". This war is not necessary at this time. > Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to > put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a > graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a > way if we

Response:

Bruce Morgen posted an interesting speech from the Senate floor. In his speech, US Senator Byrd pointed out: ‘This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.’ One of the only positive developments to come out from recent events, in my view at least, is exactly this. Suddenly, as I’ve mentioned before, large amounts of people all around the world are looking at US foreign policy and asking what the hell the USA thinks it is up to. People are learning about CIA operations in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet invasion and they are shocked. People are looking again at the Iran-Contra scandal, and they are shocked. People are seeing the head figures from Iran-Contra back in the administration, and they are shocked. Poindexter is ambassador to the UN, for crying out loud!!! People are looking at the connections between oil and US policy, and they are shocked. People are starting to wake up. (Cue Keanu Reaves in shiny black PVC and sunglasses) Now, I know that many US citizens perceive the USA as a noble defender of freedom and human rights around the world. Maybe there is some truth in this, but it has not stopped the USA from undermining democratically elected governments through either force or subversion when the economic interests of large corporations are under threat, rightfully or not, despite the costs in terms of civilian casualties and human rights violations that such actions have involved. Simply take a look at US actions in Guatemala or Chile to get an idea of this. Yet, the predominant message throughout the USA is that the USA is the global good guy, the defender of human rights and freedom, despite evidence of a large number of cases in which this has not been the case (again, Guatemala and Chile provide good examples). And let us not forget that other countries actually have a right to elect their own governments. Governments should not be undermined or toppled just to suit the economic interests of another country. We’re not talking security here. We’re talking profits. It’s not acceptable to support military coups and train death squads and hand over lists of left-leaning intellectuals to murderous juntas just because United Fruit doesn’t want to pay taxes or ITT is afraid of nationalization. That the USA has gotten away with such behaviour so many times has at times baffled me. Now that might be about to change. You see, as a result of the USA’s current push to war to topple one regime and install another in a foreign country, people around the world – and large numbers of them – are actually starting to ask questions about US involvement in world affairs. The picture that is emerging is not pretty. People are taking another look at Chile, Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Grenada, Vietnam and they are beginning to smell a rat, a very big rat. And the longer the process goes on, the more people are going to learn. Now, while I welcome this development, I’m concerned that it has some terrifying consequences: The USA is facing a watershed. To a certain extent, the cat has been let out of the bag about its foreign ventures as far as the rest of the world is concerned (though little awareness of this filters through the US media, as far as I can tell). Many may not be as sceptical of US foreign policy as I am, but they are becoming more sceptical all the same. And they are finding good reasons to be sceptical, like it or not. Now, this simply cannot be viewed as good news by either the US administration or the US business elites that sponsor them. The question is, how will the USA respond to this unanticipated development? There seems to me to be two options: Either the USA will back down on its economic imperialism (unlikely) and hope that the rising current of political awareness around the globe will subside so that everyone can get quietly back to business as usual, or – which seems more likely – the USA will continue to advance an expansionist and unilateralist agenda and will face increasing isolation in terms of its worldview. For even if the USA does manage to push through its current drive for war, the rallying around the flag that may occur as a result will only go so far in terms of addressing growing unease with US policy. Criticism will continue to grow, both domestically and around the world. Unfortunately, this will undoubtedly lead to ever increasing levels of paranoia, xenophobia and hysteria (as well as persecution of political dissent), as the USA struggles to maintain a picture of itself as the global good guy despite increasing international rejection of that picture. This is not good news, however you look at it: a paranoid and increasingly isolated USA is a frightening picture. Armed to the teeth and backed up against the wall in denial, who knows what it might resort to. NATO is under increasing question (quite frankly, it’s well past its sell-by date), and who knows where this all might lead. One thing is sure, with levels of propaganda and war hysteria growing by the day, increasing surveillance being implemented and civil liberties under attack, I’m getting more and more concerned about what is happening in the USA. From a summary of George Orwell’s 1984: ‘The most terrifying phenomenon related to the polity in the novel is that the entire world is divided into three superstates: 1) Oceania, comprising the American continents and stretching to the British Isles; 2) Eurasia, which comprises the entire region of Europe; and 3) East Asia, including the Far East and South-East regions of the world. In the novel, Oceania is permanently at war with either East Asia or Eurasia, with constant air raids and bombings. It is not a pleasant view of the world….’ In any case, in answer to your question, Bruce, I’d say courageous patriot. JC

Response:

>The impending action on Saddam is not so much pre-emptive –

Write your congressman, and your President, who says this is pre-emptive.

Response:

>…the Scottish , extremely anti-american , left wing >labor zeitgeist which is fed to him by the Guardian and local >activists and writers….

As opposed to the anti-UN, anti-European right wing drivel being fed to LV and his cronies by the propaganda web sites they love to haunt? Or Faux News?

Response:

>> The impending action on Saddam is not so much pre-emptive – > Write your congressman, and your President, who says this is > pre-emptive.

Condoleezza Rice said it wasn’t. It’s a little of both, I’d agree, but not totally pre-emptive.

Response:

