An Intreasting Email @ Iraq

[movie zombie]

f&i, the discussion had gone to solutions...my solution is labeled by you to be merely a restatement of opposition to the war. my opposition to the war has nothing to do with what we need to do next. reparations to the iraqi people seems to be the intelligent thing. why would you suggest saddam?

why would i sit back and argue the neo-con perspective? they do an adequate job of that themselves. unfortunately, they have not convinced me that their position is the right one and they have certainly convincec me it is not a moral one.

i love how this country talks about supporting freedom, democracy, and elections. our track record in supporting those countries is dismal. instead we prefer to create and/or prop up the saddams, noriegas, bautistas, et al. then we cry in our milk that the people of those countries don''t appreciate what we do for them. and when chile, venezuela, etc elect someone not friendly to our corporations, we do everything in our power to oust them.

so, the US created saddam, we tolerated his actions as long as they suited us, and then we decided to take him out because we didn''t want him to be selling his oil in euros rather than US dollars. we want to privatize a country that prefers another system. we want to install a government favorable to our interests which are not necessarily those of the iraqi people themselves. we want to use iraq as a base for future military actions in the east. and does anyone remember the 10 years of sanctions and bombing we inflicted on the iraqi people? don''t tell me it was the UN ''cause the UN was the US puppet on this one.

yes, we owe reparations to the iraqi people.

peace, movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/9/2005 11:21:45 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 6/9/2005 10:00:14 AM
Author: fire&ice
I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the neo conservative point of view. In simplisict form - if you build it they will come. Iraq is a valuable piece of real estate in an incredibly hostile part of the world. These fundementalists are trained TO KILL. Specifically, JEWS, WESTERNERS AND CHRISTIANS - does anyone get the threat here? Does anyone know what these Mullah are teaching their eager pupils - the disinfrachiased youth? I don''t know about you - but I am each and every one of their targets. It is thought that if you put a democratic leaning government friendly to the west that suite could follow. And, a benefit of getting our bases OUT of Saudi Arabia.

I am missing your point. Are you saying we invaded Iraq because we wanted it as a democracy (instead of a fundamentalist Islamic state) for diplomatic reasons? It wasn''t one. It was one of the few middle eastern countries *not* friendly to Islamic fundamentalists. Saudi Arabia *IS* an Islamic fundamentalist state, as is Iraq''s age-old enemy, Iran.

But I am NOT sure that is your point?

Deborah

Yes, it was strategic to a bigger picture. I''m not a neo conservative - but read some of their points of view & see some logic in it. I''m not debating Iran nor Saudi as being part of this bigger picture. We have an immediate precense in the region w/ some big guns. And take that for it''s face value meaning and not some hidden thing that I like guns/military/war. In fact, I don''t own a gun and have Quaker leaning towards war/killing, etc.

Again, all I''m saying is that history will decide if this was a good move.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/9/2005 11:27:27 AM
Author: movie zombie
f&i, the discussion had gone to solutions...my solution is labeled by you to be merely a restatement of opposition to the war. my opposition to the war has nothing to do with what we need to do next. reparations to the iraqi people seems to be the intelligent thing. why would you suggest saddam?

why would i sit back and argue the neo-con perspective? they do an adequate job of that themselves. unfortunately, they have not convinced me that their position is the right one and they have certainly convincec me it is not a moral one.

i love how this country talks about supporting freedom, democracy, and elections. our track record in supporting those countries is dismal. instead we prefer to create and/or prop up the saddams, noriegas, bautistas, et al. then we cry in our milk that the people of those countries don''t appreciate what we do for them. and when chile, venezuela, etc elect someone not friendly to our corporations, we do everything in our power to oust them.

so, the US created saddam, we tolerated his actions as long as they suited us, and then we decided to take him out because we didn''t want him to be selling his oil in euros rather than US dollars. we want to privatize a country that prefers another system. we want to install a government favorable to our interests which are not necessarily those of the iraqi people themselves. we want to use iraq as a base for future military actions in the east. and does anyone remember the 10 years of sanctions and bombing we inflicted on the iraqi people? don''t tell me it was the UN ''cause the UN was the US puppet on this one.

yes, we owe reparations to the iraqi people.

peace, movie zombie

Are we not paying reparations to the Iraqi people in the form of rebuilding their infracstructure?

