Morality

[tw]

From ABC News of 12 Nov 2005:

Carter 'Disturbed' by Direction of U.S.
"Everywhere you go, you hear, 'What has happened to the United States of America? We thought you used to be the champion of human rights. We thought you used to protect the environment. We thought you used to believe in the separation of church and state,'" Carter said Friday at Unity Temple.

"I felt so disturbed and angry about this radical change in America," he said. ...

Carter has good reason to be critical. He earned the Nobel Peace Prize by solving what could have been a serious international crisis involving N Korea. He and Kim Jung Il developed a strategy to bring N Korea peacefully into the world with cooperation of N Korea's right wing extremists. It was a spectacular plan until an American president decided to redress the world into 'black and white' terms. George Jr put the final death spike into a peace settlement that Jimmy Carter and Kim Jung Il had so carefully crafted with cooperation of so many adjacent nations.

Recently, six way talks centered on N Korea have achieved a breakthrough in diminishing tensions. Ironically, analysts note those negotiated terms are similar to what Jimmy Carter had negotiated more than 5 years previously. What to expect from an administration that also all but tried to get US into a war with China over a silly spy plane? Well at least they mostly undid that damage. Of course, George Jr will deny it - just like the levees. Morality means the president should have a shred of honesty. Neither did Richard Nixon - another religious and immoral man.

More questions of morality are in the thread entitled The Vote: 90 to 9. That question requires you to make a decision.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm not so sure W is dishonest. Well, for a politician.
I've a feeling what he spews is the truth, justice and the American way as he sees it.
Of course how he sees it is filtered through a number of self serving factions but maybe he's not dishonest....just wrong?

[Happy Monkey]

Honesty doesn't even enter the equasion. He just says whatever he thinks will work at the time.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I've never seen a dictator with an army he was unwilling or unmotivated to use. There is zero reason to trust a Communist to do anything but massacre and impoverish, as ninety years of uniform evidence shows.

That's not a lesson you'll ever learn, tw. That is why I don't believe any of your political ideas. Leftism keeps a man stupid. It also helps him die young.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I've never seen a dictator with an army he was unwilling or unmotivated to use. There is zero reason to trust a Communist to do anything but massacre and impoverish, as ninety years of uniform evidence shows.

That's not a lesson you'll ever learn, tw. That is why I don't believe any of your political ideas. Leftism keeps a man stupid. It also helps him die young.

Hmmm... W. is highly willing and motivated to use the US Army. How many civilian casualities in Iraq so far? And just who is going to be the poorer for having to pay for a highly expensive war, plus the catastrophe of Katrina that could have been prevented had the Feds done their job in maintaining this country's infra-structure?

Right wing extremism closes a person's mind. It helps our soldiers die unnecessary deaths.

[Undertoad]

Ironically, analysts note those negotiated terms are similar to what Jimmy Carter had negotiated more than 5 years previously.

Some of us can identify a different sort of irony in that statement.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Marichiko, breaking totalitarians is always a legitimate use of an army. It's also exactly what we've been doing in every single war we've fought for some one hundred years. I never tire of reminding the deliberately slow to learn of this point. You guys are old enough to know better, yet you don't. This is why I am sure you are as defective as a cell phone that's been dropped too many times.

Defending our borders is a legitimate use of our army. Bin Laden is not in Iraq. There were no WMD's in Iraq. I'm in favor of self-sufficiency. If a people want to over throw a totalitarian ruler, let them do so themselves, just like the founding fathers of this country did.

UG, call home.

[Brett's Honey]

There were no WMD's in Iraq.

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them? Eeryone who voted for the war, including all those who now speak out against it, were convinced that Iraq did have WMD's. They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them? Eeryone who voted for the war, including all those who now speak out against it, were convinced that Iraq did have WMD's. They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

We pretty much have scoured the country and captured, interrogated, in some cases possibly tortured, tens of thousands of prisoners. Considering the importance of WMD's in justifying the war, if any were found, we would have heard about it.

This is why, when you listen to any GWB speech on Iraq, the phrase 'establishing democracy' has replaced 'removing WMD's'.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

It was the US that kicked out the inspectors before the war. The inspectors were saying they couldn't find anything, but they were willing to keep looking.

That's not to say Saddam was happy they were there, or that he didn't enjoy making things difficult for them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them? Eeryone who voted for the war, including all those who now speak out against it, were convinced that Iraq did have WMD's. They refused to let anyone come into the country to look before the war.

