|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 01/24/2005 : 12:14:41 [Permalink]
|
The July 3, 1988 (not 1987) downing of a civilian aircraft was by USS Vincennes (CG 49), a guided missile cruiser. The civilian aircraft ignored warnings to divert away from the cruiser and was shot down per the rules of engagement. President Reagan regretted the loss of life, but insisted that the downing was a proper defensive action. What complicated matters was the attack on the USS Stark (FFG 31) on May 17, 1987 and attacks by Iranian gunboats on the Vincennes helocopter earlier in the day resulting in surface combat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight801/stories/july88crash.htm
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 12:02:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal
If anyone thinks we aren't there because the administration saw dollar signs for all their business cronies, I recommend watching that scene in Moore's movie, 9/11 where the speaker at the business conference is telling everyone how much money there will be to be made once we invade.
I agree the reason the administration is putting out for the war is not what they originally said was the justification for the war. I also agree that we are not helping all the oppressed people in various countries around the world. We are in Iraq to make sure we will have oil in this country for the future. It is a national security issue. We are not there to take it, but to ensure it will flow so we can buy it. We have enough oil off the cost of California and Alaska to supply our needs but it is not cost effective to drill there with all the environmental regulations. This is the main reason we are there I believe. I do not believe that Moore's 9/11 movie is a very good source.
He also wants to reduce or eradicate terrorism, which is destroying many lives in this world. Iraq and Saddam had ties to terrorism. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY HAD TIES TO 9/11. Iraq is in the state it is in because of terrorism not the U.S. If you don't believe that we can defeat terrorism or you believe there is a better way to combat it, I am OK with that. I believe we need to use force or we will be living with terrorism until Jesus comes back.
Thanks for the history lesson beskeptigal, although my cognitive skills may not enable me to understand it.
quote:
Dr Mabuse
Republicans, the Religious Right, and definately the Neo-Cons will never recognize those parallells. I believe their cognotive abilities are programmed to filter such patterns.
What is the answer now that we are there, do we leave, stay or something else? How do you think we defeat terrorism?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 14:19:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Robb
I agree the reason the administration is putting out for the war is not what they originally said was the justification for the war.
So you admit that the government has been lying their collective asses off, in order to get people to support it?
quote:
We are in Iraq to make sure we will have oil in this country for the future.
Agreed. Getting their dirty hands on oil was the point of it.quote:
It is a national security issue.
I'm sure it is...
Other people's properties are a matter of your security. And that gives you the right to pre-emptive strikes.
quote:
We are not there to take it, but to ensure it will flow so we can buy it.
Right, because taking it without paying would be stealing. Though the US government in coalition with Big Oil Business pay for oil, they do not want to pay more than absolutely necessary. Starting a war to get cheap oil is different from stealing... how?
quote:
We have enough oil off the cost of California and Alaska to supply our needs but it is not cost effective to drill there with all the environmental regulations.
Right, so you take the tax-payer's money to fund a war to get cheap oil. In the end, tax-payers pay the price and oil-companies can keep doing big profits.
This is the reason of your war in Iraq.
quote:
I do not believe that Moore's 9/11 movie is a very good source.
Really? Why not? Was the corporate meeting displayed in the movie just a mock-up, with actors saying they where going to make good money on the war, or was it a documentation of a real event?
quote:
He also wants to reduce or eradicate terrorism, which is destroying many lives in this world.
His confrontational tactics has made him the poster-boy-to-hate for every Muslim fundamentalist in the entire world! Muslim fundies never liked USA before, but now USA has confirmed their beliefs, in black-and-white, that the US government is decadent, and evil, and that G.W Bush is Satan himself. Hell, even I believe that Bush is Satan himself, and I used to be Christian.
The situation is really tragic.
quote:
I believe we need to use force or we will be living with terrorism until Jesus comes back.
Then I suggest you don't truly believe that Jesus' message have a fighting chance...