If, as Richard says, admit we were wrong - doesn''t that include re-instating Saddam? Is that what you would like? How is admitting we were wrong & pay reparations anything different than saying that the war was wrong. The whole point to this argument? Do you really believe this could be a course of action? You can''t turn back the clock.

Debate the moral issue of the neo conservs? Can''t do it. It''s basis is in logic, bigger picture & certainly not in morality.

Point being, history may prove them right.

 

[widget]

Date: 6/9/2005 11:25:50 AM
Author: fire&ice

Bottom line -we are there... only HISTORY will see whether this was a blunder/fiasco or the first step to providing peace in the area.

If the NCon''s were right, this could be a catalyst for stabilization in this area. I, for one, hope they are - since this is already our course.

Well, I guess I must agree with you....But that''s a really big "IF"...

So....since this is the course we''re on...and we can''t turn back the clock, does that mean that how we got on this course is irrelevant now?

widget

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/9/2005 12:32:29 PM
Author: widget

Date: 6/9/2005 11:25:50 AM
Author: fire&ice

Bottom line -we are there... only HISTORY will see whether this was a blunder/fiasco or the first step to providing peace in the area.

If the NCon''s were right, this could be a catalyst for stabilization in this area. I, for one, hope they are - since this is already our course.

Well, I guess I must agree with you....But that''s a really big ''IF''...

So....since this is the course we''re on...and we can''t turn back the clock, does that mean that how we got on this course is irrelevant now?

widget

A really big "IF" - but one I am hopeing for. And, I don''t think it is out of the realm of posibility.

No, "how we got on this course" is of course relevant. But, I''m not sure one would agree on how we got on this course. From the tone of many posters, it ALL seems to rest on the evil one - Dubba''. I, for one, don''t see that. And, since we can''t change it, we can only learn from it as an historical perspective.
Of the top of my head how we got on this course - 9/11. I think getting the real estate of Iraq to become "friendly" was a philosophy always kicked around by the Neo Consv. (a la Paul Wozowitch (yes, spelling unknown - but convenient Rumsfeld & some others). 9/11 opened the eyes of many to as a threat coming to reality. These mid-east fundementalists want us dead. Iraq - an easier target. Saddam was HATED in this region.

In the end, life is far more complicated than one can even imagine.

 

[widget]

F&I...

It hasn't taken me long to figure out that "online political debate" is something of a sport...one that can get a little nasty pretty easily....but maybe that's half the "fun".

I really do appreciate your thoughtful posts, and think you've made some really interesting points. I particularly concur with your assessment of the "tactical errors" made by disbanding the Iraqi army and not sealing the borders!

But I do believe (just my opinion, of course), that Bush, nudged along by the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz team, deliberately misled the American People and the US Congress in pursuit of their own agenda.

Life is indeed complicated. In fact...so am I: On the one hand I'd like to see Bush impeached, and hung out to dry. On the other hand, I pray...for all our sakes... that he is right.

widget

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/9/2005 1:58:38 PM
Author: Feydakin
The 'memo'.. Would this memo happen to be anything like the Dan Rather memo that recently took his job from him??

Let's see...you don't know anything about the memo, but assume it is false. OK. And you and Mine take me to task for saying I found an article by Seymour Hersh that I actually *READ* to be credible to me even if not provable. Gotcha. You two are open-minded.