Saddam Insane has been effectively contained for the past "11 years, 11 years" without the loss of a single American or allied life. Now, suddenly, it’s become imperative to invade Iraq with a quarter-million of our children and hundreds of billions of deficit- spent treasure — iow, our federal tax payments for decades to come! Yet there is no credible indication that Iraq has (a) any operable WMD or (b) any working relationship with the Islamicist fanatics that comprise the *real* threat to American life and property — iow, if you can’t find Osama Bin Laden invade the country under heel of another, more conveniently vulnerable Arab boogy man! Maybe I’m the only one who smells a rat, but imo the whole mess reeks of fraud and deception — and I don’t mean Iraq’s awkward and imo obvious game, I mean the nonsense being spewed by Dubya’s warhawk minions. Believe me, Iraq is far from the only country that indulges in "constant non-compliance and trickery" — but it is the only one the fills the bill for Dubya’s political (and psychological) goal, that of a "Pax Americana" imposed by a so-called "Christian Nation" administered by the likes of John Ashcroft and Co. America is the twenty- first century’s Rome and, as with Rome two millenia ago, I fear the last days of our Republic are close at hand. Hail Caesar! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >He’s a worthless fossil and hypocrite, hiding behind false concerns and >incorrect assumptions. >The impending action on Saddam is not so much pre-emptive – it’s a result >of his constant non-compliance and trickery over the past 11 years. >11 years !! This is not an overnight reaction as so many would have us >believe. Enough is enough. > His reputation as a master of > pork barrel delivery for his > state notwithstanding, here’s > one American politician who’s > not afraid to call it like he > sees it. Whatever your stance > on the pending war with Iraq, > this speech is well worth > reading. > Reckless Administration May Reap > Disastrous Consequences > by US Senator Robert Byrd > Senate Floor Speech — Wednesday, February 12, 2003 > http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm > To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human > experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of > battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors > of war. > Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully > silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the > nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. > We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our > own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only > on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive > discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular > war. > And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple > attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, > represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning > point in the recent history of the world. > This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary > doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The > doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other > nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently > threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist > on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in > contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being > tested at a time of world — wide terrorism, making many countries around > the globe wonder if they will soon be on our — or some other nation’s — >hit > list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear > weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. > What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of > uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital > economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? > There are huge cracks emerging in our time — honored alliances, and U.S. > intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. > Anti — Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and > alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid > alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. > Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with > little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family > members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the > duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are > being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other > essential services are also short — staffed. The mood of the nation is > grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon > spike higher. > This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be > judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. > In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large > projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken > us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This > Administration’s domestic policy has put many of our states in dire > financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our > people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed > economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as > the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been > slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This > Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous > borders. > In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin > Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his > forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split > traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International > order — keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This > Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide > perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This > Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, > labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the > intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have > consequences for years to come. > Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, > denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant — these types of crude > insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive > military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We > need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well > as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our > awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another > devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. > Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the > augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not > just sign letters cheering us on. > The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is > evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in > that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace > in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in > that remote and devastated land. > Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration > has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to > embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in > Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that > after winning the war one must always secure the peace? > And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the > absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq’s oil > fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply > of that nation’s oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose > to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? > Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks > on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the > Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, > bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? > Could a disruption of the world’s oil supply lead to a world-wide > recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous > disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the > global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more > lucrative practice for nations which need the income? > In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant > Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous > consequences for years. > One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage > attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having > only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is > nearly impossible to exact retribution. > But to turn one’s frustration and anger into the kind of extremely > destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is > currently witnessing is inexcusable

Response:

(snip for length) > Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully > silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the > nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

Not true, there is this speech for one, which demonstrates the low quality of (snip) And this next paragraph illustrates why I say this….. > This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary > doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The > doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other > nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently > threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist > on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in > contravention of international law and the UN Charter

No, the UN has, in accordance with it’s own charter, and in accordance with international law, seen fit to require Iraq to disarm in at least 15 different resolutions. Iraq has not. The honorable Robert Byrd’s charges here are a prime example of how the facts are left twisting in the wind. I agree that debate on whether it is a wise idea to enforce the resolutions is needed,but it is precicely this sort of rhetoric that keeps us from doing it. Does anyone seriously have doubts as to the legality of enforcing Iraq’s disarmament? Or do we only question the wisdom of it? If we are to debate it, let’s at least debate a relevant question shall we Mr. Byrd?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Bruce Morgen posted an interesting speech from the Senate floor. In > his speech, US Senator Byrd pointed out: > ‘This Administration has called into question the traditional > worldwide > perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This > Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, > labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on > the > intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have > consequences for years to come.’ > One of the only positive developments to come out from recent events, > in my view at least, is exactly this. Suddenly, as I’ve mentioned > before, large amounts of people all around the world are looking at US > foreign policy and asking what the hell the USA thinks it is up to. > People are learning about CIA operations in Afghanistan prior to the > Soviet invasion and they are shocked. People are looking again at the > Iran-Contra scandal, and they are shocked. People are seeing the head > figures from Iran-Contra back in the administration, and they are > shocked. Poindexter is ambassador to the UN, for crying out loud!!! > People are looking at the connections between oil and US policy, and > they are shocked. People are starting to wake up. (Cue Keanu Reaves in > shiny black PVC and sunglasses) > Now, I know that many US citizens perceive the USA as a noble defender > of freedom and human rights around the world. Maybe there is some > truth in this, but it has not stopped the USA from undermining > democratically elected governments through either force or subversion > when the economic interests of large corporations are under threat, > rightfully or not, despite the costs in terms of civilian casualties > and human rights violations that such actions have involved. Simply > take a look at US actions in Guatemala or Chile to get an idea of > this. Yet, the predominant message throughout the USA is that the USA > is the global good guy, the defender of human rights and freedom, > despite evidence of a large number of cases in which this has not been > the case (again, Guatemala and Chile provide good examples). And let > us not forget that other countries actually have a right to elect > their own governments. Governments should not be undermined or toppled > just to suit the economic interests of another country. We’re not > talking security here. We’re talking profits. It’s not acceptable to > support military coups and train death squads and hand over lists of > left-leaning intellectuals to murderous juntas just because United > Fruit doesn’t want to pay taxes or ITT is afraid of nationalization. > That the USA has gotten away with such behaviour so many times has at > times baffled me. Now that might be about to change. > You see, as a result of the USA’s current push to war to topple one > regime and install another in a foreign country, people around the > world – and large numbers of them – are actually starting to ask > questions about US involvement in world affairs. The picture that is > emerging is not pretty. People are taking another look at Chile, Iran, > Guatemala, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Grenada, Vietnam and they are > beginning to smell a rat, a very big rat. And the longer the process > goes on, the more people are going to learn. Now, while I welcome this > development, I’m concerned that it has some terrifying consequences: > The USA is facing a watershed. To a certain extent, the cat has been > let out of the bag about its foreign ventures as far as the rest of > the world is concerned (though little awareness of this filters > through the US media, as far as I can tell). Many may not be as > sceptical of US foreign policy as I am, but they are becoming more > sceptical all the same. And they are finding good reasons to be > sceptical, like it or not. Now, this simply cannot be viewed as good > news by either the US administration or the US business elites that > sponsor them. The question is, how will the USA respond to this > unanticipated development? There seems to me to be two options: Either > the USA will back down on its economic imperialism (unlikely) and hope > that the rising current of political awareness around the globe will > subside so that everyone can get quietly back to business as usual, or > – which seems more likely – the USA will continue to advance an > expansionist and unilateralist agenda and will face increasing > isolation in terms of its worldview. For even if the USA does manage > to push through its current drive for war, the rallying around the > flag that may occur as a result will only go so far in terms of > addressing growing unease with US policy. Criticism will continue to > grow, both domestically and around the world. Unfortunately, this will > undoubtedly lead to ever increasing levels of paranoia, xenophobia and > hysteria (as well as persecution of political dissent), as the USA > struggles to maintain a picture of itself as the global good guy > despite increasing international rejection of that picture. This is > not good news, however you look at it: a paranoid and increasingly > isolated USA is a frightening picture. Armed to the teeth and backed > up against the wall in denial, who knows what it might resort to. NATO > is under increasing question (quite frankly, it’s well past its > sell-by date), and who knows where this all might lead. One thing is > sure, with levels of propaganda and war hysteria growing by the day, > increasing surveillance being implemented and civil liberties under > attack, I’m getting more and more concerned about what is happening in > the USA. > From a summary of George Orwell’s 1984: > ‘The most terrifying phenomenon related to the polity in the > novel is that the entire world is divided into three superstates: > 1) Oceania, comprising the American continents and stretching > to the British Isles; 2) Eurasia, which comprises the entire > region of Europe; and 3) East Asia, including the Far East and > South-East regions of the world. In the novel, Oceania is > permanently at war with either East Asia or Eurasia, with > constant air raids and bombings. It is not a pleasant view of the > world….’ > In any case, in answer to your question, Bruce, I’d say courageous > patriot. > JCn