That's tragic in it's own way.
quote:
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 14:22:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The re-election of George W Bush has created intense reaction against him, particularly in Europe and the Muslim world. In general, the broad outcome is increasing anti-Americanism, which in reality is anti-Bushism. Looking for reasons is almost a never-ending exercise, for the sitting president continues to act impulsively while creating an impression that there is some sort of thoughtfulness behind those impulses. If you are one of the Bushies or neo-conservatives, you might agree with those impulses. However, if you are not, you could wonder why he is so determined to amass such strong feelings against a truly great country.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GA26Aa03.html
quote:
Giant in decline
.., a persistent and increasing resort to debt-financed growth and a concomitant, growing imbalance in the trade deficit, leading the US ever further into financial dependency and so leaving it dangerously indebted to rival nations, which could (at least theoretically) pull the plug at any time. This, in turn, is occurring against the backdrop of an increasingly problematic, Vietnam-style quagmire in Iraq, against imperial overstretch, and against a related ongoing crisis in energy prices,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GA25Dj01.html
I think it is the application of that force, and by what guilding policy or leadership, that is in question here. Bottom line is, does it work? Looking at reactions accross the globe, think I'm on fairly firm ground saying, "America" has fewer 'friends today, than in days gone by...? Or that there are more places to recuit terrorists globally, today. Torture is now associated with us, civil liberties have become abit more resricted here at home, and even the way those that have fought for America, are treated more poorly upon their return, than most all of us would agree they are entitled. There have been major shifts in America for sure, but in the 'right' direction, a direction most Americans would agree, is good for us, as well as everyone else?
So what are we to do.., something else for sure.
Damn! That election...  |
 |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 14:26:28 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse, you're my hero. Damn well said.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 20:33:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How do you think we defeat terrorism?
I have an major problem with this question. Whenever somebody uses this, or something about "the war on terrorism", it is a sign that they have allowed the neocons to define the situation in their terms.
There is no "war on terrorism" in reality. Terrorism is a tactic, not a thinking enemy to be battled.
It infuriates me to no end that the republicans have so thoroughly saturated the public discourse with their definition of this term. Even liberal pundits use the phrase. Even John Kerry allowed the situation to be defined by his opponent.
In order to have a war, you need to have an enemy. By definition, an enemy must be atleast one thinking individual who is opposed to you and willing to use force to advance/defend their position.
When we allow our politicians to operate on these terms, we lose. When the American people buy into this fantasy "war on terrorism" without EVER asking the government to clearly define the enemy and set conditions for victory, we give them free reign to use military force in whatever capacity they like against whomever they want.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 03:43:28 [Permalink]
|
Dr M responded to your post Robb and said it better than I could have. Here's a few more points:quote:
Originally posted by Robb
..... We are in Iraq to make sure we will have oil in this country for the future. It is a national security issue. We are not there to take it, but to ensure it will flow so we can buy it.
First, what right do we have to do that? It's in our national security interests so we'll take charge now? Well lets just conquer the world then.
Second, follow the money. The money for IRAQI resources doesn't seem to be getting to any Iraqis right now does it? Except maybe it's getting to a few Iraqi businessmen who are in the corporate loop.
quote:
We have enough oil off the cost of California and Alaska to supply our needs but it is not cost effective to drill there with all the environmental regulations.
I think you might want to do a bit more homework here. The cost effectiveness problem is in the extraction techniques not the environmental protection regulations.
Environmental protection is preventing some drilling in Alaska. We have extracted the easy oil in many of our oil fields. It becomes more costly to extract more because the oil must be forced out in more costly ways. There are also some concerns here that these extraction methods could be harmful to the environment, in particular to aquifers. I don't know about you but if I had to choose between water and oil it wouldn't take me long to figure that one out.
quote:
Iraq and Saddam had ties to terrorism. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY HAD TIES TO 9/11. Iraq is in the state it is in because of terrorism not the U.S.
That's just plain nonsense. We had no good reason to invade Iraq. It isn't a "war on terrorism". And we have made a complete mess of the country. I recommend you take the time to read Richard Clark's book, Against All Enemies. He spells it out plain and simple, the Bush administration had the Iraq invasion plans before they were sworn in. They openly discussed how the plans would be a hard sell "unless something drastic happened" or words to that effect. And then came 9-11. Just what they needed.
They almost went to Iraq before Afghanistan but even Bush realized that was too blatant so they went to Afghanistan first. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until after we invaded.
quote:
Thanks for the history lesson beskeptigal, although my cognitive skills may not enable me to understand it.