It is good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Deborah

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 6/9/2005 11:27:27 AM
Author: movie zombie
f&i, the discussion had gone to solutions...my solution is labeled by you to be merely a restatement of opposition to the war. my opposition to the war has nothing to do with what we need to do next. reparations to the iraqi people seems to be the intelligent thing. why would you suggest saddam?


why would i sit back and argue the neo-con perspective? they do an adequate job of that themselves. unfortunately, they have not convinced me that their position is the right one and they have certainly convincec me it is not a moral one.


i love how this country talks about supporting freedom, democracy, and elections. our track record in supporting those countries is dismal. instead we prefer to create and/or prop up the saddams, noriegas, bautistas, et al. then we cry in our milk that the people of those countries don''t appreciate what we do for them. and when chile, venezuela, etc elect someone not friendly to our corporations, we do everything in our power to oust them.


so, the US created saddam, we tolerated his actions as long as they suited us, and then we decided to take him out because we didn''t want him to be selling his oil in euros rather than US dollars. we want to privatize a country that prefers another system. we want to install a government favorable to our interests which are not necessarily those of the iraqi people themselves. we want to use iraq as a base for future military actions in the east. and does anyone remember the 10 years of sanctions and bombing we inflicted on the iraqi people? don''t tell me it was the UN ''cause the UN was the US puppet on this one.


yes, we owe reparations to the iraqi people.


peace, movie zombie

OK.. MZ..... What type of ''reperations'' do you suggest? P:ut Saddam back in power? NO WAY!.. Put money into their country? UMMM that one does not hold water.. how much money have we put into Iraq already? Maybe we should just pull out and screw them right? I don''t thnk you would agree with that one. I know.... let them do it on their own. let the almighty UN help them... LOL.... they will get eaten alive but another Saddam mass murderer... reperations... that is a word that is loaded... too loaded...

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 6/9/2005 2:37:51 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 6/9/2005 1:58:38 PM

Author: Feydakin

The ''memo''.. Would this memo happen to be anything like the Dan Rather memo that recently took his job from him??

Let''s see...you don''t know anything about the memo, but assume it is false. OK. And you and Mine take me to task for saying I found an article by Seymour Hersh that I actually *READ* to be credible to me even if not provable. Gotcha. You two are open-minded.


It is good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.


Deborah

LOL LOL LOL LOL You are a trip girl!! LOL...

I question the article when you so easily say.. YES that is exactly what I would like to think and since it agrees with what I may think I agree...

Open-midined? LOL... Let''s see you never see it from any other view than the one that your left wing buddies who you are in agreement with. I have read your other posts, you ride a line without even looking in the other lane... Me open-minded? OOHHHH... I don''t agree with you and since this is ''your'' world that must mean that I am not open-minded.. LOL>...

LOL

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/9/2005 3:29:54 PM
Author: Feydakin
And yes, I have read just about as much about this memo as anyone else has.. The difference between us is that I still question the validity of everything that can not be verified with provable facts while you agree with it because it fits your beliefs..

Now your generalizations have grown. Not *only* is any memo that appears to show Bush as less than honest inevitably part of a liberal conspiracy (who mentioned Dan Rather?), but now now you are the questioner-the seeker-while I always agree with facts that fit my beliefs. You really are a piece of work!

First, I never rubber-stamped the Downing Street memo. I have no idea whether it exists at all or whether it says what one newspaper ("The London Times") said that it did. So far I am merely following along, reading as much as I can.

But that isn't the problem, is it? What I *REALLY* did to irk you (besides being me) is to say that I found Seymour Hersh's story credible. You're right. You're a seeker for truth. You didn't read Hersh's article, but you know I shouldn't believe it. Keep up the rigorous intellectual investigation, Steve.

I taught at the Low-heywood Thomas School.

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Mine,

You and I are having a little problem. I have a liberal (and sometimes an even more radical) outlook. I have a right to look at the world as I do and there are reasons for my looking at it that way.

Your world view differs from mine.

That does not mean that every time I say something that you can disprove it simply by saying, "You aren't open-minded".

If you disagree with me the burden is on you to do more than to call me a liberal. You must either refute my point of view using facts or, at the least, point out that I have used a dearth of facts or have reasoned illogically (and where my logic failed).