Yes. I said that right after the invasion because;
1- Saddam knows he can't beat us with his army.
2- His only shot is world intervention before or after the invasion.
3- If he had 'em and used them against our invasion he'd still lose.
4- With many months warning he had plenty of time to hide or export them,
hoping when they weren't found, world opinion would vindicate him and we'd have to leave with him still in control.

I'm wasn't saying that happened, just expounding on possibilities.
Now I think there wasn't any at all.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Brett's Honey

I keep hearing this, but does anyone else think there very well COULD'VE been WMD's in Iraq, but were moved, destroyed, or whatever, before we discovered them?

It’s just not possible to have all those weapons or even many of them without being detected. Our spies (the ones that really did accurate spying) were from countries adjacent to Iraq. Countries that had far more to fear if they got it wrong. Those sources kept reporting no more WMDs which is why no nation adjacent to Iraq wanted to be involved in the Iraq invasion.

We knew this. After 1996, Saddam gave up on his WMDs. Suddenly the UN Inspectors could find no more evidence of these WMDs. Saddam's son-in-laws had defected and told all.

Always analyze a situation by looking at it from 'His' perspective. Look at Saddam's quandary. It was posted here before the Iraq war began. Saddam cannot let you nor anyone else know he is toothless. Saddam has numerous enemies - including Muslim Brotherhood (ie Osama bin Laden) and especially Iran. So Saddam must feed the rumor mill. He tells his generals that they don't have WMDs, but that the adjacent general does. No one in Iraq's military knew how toothless Saddam really was. Perfect for Saddam's personal security.

Saddam no longer had ambitions on his neighbors. He had no weapons to win an invasion. His latest hobby was authoring two great novels. In Saddam style, he attempted to become one of the world's great authors.

Of course those who really knew this stuff were left without a voice. The George Jr administration had decided they must correct a mistake they made in the George Sr administration. They were 'drinking champagne' (an exaggeration) when they should have been defining conditions for surrender. Swartzkopf had to invent the terms of surrender because those political types in Washington never learned some of what has been posted above - ie purpose of war.

Therefore silence from those who really had a 'feel' for what was happening in Iraq. This was accomplished by repeated challenges to those who said Saddam does not have this or that weapon system. It was just too difficult to report things accurately.

American spies learned how profitable lying could be. The administration had decreed that Saddam had WMDs - and was only seeking proof of their decrees. Spies such as Curveball literally distorted or invented stories that George Jr et al reported as fact.

Most damning were reports from the 'Rockstars' who said Saddam and his sons would be in Dora Farms that became the target of 'shock and awe'. The CIA station chief, Tim, personally entered that crater in Dora Farm that was supposed to be Saddam's bunker. There was no bunker. But the spies reported what the administration wanted to hear. Why? $1million weighs 44 pounds. Facts that CIA agents learned because a 44 pound bag was dropped onto a person in Iraq to buy guns and munitions - this done to multiple people multiple times. Numerous 44 pound bags were dropped throughout northern Iraq. In some places, a cup of coffee sold for $100 because no one could make change. This is how badly the administration wanted to prove that Saddam had WMDs.

Senior administration officials had at stake in personal reputations because these George Jr and George Sr administration officials would otherwise be historically recorded for never learning basic military doctrine - the purpose of war. They celebrated rather than provide Swartzkopf with political conditions for surrender. They thought war was only about destroying an enemy. They had to fix their mistake - inventing, if necessary, Saddam's WMDs.

Are the George Jr administration officials that bad? Well one need only look at where the USS Bataan sat for 5 days as people starved and died in New Orleans. Did you know about the Bataan? Did you know about the 'Rockstars'? Facts that determine whether the administration could lie - and you would have to believe them. Unfortunately too many people knew Saddam must have had WMDs only because George Jr lied about it.

This posted so that you can understand how George Jr could manipulate the spin and lies so thoroughly.

[Undertoad]

I used to think that - that the only role of the military is defensive and within our borders. The problem is that the enemy doesn't play the game by these rules. The game is always on, even when we aren't playing. In fact our failure to play becomes a part of the game and our apparent principles can be played against us.

[dar512]

That'd be great if we were actually getting back at the slime who bombed the US, but we're preoccupied with Iraq which had nothing to do with it. And Osama bin Laden is still alive and free.