Of the many and varied points that you make, I would like to refute one of these at least you claim that the US is an expansionist and imperialist nation. That is patently false as history shows that the US has been the foil of almost every imperialist state since it’s inception. We(the US) fought the French Empire in the French and Indian wars, even while we were still victims of a British empire ourselves, We next fought the British Empire in the revolutionary war, and again in 1812. we busted the British Empire.(Twice!) Next stop, Mexico and the Spanish empire. Then at home in the Civil war, we fought and busted up our OWN imperialistic elements, who in cahoots with the European Empires apparently saw nothing wrong with trade in people garnered from the Euro colonies in Africa. This is roughly when the US BOUGHT the territory (not conquered, BOUGHT) Alaska the reason that this is significant is that this, with the exception of Hawaii, completes the territory that the US owns to this day. Is it not strange that such an allegedly Imperialistic power has had the same territory now for 106 years, and that the last addition was purchased? Not to mention that the expansion before that one was also a purchase from the Empire of France (1804) What does Imperial mean when YOU use the word? The Spanish -American war, Ok, not a huge and bloody conflict, but it is notable because it did finish off the degenerate Spanish Empire, and marks the first non-European country that had done so. WW1……The Austro-Hungarian Empire, the remains of the Ottoman Empire and the Second Reich fell. Empires all..You DO know that the US was a contributor to that effort Right? WW2…..The last of the Italian Empire, the Japanese Empire, and the 3rd Reich fell. since then, the Cold War has seen the Last of the Large European Empires fall with the breakup of the Soviet Union. The US presence, in Southeast Asia led directly or indirectly to the last of the Belgian, Dutch and Portuguese Empire’s period, and the French Imperialism in the region. I will say that here, the view is a complicated one as the US was seen by the Cambodians and Vietnamese as Imperialist although in reality the US was an anti- imperialist state fighting other anti-imperialists that had Imperial backing from the last of the European Imperialist threat, Communism. Temporary Imperialists in the attempt to stave off a larger Imperialism if you will. Yes, I do resent it when Euros call us Imperialistic, as we had very much to do with removing the many and varied European Empires from much of the world. Yes, they do resent it, but keep in mind that the US has not claimed ownership of any of those places. Except for Hawaii, our boundaries were established by 1898. If this history describes American Imperialism, so be it. It is far better that the Euro version that we eradicated. For Europeans to call the US Imperialist is a joke. We fought for our sovereignty and bought whatever else we own. Capitalist? You bet. Imperialist? Dream on.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >(snip for length) > > Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully > silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the > nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. >Not true, there is this speech for one, which demonstrates the low quality of >(snip) >And this next paragraph illustrates why I say this….. > This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary > doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The > doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other > nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently > threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist > on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in > contravention of international law and the UN Charter >No, the UN has, in accordance with it’s own charter, and in >accordance with international law, seen fit to require Iraq to disarm in >at least 15 different resolutions. Iraq has not.

The only demonstrated infractions are enough to indict Iraq for sneakiness and stupidity, but not enough to justify a war. >The honorable Robert Byrd’s charges here are a prime example of >how the facts are left twisting in the wind. >I agree that debate on whether it is a wise idea to enforce the resolutions >is needed,but it is precicely this sort of rhetoric that keeps us from doing it.

How so? >Does anyone seriously have doubts as to the legality of enforcing Iraq’s >disarmament?

The U.N. Security Council passed the resolution, its enforcement is up to that body. Enforcement without legal authority is vigilantism — and unless the Security Council okays it, an invasion of Iraq is as much of a violation of international law as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Dubya is on the verge of turning the U.S. into a "rogue nation," and he’s using our children and our taxes to do it! >Or do we only question the wisdom of it?

This is still America, and we can questions anything we want to question! >If we are to debate it, let’s at least debate a relevant question shall we >Mr. Byrd?

Byrd’s question(s) are quite relevant — just uncomfortable for those intent on this war.

Response:

> For Europeans to call the US Imperialist is a joke. > We fought for our sovereignty and bought whatever else we own. > Capitalist? You bet. Imperialist? Dream on.