Saying, "you're a liberal!" (while true) does not disprove what I say any more than saying, anymore than saying, "you're a blonde!" (which is true at the moment).

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/9/2005 4:44:26 PM
Author: Feydakin
The memo could say that he is the second coming and I would question it without other legitemate sources to back it up.. And I never said that you 'rubber-stamped' the memo.. I asked if it was credible.. You ran from there..

Steve,

The Pricescope formatting for quotation is such that I have to take each part of your posting and respond to it seperately. Otherwise all logic will be lost. I will go through your posting in order.

Where did you ask if the Downing Street memo was credible? Do you call asking if it is a document like the one which caused Dan Rather to lose his job is asking if it is credible?

Here were your exact words (and your words in their entirety) about the memo:

"2. The "memo".. Would this memo happen to be anything like the Dan Rather memo that recently took his job from him??"

In my opinion, that is disparaging a memo about which you have no proof, not simply waiting to see if it is credible.

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/9/2005 4:44:26 PM
Author: Feydakin

And you don't 'irk' me because you find Hersh credible.. When in fact what you said was

I have always admired Seymour Hersh and, after having read this, admire him even more. I completely believe the stories that he cannot prove about further abuse in Abu Ghraib.

That would be rubber-stamping something that you agree with..

I refute that my statement above is "a rubber stamp".

I did not say that I believed that Hersh had proven that the rumors he heard were true.

I did not build an argument on the foundation that the rumors Hersh heard were fact. (For instance I didn't say, "Given what Seymour Hersh wrote, we now know blah blah blah".

All I did was to say: I completely believe the stories. And I do.

One cannot argue with someone else's beliefs. One saying, "I believe that" does not mean saying "It is a fact that".

If a Catholic told me, "I believe that during Mass the priest turns the wine and wafer into the actual body and blood of Christ", I cannot argue with that. The Catholic *DOES* believe it. I cannot accuse him of trying to force me to accept that as fact. He hasn't! He stated HIS belief.

All I can say in the face of his belief is, "I sure as heck do not!"

Deborah

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/9/2005 4:44:26 PM
Author: Feydakin
And I''m still not irked.. As much as I enjoy these types of debates, I enjoy even more seeing how people react when they are having them.. It''s just a happy by-product when people actually learn from each other during them..

First, if Steve wants to be illogical and stupid, he has a Constitutional right to be here in the US. I will even DEFEND his right to be illogical and stupid.

OK. If you say you are not irked, I believe you.

Deborah

PS-Calling you names wasn''t my finest hour. Sorry.

 

[AGBF]

I know you are sincerely interested in the school at which I taught so I am providing you with a link to its website. I taught at The Low-Heywood Thomas School. I am a graduate of the The Low-heywood School. (See the photo of the white house on Courtland Avenue.)

The Low-Heywood, Thomas, and King Schools

Deborah

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/9/2005 5:18:38 PM
Author: Feydakin
I ''believe'' 2+2=9

No it 2+2 = 5

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/9/2005 5:18:38 PM
Author: Feydakin
I ''believe'' 2+2=9

...and if you want to believe that, I am fine with it.

The new and mellower Deb, determined not to call names

 

[MINE!!]

The only problem here comes from the "you two are open-minded" I don''t remember calling you ''close-minded'' although I beleive that I did suggest that you try to look at something another way. As for having facts to dispute what you have said.. obviously you are back to only read what you want to see and read.

It irks you that I choose to question your one way street.. and for that I am thankful...

Then we are both doing our part.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/9/2005 5:35:39 PM
Author: MINE!!
The only problem here comes from the ''you two are open-minded'' I don''t remember calling you ''close-minded'' although I beleive that I did suggest that you try to look at something another way. As for having facts to dispute what you have said.. obviously you are back to only read what you want to see and read.

Sorry, Mine, I don''t understand what you are saying here. I *did* understand the last line, so I didn''t quote it.