It doesn't take cognitive skills. I just takes an honest look. We grow up in this country with history lessons about Honest Abe, George Washington's Potomac coin toss and Betsy Ross's flag creation. Real history isn't taught until college. But real history is there for anyone who wants to find it. The sad thing is, without real history lessons we repeat the same blunders over and over.
quote:
quote:
Dr Mabuse
Republicans, the Religious Right, and definately the Neo-Cons will never recognize those parallells. I believe their cognotive abilities are programmed to filter such patterns.
What is the answer now that we are there, do we leave, stay or something else? How do you think we defeat terrorism?
The first place to start is radical change in our government policy of protecting corporate interests over human interests. Dr M said it well. Stop paying Halliburton and start paying Iraqis. Don't build a US military base, rebuild the cities and towns. Provide medical care for folks instead of attacking their Falujas. There are so many things we could be doing instead of what we are doing.
This has been going on since before I was born. I really thought when my generation grew up and took over we could change it. What I didn't count on was how many people weren't in the same political movement as I was.
I saw our government in action first hand in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua in the late 70s. It wasn't pretty. With 8 years of Clinton, if you ignore the Republican smear campaign and look at what he really accomplished, there was at least a move towards being a better world neighbor. It wasn't complete but it was a start. Now we are back to a place that rivals the Ugly American era of the 50s and 60s. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 07:39:10 [Permalink]
|
In a nutshell: the United States of America was a hated nation. Now they're a really hated nation.
It's all nice and dandy when you see it from the american perspective, but not from the third-world country perspective, it isn't. After 9/11, there were people saying they feared World War III was on its way, because the world's seen how US reacts badly to provocation. There were friends of mine, in my class, ready to enlist in case such event ever happened (and I'd gladly co-operate, even being handicapped). It wasn't until history class that we were moved from ultra-paranoid, traumatic fear into a comfortable acceptance of facts. Our teacher predicted a sensible change in the world scenario, and man, he wasn't wrong.
Even now, years later, that fear lingers. The fear that, somehow, we'll be the next, even though we've done nothing.
If anything, Mr. Bush and his wars are spreading fear more than peace. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
ktesibios
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 15:03:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We are in Iraq to make sure we will have oil in this country for the future. It is a national security issue. We are not there to take it, but to ensure it will flow so we can buy it.
So the only way to ensure that a highly saleable commodity, traded worldwide on a free market, finds its way to that market is to invade a producing nation, kill tens of thousands of its people and sieze control of that commodity?
Strange. I had been under the impression that Republicans positively worshipped the marketplace.
Umm, what was it again that was limiting Iraqi oil production for the past ten years or so?
quote:
Iraq is in the state it is in because of terrorism not the U.S.
So, all of the Iraqis who have died in and since the invasion were killed by terrorism?
The deterioration of the Iraqi infrastructure over the last decade or so and the failure of the occupying power to meet the most basic obligations of a belligerent occupant- right from the get-go, when snarfing up the oil fields and handing out no-bid contracts to cronies took precedence over protecting a valuable cultural heritage or securing stockpiles of weapons and explosives- is due to terrorism?
Wow, "isms" are a remarkably handy thing. An ism isn't an actor- it can't actually do anything- but made into a mantra it serves as an excuse for anything.
Unfortunately, Robb, some of us remember when "communism" was the all-purpose excuse for whatever our Glorious Leaders decided to impose on whoever.
Most people are smart enough not to fall for the same con twice. If you want to sucker someone who's already been burned by the pigeon drop, you should have enough imagination to try something different, say perhaps the Spanish prisoner.
quote:
Iraq and Saddam had ties to terrorism.
A little ways back I mentioned Langmuir's symptoms of pathological science. Perhaps I need to be a bit more explicit.
BushCo's predictions of what the result of their elective war would be fit neatly under symptom 4:
quote:
Fantastic theories contrary to experience.
The ever-shifting after-the-fact rationales BushCo and its Kool-Aid drinkers proffer for the war seem to fit symptom 5 nicely:
quote:
Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.
Then there's symptom 6, which looks to be starting to show:
quote:
Ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion.
|
"The Republican agenda is to turn the United States into a third-world shithole." -P.Z.Myers |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