There is no longer a need to actually own a country with free trade and the wto and all that neo-liberalism capitalism stuff. Its the new colonialism and imperialism.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->(snip for length) >> > Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully >> silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the >> nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. >Not true, there is this speech for one, which demonstrates the low quality of >(snip) >And this next paragraph illustrates why I say this….. >> This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary >> doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The >> doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other >> nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently >> threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist >> on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in >> contravention of international law and the UN Charter >No, the UN has, in accordance with it’s own charter, and in >accordance with international law, seen fit to require Iraq to disarm in >at least 15 different resolutions. Iraq has not. > The only demonstrated > infractions are enough to > indict Iraq for sneakiness > and stupidity, but not > enough to justify a war.

That is not true, at least in the light of legal terms and the UN charter. And people like Byrd pretending that the legal matter is somehow in doubt, do nothing but obscure what the debate needs to be about. That being the questions of whether it is MORAL to enfoce the law in this case. and if so, is it in (to me) the best interest of the USA, and for everyone else, is it in the best interest of thier countries. I don’t know to say it otherwise Bruce, this whole issue of the legality is a bogus issue that needs no debate. It is an issue that is raised by people with hidden agendas and then parrotted by people who don’t know WTF they are talking about. Look it up. It IS legal.Read the ceasefire. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The honorable Robert Byrd’s charges here are a prime example of >how the facts are left twisting in the wind. >I agree that debate on whether it is a wise idea to enforce the resolutions >is needed,but it is precicely this sort of rhetoric that keeps us from doing it. > How so? >Does anyone seriously have doubts as to the legality of enforcing Iraq’s >disarmament? > The U.N. Security Council > passed the resolution, its > enforcement is up to that > body. Enforcement without > legal authority is > vigilantism — and unless > the Security Council okays > it, an invasion of Iraq is > as much of a violation of > international law as > Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. > Dubya is on the verge of > turning the U.S. into a > "rogue nation," and he’s > using our children and our > taxes to do it!

Don’t lather me up with rhetoric about children, when the question at hand is a legal matter. You are doing exactly what I am railing against here. The UN DID in fact write the resolution, and within it is stated the means for enforcing it. Like it or not, them’s the facts. the Security Counsel ALLREADY sanctioned the response to Iraqi non-compliance. So if it wants to now back out of that LEGALLY it needs to do that. Not to instead pretend that the US wants to kill children by following the LAW that itself laid down. Nor is layering on the propaganda against the US going to change the fact that the legal issue WAS decided by the UN 12 years ago. If the UN wishes to change the law it made, let it do so and quit bullshitting everybody. >Or do we only question the wisdom of it? > This is still America, and > we can questions anything > we want to question!

Great, but when what you are questioning is a provable fact them you are wasting that right, at best, at worst you are selling it cheap. >If we are to debate it, let’s at least debate a relevant question shall we >Mr. Byrd? > Byrd’s question(s) are > quite relevant — just > uncomfortable for those > intent on this war.

Bruce, this is retarded, and you will answer everything here. Except how this would be an illegal action. If you and others are too lazy or stubborn to read the damn UN resolutions then that is your problem and your shortfall. And by all means feel free to argue your feelings on the matter. the legality is well established by multiple UN resolutions. So either show, in light of those documents, that this would be an illegal option, or quit arguing a point that you refuse to address.

Response:

> > For Europeans to call the US Imperialist is a joke. > We fought for our sovereignty and bought whatever else we own. > Capitalist? You bet. Imperialist? Dream on. > There is no longer a need to actually own a country with free trade and the > wto and all that neo-liberalism capitalism stuff. Its the new colonialism > and imperialism.

Oh…….Really/ so you are basiclly saying that we own places even though we don’t own them? I think what it is, is a new series of words that allows you guys to continue calling the US an "imperialist State" while the facts say else wise. "The New Colonialism" LOL. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

>> For Europeans to call the US Imperialist is a joke. > We fought for our sovereignty and bought whatever else we own. > Capitalist? You bet. Imperialist? Dream on. >There is no longer a need to actually own a country with free trade and the >wto and all that neo-liberalism capitalism stuff. Its the new colonialism >and imperialism.

All the great taste you love, with 1/3 less calories than the OLD imperialism!

Response:

I think it’s time to post the actual resolutions — there’s *major* controversy in the Security Council over whether an invasion of Iraq is legal without another resolution, with only the US and UK taking the stance that no further resolutions are needed. I suspect it may come down to interpreting a lot diplomatic legalese! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >(snip for length) > >> > Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully > >> silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the > >> nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. > >Not true, there is this speech for one, which demonstrates the low quality of > >(snip) > >And this next paragraph illustrates why I say this….. > >> This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary > >> doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The > >> doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other > >> nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently > >> threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist > >> on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in > >> contravention of international law and the UN Charter > >No, the UN has, in accordance with it’s own charter, and in > >accordance with international law, seen fit to require Iraq to disarm in > >at least 15 different resolutions. Iraq has not. > The only demonstrated > infractions are enough to > indict Iraq for sneakiness > and stupidity, but not > enough to justify a war. >That is not true, at least in the light of legal terms and the UN charter. >And people like Byrd pretending that the legal matter is somehow >in doubt, do nothing but obscure what the debate needs to be about. >That being the questions of whether it is MORAL to enfoce the law in this case. >and if so, is it in (to me) the best interest of the USA, and for everyone else, >is it in the best interest of thier countries. >I don’t know to say it otherwise Bruce, this whole issue of the legality is a bogus >issue that needs no debate. It is an issue that is raised by people with >hidden agendas and then parrotted by people who don’t know WTF they are talking about. >Look it up. It IS legal.Read the ceasefire. > >The honorable Robert Byrd’s charges here are a prime example of > >how the facts are left twisting in the wind. > >I agree that debate on whether it is a wise idea to enforce the resolutions > >is needed,but it is precicely this sort of rhetoric that keeps us from doing it. > How so? > >Does anyone seriously have doubts as to the legality of enforcing Iraq’s > >disarmament? > The U.N. Security Council > passed the resolution, its > enforcement is up to that > body. Enforcement without > legal authority is > vigilantism — and unless > the Security Council okays > it, an invasion of Iraq is > as much of a violation of > international law as > Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. > Dubya is on the verge of > turning the U.S. into a > "rogue nation," and he’s > using our children and our > taxes to do it! >Don’t lather me up with rhetoric about children, when the question at hand is a legal matter. >You are doing exactly what I am railing against here. >The UN DID in fact write the resolution, and within it is stated the means for >enforcing it. Like it or not, them’s the facts. >the Security Counsel ALLREADY sanctioned the response to Iraqi non-compliance. >So if it wants to now back out of that LEGALLY it needs to do that. Not to instead >pretend that the US wants to kill children by following the LAW that itself laid down. >Nor is layering on the propaganda against the US going to change the fact >that the legal issue WAS decided by the UN 12 years ago. >If the UN wishes to change the law it made, let it do so and quit bullshitting everybody. > >Or do we only question the wisdom of it? > This is still America, and > we can questions anything > we want to question! >Great, but when what you are questioning is a provable fact them you are wasting that right, >at best, at worst you are selling it cheap. > >If we are to debate it, let’s at least debate a relevant question shall we > >Mr. Byrd? > Byrd’s question(s) are > quite relevant — just > uncomfortable for those > intent on this war. >Bruce, this is retarded, and you will answer everything here. Except >how this would be an illegal action. If you and others are too lazy or stubborn to >read the damn UN resolutions then that is your problem and your shortfall. >And by all means feel free to argue your feelings on the matter. the legality is well >established by multiple UN resolutions. So either show, in light of those documents, >that this would be an illegal option, or quit arguing a point that you refuse to address.