Deb

 

[MINE!!]

Date: 6/9/2005 3:29:54 PM
Author: Feydakin

Date: 6/9/2005 2:37:51 PM

Author: AGBF


Let''s see...you don''t know anything about the memo, but assume it is false. OK. And you and Mine take me to task for saying I found an article by Seymour Hersh that I actually *READ* to be credible to me even if not provable. Gotcha. You two are open-minded.


It is good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.


Deborah

You know, As I have read former posts, I have seen you call people names, insulted and been downright NASTY to anyone who does not share you ''beleifs.'' In so much that I am sure that many people do not continue to express their opinions becuase of the wrath of AGBF... Sorry, I''m not that person. If you like, I can go through the posts and quote some of your many... issues that you have with people who question when you deem to be true. I could provide those facts to you if you would like.....

Above is the quote in question. The other issues that you feel I have come stems from the fact that after the first few... counter quotes toward me.. I didn''t back down to you... therefore I suppose that irks you as well.

I have seen you dish it MANY MANY TIMES.. and if you would like.. I would be MORE than happy to present these to you all in thread... what I do not understand is why you seem to be able to dish it out really good... but only have a hard to taking it.

 

[AGBF]

Mine,

You know what? I did not understand your posting. That is what I said and that is what I meant.

As to the insults: I just apologized to Steve. If you point out other people whom I have called names, I will also apologize to them.

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/9/2005 6:01:05 PM
Author: Feydakin

Date: 6/9/2005 5:35:00 PM

Author: AGBF

Date: 6/9/2005 5:18:38 PM

Author: Feydakin

I ''believe'' 2+2=9

...and if you want to believe that, I am fine with it.


The new and mellower Deb, determined not to call names

While you may be fine with that, it''s wrong.. And this has been my point all along when it comes to reading internet documents, smoking guns, and the missing link.. You can''t, or shouldn''t, see a single source of information and just automatically believe it or not because it either agrees or disagrees with you.. Even if that source were someone I admire..


It''s like all of those ''the holocaust never happened'' websites.. I think most of us would agree that they are wrong on some level.. Yet there are people that blindly ''believe'' them because they happen to agree with the statement.. There are some things that will never be proven to be ''facts''.. I ''believe'' that Johnson had some part in the death of Kennedy.. But I can''t prove or disprove it.. But I am willing to debate the subject all day long.. And the Iraq issue, along with many others, will never have any real facts put to them short of having a public confession from the one or two men right at the very top.. Because, for a lot of what people think led to the Iraq war to be fact, many more people had to be involved than just President Bush.. Tony Blair, most of congress, parts of the press, and hundreds of others had to be involved at some level.. It just doesn''t make sense that that many people could be ''in on it'' or even worse, ''duped'' into it..

You''re right here, too. (Just kidding.)

I see your point. So what do you think about that?

Deb

 

[rubydick]

It’s time to clean this thread up a bit. Obviously we all hold strong opinions, at one time or another we have gotten a bit pissed and said something we shouldn't have. And now it’s beat up on Deb time. My, oh, my, how soon we forget...

If you read Deb’s original comment, it was obviously said with a bit of sarcasm. No different than when Steve talked about “simple math for liberals,” something which caused me to mine the same rich vein, suggesting that math was not solely a Republican value. Funny. So many of those who gave a pass to my sarcasm are suddenly suffering pangs of outrage.

And now suddenly here we are, at each other’s throats, each side expressing shock and chagrin. We all doth protest too much.

Let me make a few comments:

1. Clinton was impeached. That’s a fact, no matter what your definition of “was” was or is.

2. If I say something and somebody disputes it, rather than beating up those who comment on my comment, address it to me. If you have an issue with something Sy Hersh wrote, discuss it in a direct manner. Let’s not play ring around the proxy.

