Treason

[Rob Babcock]

If Iraq wasn't a threat why did the United Nations ( During both the Bill Clinton & G.W Bush Presidency)
pass sixteen U.N. Resolutions against Saddam and Iraq?
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/13456.htm

Saddam did his damnest to perpetuate the myth that he had WMDs. He considered it a win-win situation; the idea of WMDs was meant to deter Iran and other competitors in the region. Recently released interviews with some of his subordinates indicates that Saddam thought at most the US would bomb him or hit Iraq with a few Cruise missiles as we'd done before. He never believed the US would actually undertake a full scale invasion. In that he gravely miscalculated. But as popular as it is now to call it a "Bush lie" it's important to note that Saddam himself did all he could to encourage this belief that he thought served his purposes.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

Saddam did his damnest to perpetuate the myth that he had WMDs. He considered it a win-win situation; the idea of WMDs was meant to deter Iran and other competitors in the region. Recently released interviews with some of his subordinates indicates that Saddam thought at most the US would bomb him or hit Iraq with a few Cruise missiles as we'd done before. He never believed the US would actually undertake a full scale invasion. In that he gravely miscalculated. But as popular as it is now to call it a "Bush lie" it's important to note that Saddam himself did all he could to encourage this belief that he thought served his purposes.

He learned a hard lesson huh? And was then hung by his own people.

 

[Halon451]

Ultimately, the only way to win against extremists is annihilation which means a lot of innocent people have to die. In the old days, it wasn't easy to annihilate (although Rome did a number on Carthage). These days, it's possible to absolute destroy entire areas and everything in them. While we're annihilating, the question them becomes, are we killing more innocent people than the extremists were.

Warfare has indeed changed. Think about how many innocent lives were lost during the first two World Wars? I think that we have done an excellent job of minimizing civilian casualties in this conflict - yes it is possible to destroy entire areas, but we're not blanketing cities with bulk volumes of bombs dropped from B-52's these days. If innocent lives are lost in the process, it is because this is war, and it is an extremely unfortunate side effect - to say that we are guilty of killing more innocent people than the extremists is inaccurate; the major difference is that we are trying to minimize those casualties, while the extremists are constantly trying to increase them.

 

[Halon451]

First of all, that's not the definition of treason.

"trea·son /ˈtrizən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign."

"In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one's sovereign or nation. "

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."


If you really think calling the Iraq war a failure and calling for a policy change "treason," you are absolutely mad and not remotely in touch with reality.

Disagreeing with the current administration and having a contrary opinion about how things are going is NOT treason. That's being a good citizen and good public servant.

jonnythan - I am afraid that if you think for one red-blooded American second that Nancy Pelosi is a good citizen and a good public servant then you too are not remotely in touch with reality, my friend.

 

[jonnythan]

jonnythan - I am afraid that if you think for one red-blooded American second that Nancy Pelosi is a good citizen and a good public servant then you too are not remotely in touch with reality, my friend.

Any citizen who passionately speaks their mind and vigorously lobbies for what they think is right is a good citizen.

Any elected official who vigorously lobbies for what his or her constituents think is right is a good public servant.

I will readily admit that I think Nancy Pelosi is a dolt. Most Americans are, unfortunately, dolts. She's an idiot and I have no problem admitting that. She doesn't represent me or my views in any way whatsoever.

But it is my duty as a citizen of the United States who believes in his Constitution to vigorously protect her right to say stupid **** that I vehemently disagree with. And I think doing so makes *me* a good citizen.

 

[Johnd]

Any citizen who passionately speaks their mind and vigorously lobbies for what they think is right is a good citizen.

That's part of it jonnythan, but I believe there is much more to being a good citizen that just that. Remember some guy named Adolph?

Any elected official who vigorously lobbies for what his or her constituents think is right is a good public servant.

Again, Adolph? More is required to be a good public servant...much more.

I will readily admit that I think Nancy Pelosi is a dolt. Most Americans are, unfortunately, dolts. She's an idiot and I have no problem admitting that. She doesn't represent me or my views in any way whatsoever.

Ouch.

But it is my duty as a citizen of the United States who believes in his Constitution to vigorously protect her right to say stupid **** that I vehemently disagree with. And I think doing so makes *me* a good citizen.

Of course she has a right to speak, as well as you do. But again, imho, it takes much more than just that to define good citizenry. Though it is a start. Cheers, John

 

[jonnythan]

I think it's ridiculous that you compare Nancy Pelosi to Adolf Hitler. I invoke Godwin's Law; you lose

 

[rnatalli]

Warfare has indeed changed. Think about how many innocent lives were lost during the first two World Wars? I think that we have done an excellent job of minimizing civilian casualties in this conflict - yes it is possible to destroy entire areas, but we're not blanketing cities with bulk volumes of bombs dropped from B-52's these days. If innocent lives are lost in the process, it is because this is war, and it is an extremely unfortunate side effect - to say that we are guilty of killing more innocent people than the extremists is inaccurate; the major difference is that we are trying to minimize those casualties, while the extremists are constantly trying to increase them.