Response:

> I think it’s time to post > the actual resolutions — > there’s *major* controversy > in the Security Council > over whether an invasion of > Iraq is legal without > another resolution, with > only the US and UK taking > the stance that no further > resolutions are needed. I > suspect it may come down to > interpreting a lot > diplomatic legalese!

I suspect that you are right Bruce. (on both counts) let me go find it again and post the link. maybe we can at least narrow it don to WHICH words to argue over eh? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >(snip for length) >> >> > Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully >> >> silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the >> >> nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. >> >Not true, there is this speech for one, which demonstrates the low quality of >> >(snip) >> >And this next paragraph illustrates why I say this….. >> >> This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary >> >> doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The >> >> doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other >> >> nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently >> >> threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist >> >> on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in >> >> contravention of international law and the UN Charter >> >No, the UN has, in accordance with it’s own charter, and in >> >accordance with international law, seen fit to require Iraq to disarm in >> >at least 15 different resolutions. Iraq has not. >> The only demonstrated >> infractions are enough to >> indict Iraq for sneakiness >> and stupidity, but not >> enough to justify a war. >That is not true, at least in the light of legal terms and the UN charter. >And people like Byrd pretending that the legal matter is somehow >in doubt, do nothing but obscure what the debate needs to be about. >That being the questions of whether it is MORAL to enfoce the law in this case. >and if so, is it in (to me) the best interest of the USA, and for everyone else, >is it in the best interest of thier countries. >I don’t know to say it otherwise Bruce, this whole issue of the legality is a bogus >issue that needs no debate. It is an issue that is raised by people with >hidden agendas and then parrotted by people who don’t know WTF they are talking about. >Look it up. It IS legal.Read the ceasefire. >> >The honorable Robert Byrd’s charges here are a prime example of >> >how the facts are left twisting in the wind. >> >I agree that debate on whether it is a wise idea to enforce the resolutions >> >is needed,but it is precicely this sort of rhetoric that keeps us from doing it. >> How so? >> >Does anyone seriously have doubts as to the legality of enforcing Iraq’s >> >disarmament? >> The U.N. Security Council >> passed the resolution, its >> enforcement is up to that >> body. Enforcement without >> legal authority is >> vigilantism — and unless >> the Security Council okays >> it, an invasion of Iraq is >> as much of a violation of >> international law as >> Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. >> Dubya is on the verge of >> turning the U.S. into a >> "rogue nation," and he’s >> using our children and our >> taxes to do it! >Don’t lather me up with rhetoric about children, when the question at hand is a legal matter. >You are doing exactly what I am railing against here. >The UN DID in fact write the resolution, and within it is stated the means for >enforcing it. Like it or not, them’s the facts. >the Security Counsel ALLREADY sanctioned the response to Iraqi non-compliance. >So if it wants to now back out of that LEGALLY it needs to do that. Not to instead >pretend that the US wants to kill children by following the LAW that itself laid down. >Nor is layering on the propaganda against the US going to change the fact >that the legal issue WAS decided by the UN 12 years ago. >If the UN wishes to change the law it made, let it do so and quit bullshitting everybody. >> >Or do we only question the wisdom of it? >> This is still America, and >> we can questions anything >> we want to question! >Great, but when what you are questioning is a provable fact them you are wasting that right, >at best, at worst you are selling it cheap. >> >If we are to debate it, let’s at least debate a relevant question shall we >> >Mr. Byrd? >> Byrd’s question(s) are >> quite relevant — just >> uncomfortable for those >> intent on this war. >Bruce, this is retarded, and you will answer everything here. Except >how this would be an illegal action. If you and others are too lazy or stubborn to >read the damn UN resolutions then that is your problem and your shortfall. >And by all means feel free to argue your feelings on the matter. the legality is well >established by multiple UN resolutions. So either show, in light of those documents, >that this would be an illegal option, or quit arguing a point that you refuse to address.

Response:

>I think it’s time to post >the actual resolutions — >there’s *major* controversy >in the Security Council >over whether an invasion of >Iraq is legal without >another resolution, with >only the US and UK taking >the stance that no further >resolutions are needed. I >suspect it may come down to >interpreting a lot >diplomatic legalese!