3. To the best of my knowledge, not a single Blair or Bush administration official has directly claimed the Downing Street memo is a fake. Since it’s been public for several weeks now, I’d call that fairly substantial evidence. Simple enough for any British cabinet member present at the meeting to call a fake a fake. The fact that not a single one has stood up and labeled it thus speaks volumes. Correct me if I'm wrong.

4. While Dan Rather was suckered with an apparently fake document, what few are willing to admit is that the central allegations of that document are true and have been proved so seven ways to Sunday. Not only are there countless witnesses who have stated that Bush was given favorable treatment to get him into the Guard, but there are also many others who have stated that he did not show up for duty for extended periods. And then there are all those missing documents. Now if Steve, Mine!! or F&I have some major evidence that disproves this, in the words of Dubya, “bring it on.”

5. Mrssalvo says that: “Bush was told by our intelligence that there WERE weapons there. He believed them, after 9/11 he couldn't take a chance they might be false. Congress believed them too.” Not exactly. According to Bush cabinet member Paul O’Neil, one of the first topics of discussion after Dubya was appointed by the Supreme Court was how to overthrow Saddam. Richard Clarke said the same. This was well before 9/11. F&I asks about the neo-con agenda. There’s any easy answer here: they published it in the late 1980s, well before Bush was selected. It’s called the Project for the New American Century and it’s been laid out for all who take the time to read it. These people tried to get Clinton to do what Dubya later did. For the record, Clinton refused.

6. Logan Sapphire says that “at least one intelligence agency had solid indicators there were WMD in Iraq.” Guess what? Newsweek was just pilloried for using a single anonymous source, for a story that has later proven to be true. Oh well... state your evidence or go home.

7. Steve says that because he’s talked to some soldiers who have been there, that he knows what’s what. And that he would be there, but for his military wife. Steve thinks that I believe that anyone who supports the antiwar view is a plant. Not exactly. I read a wide variety of media. Have you? Have you read the stories of Robert Fisk? Have you read the stories of Naomi Klein? Have you read the blog of Riverbend? Have you gone on Hack’s (R.I.P.) website to read the stories of soldiers who can no longer take the bush**t? I’ve also talked to soldiers who have been there. Camp Pendleton is two miles from my home. So many of the parents of my daughter’s friends understand exactly what this war is all about. My daughter’s best friend comes from a military family. Her older brother is at the Naval Academy.

Let me let you in on a little secret. If you travel across America in a Chinese tank, speaking not a single word of English, just what do you think you will learn about the US? Do you really believe that American soldiers who do not speak the local language and who travel across Iraq flashing weapons will learn anything about what Iraqis really think about them? Shove a gun in my face and I will kiss your ass. But when your crack is gone, I will certainly be plotting revenge, particularly if you have taken away a relative or friend. Steve, again, I hold no grudges, I just respectfully disagree with your opinions. That said, I always enjoy reading what you have written.

8. F&I says:

“I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the neo conservative point of view. In simplisict form - if you build it they will come. Iraq is a valuable piece of real estate in an incredibly hostile part of the world. These fundementalists are trained TO KILL. Specifically, JEWS, WESTERNERS AND CHRISTIANS - does anyone get the threat here? Does anyone know what these Mullah are teaching their eager pupils - the disinfrachiased youth? I don't know about you - but I am each and every one of their targets. It is thought that if you put a democratic leaning government friendly to the west that suite could follow. And, a benefit of getting our bases OUT of Saudi Arabia.”

Two weeks ago, a good friend of mine sent me a link to a tape made where a Muslim preacher basically attributed all the evils of human history to Jews. And he sent this out as a call to arms, basically asking us all to hate Muslims.

Not a lot different from what F&I suggests: “THEY WANT TO KILL JEWS, WESTERNERS AND CHRISTIANS.” I take some solace from the above. It seems that atheists, Buddhists and Hindus will be spared. I do seek a clarification: WHAT ABOUT THE PARSIS?

I sent my Israeli friend a few selections from the book of Ann Coulter, about the hate speech she has been spewing. I told him to chill, I told him that hate does not have a religion, that it is simply hate, that it has no religious meaning.

And you know what? My friend wrote back, he said I didn't understand, that the hate speech tape had been made on the West Bank, just a few miles from his home. And I wrote back, telling him that the woman who had spewed such hatred here in America had just been featured in a cover story in Time magazine. It wasn't just in my backyard, but this hate was being spewed across the entire country. Funny thing. He never wrote back.

8. Mine!! says: “it is OUR children and grandchildren who are there putting their butts on the line, while people here are poo pooing in their posh little homes and going out to 'lunch.’”

Huh? Have I poo-pooed our troops? Has Deb? Has Wink? Has Movie Zombie?

You missed my point entirely. Yes, it is the ordinary Americans who are putting their butts on the line. But did you ever stop to ask yourself why so few of those who actually vote to send our nation to war send their own children? Think very carefully about this one, think long and hard. If a war is good, then why have so few of our leaders been willing to sacrifice their own children? Herein lies the most fundamental of lies, and if you can’t recognize it, I really can’t extend any words of wisdom your way other than those of sympathy. It has always been so; Hitler was the last to go in Nazi Germany, Pol Pot died in a hut along the Thai border from malaria long after the revolution was dead. Get it? I probably should be shot for saying this, but say it I must: Both my relatives and yours and those of Movie Zombie have been used for political purposes. Read the following for a sample of someone who was used and later had the balls to admit it.

War Is A Racket
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

This was a portion of a speech by Major General Smedley Butler of the US Marine Corps. It was made in 1933. See the following if you want to know more about him:

War Is A Racket

Again, you have my sympathy. Reading the above, you probably don’t want it, but I still send it your way. I don’t say it as someone who is smarter than you, nor someone who is wiser. God knows I am as dumb as any who has walked this planet. Just hope that this provides a bit more food for thought.

Let me close with this. Perhaps the biggest lie of this war is the following, repeated by F&I:

"Was I for this war? A pre-emptive strike scared the sh*it out of me. But, on the other hand, I do believe a case can be made that Saddam INDEED threatened the US & Israel - directly. Since he was not in compliance, a case could be made that we were still at war. A case could also be made that the neo conservatives wanted to "finish" what they wanted to do back in the Gulf War I. I didn't want us to go. But, I have to admit that I wasn't unhappy when we did - much to my surprise."

Since he was “not in compliance.” Interesting. Actually, the aftermath of the US invasion has shown that Saddam was in “compliance.” Which is precisely why the Downing Street memo is so devastating to Dubya. This document lays it out. Forget the spin. Read it for yourself, then we can discuss.

The Downing Street Memo

 

[AGBF]

Richard,

I have to read about Brown Brothers in Nicaragua. Was it you who added the parenthetical remark after that mention? I know Brown Brothers well.

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

Oh, the world according to Richard AGAIN AS FACT. Gotta love your consistency & your original thought process.

 

[rubydick]

Date: 6/10/2005 11:57:41 AM
Author: fire&ice
Oh, the world according to Richard AGAIN AS FACT. Gotta love your consistency & your original thought process.

Again, if you dispute what I say, bring out the evidence. Bring it on.

 

[widget]

Just a few cents worth (or less!) in response to Richard''s last post:

Re the Downing Street Memo: I read it, and given my political leanings, it sure worked for me. But do Bush/Blair even need to question it''s authenticity? Since it''s an internal intelligence report, making assessments and conclusions about where the the US Administration was at regarding invading Iraq, can''t one simply argue that the assessments and conclusions in it were wrong? Wouldn''t a "smoking gun" have to be (at least to some people) a transcript or a tape recording?

I don''t think Bush''s wanting to invade Iraq in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, (before all this talk of WMDs, etc) is anything new or disputed. I do believe he wanted to take on Iraq prior to 9/11, but have some trouble with Richard''s (and F&I''s?) larger underlying neocon theory. I almost think GB is too stupid to grasp such "big picture" concepts.