Isn’t "Serious Consequences" the name of a carrier? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> >(snip for length) >> >> > Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent — ominously, dreadfully >> >> silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the >> >> nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. >> >Not true, there is this speech for one, which demonstrates the low quality of >> >(snip) >> >And this next paragraph illustrates why I say this….. >> >> This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary >> >> doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The >> >> doctrine of preemption — the idea that the United States or any other >> >> nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently >> >> threatening but may be threatening in the future — is a radical new twist >> >> on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in >> >> contravention of international law and the UN Charter >> >No, the UN has, in accordance with it’s own charter, and in >> >accordance with international law, seen fit to require Iraq to disarm in >> >at least 15 different resolutions. Iraq has not. >> The only demonstrated >> infractions are enough to >> indict Iraq for sneakiness >> and stupidity, but not >> enough to justify a war. >That is not true, at least in the light of legal terms and the UN charter. >And people like Byrd pretending that the legal matter is somehow >in doubt, do nothing but obscure what the debate needs to be about. >That being the questions of whether it is MORAL to enfoce the law in this case. >and if so, is it in (to me) the best interest of the USA, and for everyone else, >is it in the best interest of thier countries. >I don’t know to say it otherwise Bruce, this whole issue of the legality is a bogus >issue that needs no debate. It is an issue that is raised by people with >hidden agendas and then parrotted by people who don’t know WTF they are talking about. >Look it up. It IS legal.Read the ceasefire. >> >The honorable Robert Byrd’s charges here are a prime example of >> >how the facts are left twisting in the wind. >> >I agree that debate on whether it is a wise idea to enforce the resolutions >> >is needed,but it is precicely this sort of rhetoric that keeps us from doing it. >> How so? >> >Does anyone seriously have doubts as to the legality of enforcing Iraq’s >> >disarmament? >> The U.N. Security Council >> passed the resolution, its >> enforcement is up to that >> body. Enforcement without >> legal authority is >> vigilantism — and unless >> the Security Council okays >> it, an invasion of Iraq is >> as much of a violation of >> international law as >> Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. >> Dubya is on the verge of >> turning the U.S. into a >> "rogue nation," and he’s >> using our children and our >> taxes to do it! >Don’t lather me up with rhetoric about children, when the question at hand is a legal matter. >You are doing exactly what I am railing against here. >The UN DID in fact write the resolution, and within it is stated the means for >enforcing it. Like it or not, them’s the facts. >the Security Counsel ALLREADY sanctioned the response to Iraqi non-compliance. >So if it wants to now back out of that LEGALLY it needs to do that. Not to instead >pretend that the US wants to kill children by following the LAW that itself laid down. >Nor is layering on the propaganda against the US going to change the fact >that the legal issue WAS decided by the UN 12 years ago. >If the UN wishes to change the law it made, let it do so and quit bullshitting everybody. >> >Or do we only question the wisdom of it? >> This is still America, and >> we can questions anything >> we want to question! >Great, but when what you are questioning is a provable fact them you are wasting that right, >at best, at worst you are selling it cheap. >> >If we are to debate it, let’s at least debate a relevant question shall we >> >Mr. Byrd? >> Byrd’s question(s) are >> quite relevant — just >> uncomfortable for those >> intent on this war. >Bruce, this is retarded, and you will answer everything here. Except >how this would be an illegal action. If you and others are too lazy or stubborn to >read the damn UN resolutions then that is your problem and your shortfall. >And by all means feel free to argue your feelings on the matter. the legality is well >established by multiple UN resolutions. So either show, in light of those documents, >that this would be an illegal option, or quit arguing a point that you refuse to address.

Ron Delenda est Carthago

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Saddam Insane has been > effectively contained for > the past "11 years, 11 > years" without the loss > of a single American or > allied life. Now, > suddenly, it’s become > imperative to invade Iraq > with a quarter-million of > our children and hundreds > of billions of deficit- > spent treasure — iow, > our federal tax payments > for decades to come! Yet > there is no credible > indication that Iraq has > (a) any operable WMD or > (b) any working > relationship with the > Islamicist fanatics that > comprise the *real* threat > to American life and > property — iow, if you > can’t find Osama Bin Laden > invade the country under > heel of another, more > conveniently vulnerable > Arab boogy man! > Maybe I’m the only one > who smells a rat, but > imo the whole mess reeks > of fraud and deception > — and I don’t mean > Iraq’s awkward and imo > obvious game, I mean the > nonsense being spewed by > Dubya’s warhawk minions. > Believe me, Iraq is far > from the only country > that indulges in > "constant non-compliance > and trickery" — but it > is the only one the fills > the bill for Dubya’s > political (and > psychological) goal, that > of a "Pax Americana" > imposed by a so-called > "Christian Nation" > administered by the likes > of John Ashcroft and Co. > America is the twenty- > first century’s Rome and, > as with Rome two millenia > ago, I fear the last days > of our Republic are close > at hand. Hail Caesar!

Okay, then think about this : for how many years did we all say,"yeah, right, whatever" to Osama BL during the ’90s, knowing he’d never really pull off an effective attack here in the States. Oops. He was left alone too long. He was all but forgotten. Saddam has been slowed down by the Israeli attack on their nuclear plant, by the Persian Gulf war, and by sanctions during the ninties. However, he hasn’t been stopped, and the idea of "containment" is ludicrous in the 21st century. He is dangerous, he’s a loose cannon, and he’s made his bid to expand his empire many times before. With all the chemical and bio weapons he has stockpiled, he can afford to equip A.Q. with plenty to wreak devastation on the civilized world and keep enough for himself, and have complete denialibility to any AQ led attack. Moreover, he hasn’t had any inspectors in since 98. Neither you nor I are privy to the intelligence that Washington has on this guy, but it seems to me he is like a volcano – becoming "active" every so many years, going dormant for so many years only when he’s struck down. The current UN inspectors are hardly any kind of "smack down". And I wish you’d guys be less paranoid of Ashcroft and gang, who are doing what they can to thwart AQ. How the hell would you like them to catch these guys ? ESP ? That’s about the only option you’d leave them with. It’s sad that you’re more suspicious of Ashcroft than Saddam.

Response:

More info about the UN and Iraq(et al) than anyone cares about reading. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r170.htm http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sgsm8067.doc.htm http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N95/109/88/PDF/N9510988.pdf?Op… http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?sorting=BYRELEVANCE&TemplateNam… up=un&account=_free_user_&waittime=30%2Bseconds&dbname=web&query=687&operat or=adj Well, you get the idea. 2 hrs later and I still can’t download the resolution. The UN website is a mess IMO. I have a 256k line and it still locks up and takes forever. If you click on that last link, it will get you into the area you want. good luck. I’ve already read most of this stuff anyway. you’re on your own.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Saddam Insane has been > effectively contained for > the past "11 years, 11 > years" without the loss > of a single American or > allied life. Now, > suddenly, it’s become > imperative to invade Iraq > with a quarter-million of > our children and hundreds > of billions of deficit- > spent treasure — iow, > our federal tax payments > for decades to come! Yet > there is no credible > indication that Iraq has > (a) any operable WMD or > (b) any working > relationship with the > Islamicist fanatics that > comprise the *real* threat > to American life and > property — iow, if you > can’t find Osama Bin Laden > invade the country under > heel of another, more > conveniently vulnerable > Arab boogy man! > Maybe I’m the only one > who smells a rat, but > imo the whole mess reeks > of fraud and deception > — and I don’t mean > Iraq’s awkward and imo > obvious game, I mean the > nonsense being spewed by > Dubya’s warhawk minions. > Believe me, Iraq is far > from the only country > that indulges in > "constant non-compliance > and trickery" — but it > is the only one the fills > the bill for Dubya’s > political (and > psychological) goal, that > of a "Pax Americana" > imposed by a so-called > "Christian Nation" > administered by the likes > of John Ashcroft and Co. > America is the twenty- > first century’s Rome and, > as with Rome two millenia > ago, I fear the last days > of our Republic are close > at hand. Hail Caesar! >Okay, then think about this : >for how many years did we all say,"yeah, right, whatever" to Osama BL during >the ’90s, knowing he’d never really pull off an effective attack here in the >States.

That’s a lack of imagination on the part of those who run the so-called intelligence community. Putting suicidal religious fanaticism, the specs of a modern airliner, and WWII’s kamikaze campaign together to equal a threat was apparently too much for certain agencies to manage. >Oops. He was left alone too long. He was all but forgotten.

With a lot of encouragement to do so from our Saudi so-called allies, no doubt! >Saddam has been slowed down by the Israeli attack on their nuclear plant, by >the Persian Gulf war, and by sanctions during the ninties.

Actually, Mrs. Albright’s "sanctions" have starved and sickened millions of Iraqi civilians and had no demonstrable effect on the Saddam Insane regime. >However, he hasn’t been stopped, and the idea of "containment" is ludicrous >in the 21st century. He is dangerous, he’s a loose cannon, and he’s made >his bid to expand his empire many times before.

Only once, actually. His war with Iran (a much bigger supporter of terrorism, btw — although not nearly as big as the Saudis) was not one of conquest, but rather one of Iraq’s secular fascism vs. Iran’s militant theocracy. His only "bid to expand his empire" was the invasion of Kuwait, for which he was soundly spanked. His only demonstrable ambition at this point is to continue to tyrranize his own hapless citizens in order to hold on to power. >With all the chemical and >bio weapons he has stockpiled, he can afford to equip A.Q. with plenty to >wreak devastation on the civilized world and keep enough for himself, and >have complete denialibility to any AQ led attack.

Nice theory, but no evidence of either the chem./bio. stockpile or any link with Al Qaeda. So far, there’s just those dozen empty warheads without missiles and lots of empty U.S. rhetoric without credibility. >Moreover, he hasn’t had any inspectors in since 98. Neither you nor I are >privy to the intelligence that Washington has on this guy, but it seems to >me he is like a volcano – becoming "active" every so many years, going >dormant for so many years only when he’s struck down. The current UN >inspectors are hardly any kind of "smack down".

Containment doesn’t require a "smack down," that’s professional wrestling. Containment in this case only requires the focused attention of the world. >And I wish you’d guys be less paranoid of Ashcroft and gang, who are doing >what they can to thwart AQ. How the hell would you like them to catch these >guys ? ESP ? That’s about the only option you’d leave them with. It’s >sad that you’re more suspicious of Ashcroft than Saddam.

I don’t have to be "suspicious" of Saddam Insane, he’s a proven liar, murderer, and sadist. Ashcroft’s game is far subtler and more dangerous to our Republic and our personal freedom.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Saddam has been slowed down by the Israeli attack on their nuclear plant, by >the Persian Gulf war, and by sanctions during the ninties. > Actually, Mrs. Albright’s > "sanctions" have starved > and sickened millions of > Iraqi civilians and had > no demonstrable effect on > the Saddam Insane regime.

This is the kind of stuff that just amazes me. The sanctions did not do anything to the Iraqi people. Saddam could have ended those sanctions at any time. His stubbornness, and his being so committed to keeping the weapons that he is not allowed to have is what is hurting Iraqi citizens. How in the world can you twist that around to be the US’s fault. If anything it should be seen as further evidence of Saddams barbarity and single-minded determination to accrue weapons. The fact that Iraqi civilians are suffering because weapons mean more to him than his people do, seems like a good argument for getting rid of him.

Response:

>Well, you get the idea. 2 hrs later and I still can’t download the >resolution. The UN >website is a mess IMO. I have a 256k line and it still locks up and takes >forever.

How appropriate.

Response:

> >Well, you get the idea. 2 hrs later and I still can’t download the >resolution. The UN >website is a mess IMO. I have a 256k line and it still locks up and takes >forever. > How appropriate.

It’s so apt that it is almost poetic isn’t it?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Snip<< >Okay, then think about this : >for how many years did we all say,"yeah, right, whatever" to Osama BL during >the ’90s, knowing he’d never really pull off an effective attack here in the >States. > That’s a lack of imagination > on the part of those who run > the so-called intelligence > community. Putting suicidal > religious fanaticism, the > specs of a modern airliner, > and WWII’s kamikaze campaign > together to equal a threat > was apparently too much for > certain agencies to manage.

Whatever you call it, it still indicates that the old notions and perceptions of what constitutes a viable threat are outdated. Just like when people say Saddam has "no delivery system". Who needs a delivery system ? Anthrax in the mail, jetliners as missiles. Extremists are thinking outside the box, and we have to start doing that too. >Oops. He was left alone too long. He was all but forgotten. > With a lot of encouragement > to do so from our Saudi > so-called allies, no doubt!

Um, actually no. The Saudi’s are threatened by UBL too, at least, the government is. They almost had him executed, but his father pleaded with them to spare his life so he was exiled instead. The terrorists happened to be Saudi civilians, mostly, who sympathized with UBL. >Saddam has been slowed down by the Israeli attack on their nuclear plant, by >the Persian Gulf war, and by sanctions during the ninties. > Actually, Mrs. Albright’s > "sanctions" have starved > and sickened millions of > Iraqi civilians and had > no demonstrable effect on > the Saddam Insane regime.