I know this is utterly simplistic, but I think at least part of GB''s obsession with Iraq and Saddam comes from their trying to kill his daddy.

I think Richard certainly has a point that one might question the opinions of average Iraqis regarding the US presence when those opinions are being expressed to armed American GIs. What are Iraqis'' emails saying?...but then I guess most "average" Iraqis don''t have computers...we do indeed need unrestricted press in the field to get any real handle on what''s going on...

Major General Butler''s comments were really hard to read. His words sounded sickening...but more than a little wise. But he did write them prior to WWII. Is there any record of his views during and after that war?

That war is a racket, that in the final analysis our soldiers are pawns for capitalism, that there is only greed behind these misadventures and no good intentions...I cannot accept.

Again...just my 2 cents.

widget

PS: Fire&Ice: Could you elaborate on your comment about "building military bases LIKE WE HAVE IN OTHER COUNTRIES"? Sorry...I didn''t get it..

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/10/2005 12:18:39 PM
Author: widget
Major General Butler's comments were really hard to read. His words sounded sickening...but more than a little wise. But he did write them prior to WWII. Is there any record of his views during and after that war?

That is a more interesting question than I at first thought it would be.

I had never heard of General Butler until Richard posted about him, but I clicked on the link to read what he said as you did. I believe that it said somewhere on that website that he died in 1940. If I recollect correctly, he never even saw the United States enter World War II for although it began in September, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, the United States did not enter until December, 1941 when the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor.

At first I suspected that an invasion of the United States did meet the criteria General Butler set for entering a war. He believed in defense of our borders by sea. He wrote this paragraph below, however. It makes me wonder if he would have felt that Pearl Harbor was a part of the United States that we should be defending. Remember: Hawaii was *NOT* a sate in 1941!!!

"The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can't go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation."

Deborah

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 6/10/2005 12:07:23 PM
Author: Richard Hughes

Date: 6/10/2005 11:57:41 AM
Author: fire&ice
Oh, the world according to Richard AGAIN AS FACT. Gotta love your consistency & your original thought process.

Again, if you dispute what I say, bring out the evidence. Bring it on.

It''s hard when you are all over the board with thought.

I can''t imagine that ANYONE would think FOR THE MOST PART - Westerners - and their way of life & Jews are Al Q''s & Mullahs PRIMARY targets - aren''t we the infidels? . You don''t have to go past THEIR OWN RETORECT (SP?) to get that. Again, cheers when Nick Berg''s head gets lopped off????? Cheers to bringing down the WTC???? But, please don''t even imply that those people were guilty. I''m completely unsure why Ann Coulter has to be brought into this discussion. I have no idea if she is anti-semetic. I quite frankly have never read ANYTHING by her. - oh, except when she came to my town and someone threw a pie at her. I don''t understand her relevance to the discussion - Honestly - what''s your point?

Re: Neo Conservs. - I am fully aware of how long this agenda has been out there. George the first wasn''t on board. Clinton wasn''t on board. And, in their own admission, George the second wasn''t on board UNTIL after 9/11. And, in the end NCon were pretty forward thinking in many of their assumptions.

My whole point - You don''t have the answers. I don''t have the answers. History will determine it. In the end, I would very much like to believe things will have a positive spin. Naive? perhaps - but a much better place to be than to question EVERYTHING this admin does with vinegar. If dubba adopted an abandoned puppy - somehow it will be an evil doing.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 6/10/2005 1:00:49 PM
Author: fire&ice

It's hard when you are all over the board with thought.

I actually both understand what you are saying and empathize, fire&ice. When Steve posted something lengthy I had to break it down into bits and reply to each one separately in order to try to make both what he had said and my objections clear to the reader. And Richard's posting is longer than any of Steve's!

Only you can decide whether it is worth the time to reply to each thing Richard has written with which you disagree, but if you do choose that course it will deepen our discussion. If all you say is, "Richard is all wet" we will have a less meaty discussion.

Deb