While I’m no fan of the Clinton admin, this charge is twisted pretzel logic. There was enough trade with Iraq to support his people, but not his people and his weapons project. The choice to starve the people was Saddams, not ours. He used the money that should’ve gone to caring for his people and instead sunk it into rebuilding weapons, R&D, palaces, statues, etc. HE starved his people, not us. He made the choice, not us. Why do people conveniently remove Hussein from this equation ? Had we not imposed sanctions, I wonder how much more advanced his weapons R&D would be. Probably have a few nukes for sure by now. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->However, he hasn’t been stopped, and the idea of "containment" is ludicrous >in the 21st century. He is dangerous, he’s a loose cannon, and he’s made >his bid to expand his empire many times before. > Only once, actually. His > war with Iran (a much > bigger supporter of > terrorism, btw — although > not nearly as big as the > Saudis) was not one of > conquest, but rather one > of Iraq’s secular fascism > vs. Iran’s militant > theocracy. His only "bid > to expand his empire" was > the invasion of Kuwait, > for which he was soundly > spanked. His only > demonstrable ambition at > this point is to continue > to tyrranize his own > hapless citizens in order > to hold on to power. >With all the chemical and >bio weapons he has stockpiled, he can afford to equip A.Q. with plenty to >wreak devastation on the civilized world and keep enough for himself, and >have complete denialibility to any AQ led attack. > Nice theory, but no > evidence of either the > chem./bio. stockpile or > any link with Al Qaeda.

Not that YOU know of, you mean. That kind of intell is hard to come by, and blatantly blabbing out any real detail is very likely to reveal the source. And they say there IS evidence of A.Q. people coming in and out of Baghdad. > So far, there’s just > those dozen empty > warheads without > missiles and lots of > empty U.S. rhetoric > without credibility.

As if 29 inspectors are going to find all this in a country the size of California within a few months. The stuff is underground, or can be mobilized. It’s not even the job of inspectors to "find" his hidden cache, they’re setup to double check his compliance, not play private eye.. He’s said he has absolutely zilch. It’s a joke. >Moreover, he hasn’t had any inspectors in since 98. Neither you nor I are >privy to the intelligence that Washington has on this guy, but it seems to >me he is like a volcano – becoming "active" every so many years, going >dormant for so many years only when he’s struck down. The current UN >inspectors are hardly any kind of "smack down". > Containment doesn’t require > a "smack down," that’s > professional wrestling. > Containment in this case > only requires the focused > attention of the world.

You’re kidding, right ? Reference what I wrote in the first paragraph here about thinking outside of the box. We still can’t find bin Laden, exactly. He’s not contained. You can contain the borders of Iraq, physically, yes, but not the illegal export of WMDs and other unniceties. This isn’t communism we’re dealing with. This idealogy (Islamic extremists) doesn’t have the same tangible goals, containment is not going to work against this century’s new threat. Containment would work against N. Korea, unless they too start sponsoring terrorism. That’s a very real fear. All by himself, no, I don’t feel threatened by Hussein, but that’s the catch. Why on earth wouldn’t he join forces with A.Q., or any other terrorist group, for that matter ? He hates the US, so do they. They have the muslim brotherhood thing. There are already proven ties to Hamas or Islamic Jihad, he rewards those who blow up Israeli civilians. Gives their family the money his own starving Iraqi children need ! >And I wish you’d guys be less paranoid of Ashcroft and gang, who are doing >what they can to thwart AQ. How the hell would you like them to catch these >guys ? ESP ? That’s about the only option you’d leave them with. It’s >sad that you’re more suspicious of Ashcroft than Saddam. > I don’t have to be "suspicious" > of Saddam Insane, he’s a proven > liar, murderer, and sadist. > Ashcroft’s game is far subtler > and more dangerous to our > Republic and our personal > freedom.

Disagree, he’s doing what he can do to thwart a viscious, shadowy band of killers, who exploit our system of liberties, and who are hard as hell to track. I have no guilty conscience, I don’t lose sleep at night worrying about any "freedoms" I stand to lose. I’d rather be alive than dead, and unless we find these hate-mongers before they strike, more of us will die.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >Saddam has been slowed down by the Israeli attack on their nuclear plant, by > >the Persian Gulf war, and by sanctions during the ninties. > Actually, Mrs. Albright’s > "sanctions" have starved > and sickened millions of > Iraqi civilians and had > no demonstrable effect on > the Saddam Insane regime. >This is the kind of stuff that just amazes me. >The sanctions did not do anything to the Iraqi people. >Saddam could have ended those sanctions at any time.

Knowing full well that the guy is an insane megalomaniac, the sanctions continue. We know damned well Saddam isn’t missing any meals nor does he care enough about his people to respond to their suffering. We know who and what the guy is — hell, we’re telling everyone how evil he is just about every day — so yes, it’s the sanctions that are killing Iraqi civilians and that’s on us. >His stubbornness, and his being so committed to keeping the weapons >that he is not allowed to have is what is hurting Iraqi citizens.

I reiterate, the whole world knows he’s a murderous nutbag, so why pretend the sanctions are going to influence him? >How in the world can you twist that around to be the US’s fault.

We know who we’re dealing with and how intractable and vicious he is — so why continue the stupid sanctions, which only sicken and kill civilians? I know Saddam Insane doesn’t care — and I also know that we should! >If anything it should be seen as further evidence of Saddams >barbarity and single-minded determination to accrue weapons.

I agree with you about the barbarity, I’ll leave the weapons accural statement to Dr. Blix & Co. >The fact that Iraqi civilians are suffering because weapons mean more >to him than his people do, seems like a good argument for getting rid of him.

Getting rid of him is a good idea. Using a quarter-million Americans, 40K+ Brits, and hundreds of billions of deficit-spent $$$ to do it is dumb. Bribe the guy with a cushy villa somewhere and give the address to the Mossad. Finis!

Response:

Permalink
In: Business Plans

Home

Business History Books

OT: Senator Byrd — Courageous patriot or cowardly traitor?

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Categories