I think you missed the point I was aiming at. The point is that the only way to win against extremists would be to leave holes where countries once stood. As you pointed out, we're not doing that and if we did, we'd be killing more than the extremists. They'll always be extremists no matter what you do short of annihilating. Was true thousands of years ago and will be true for another thousand. To destroy extremists, you have to become the very thing you're trying to destroy.

 

[Halon451]

I think you missed the point I was aiming at. The point is that the only way to win against extremists would be to leave holes where countries once stood. As you pointed out, we're not doing that and if we did, we'd be killing more than the extremists. They'll always be extremists no matter what you do short of annihilating. Was true thousands of years ago and will be true for another thousand. To destroy extremists, you have to become the very thing you're trying to destroy.

Yes, but this is the 21st century rnatalli - this is not one thousand years ago. There is a thing called progress and civilization, and as long as these extemist are hell-bent on destroying what progress we have made as a global community, then we should do what we can to stop them. I admit, this is an extremely difficult scenario, as is the extermination of cockroaches from one's home. BUT- you don't see anybody sitting back and letting the insects swarm as they will, do you? No, you do what you can to eliminate their presence and their threat. I see it no differently with the terrorists.

 

[Johnd]

I think it's ridiculous that you compare Nancy Pelosi to Adolf Hitler. I invoke Godwin's Law; you lose

Don't be pathetic. I compared no one to Hitler. I simply extended your simplistic definition of a good citizen and a good public servant. You know that.

 

[Halon451]

I will readily admit that I think Nancy Pelosi is a dolt. Most Americans are, unfortunately, dolts. She's an idiot and I have no problem admitting that. She doesn't represent me or my views in any way whatsoever.

But it is my duty as a citizen of the United States who believes in his Constitution to vigorously protect her right to say stupid **** that I vehemently disagree with. And I think doing so makes *me* a good citizen.

No argument here. But I think that Pelosi's underlying intentions are a bit more sinister than you seem to think. Comparing her to Hitler may be a bit extreme I will admit (sorry John ), but I am not the only one who thinks that she is using the incompetency of modern American to further a hidden agenda that only on the surface looks like the voice of America. I think you need to look a little deeper.

 

[Johnd]

No argument here. But I think that Pelosi's underlying intentions are a bit more sinister than you seem to think. Comparing her to Hitler may be a bit extreme I will admit (sorry John ), but I am not the only one who thinks that she is using the incompetency of modern American to further a hidden agenda that only on the surface looks like the voice of America. I think you need to look a little deeper.

No apology necessary Halon. Read my reply.

 

[Halon451]

No apology necessary Halon. Read my reply.

Yep, got it.

 

[jinjuku]

How can you say that when the very animals we are fighting in Iraq are the very same animals that have taken thousands of innocent lives all in the name of Islam. We are fighting al qaeda in Iraq and not the Iraqi people. Al qaeda is the group who attacked us and still wants to attack us. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

We could have been fighting Al qaeda in Afghanistan. They weren't in Iraq. I understand that we were attacked, and they still want to. You have made my point for me: All the money, effort, manpower that is being expended on Iraq could have been expended in the real goal: going after terrorist cells. Iraq had nothing to do w/ terrorism and everything to do with oil $$. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

 

[rnatalli]

but I am not the only one who thinks that she is using the incompetency of modern American to further a hidden agenda that only on the surface looks like the voice of America.

I agree with that assessment, but that's how politics has worked for thousands of years. In our system today, we allow big business to lobby our politicians and hand them bribes, excuse me, contributions. We allow public servants to accumulate wealth. Whenever you have this, people will have their own agenda.

I think we all agree that Pelosi sucks and terrorists are scum.

 

[Davemcc]

Well Vietnam was about "containment" and "policing" rather than winning, that policy was evident from the beginning when the word "containment" started to float in the press in the mid-60s, the majority of Americans didn't know where Vietnam was, but they knew that communism was involved, the mistake in Vietnam was simple. They didn't let the professionals do their jobs (The Armed Forces), instead politicos and their egos tried to play arm chair generals. We could have taken Vietnam, but that was never the political intent. Rather it became formulaic: threaten, appease, threaten, appease, bombing campaign (linebackers I & II), appease (Paris Accords) which ended in capitulation. That is Vietnam in a nutshell. This is the same mind set that we have in Washington now. There isn't a "let's get it done and done right" attitude anymore, now its "well what will the press say, what will the polls say, what will Letterman, Leno and Oprah say.....who cares. We've become a bunch of sissies, our president (which I voted for) is a sissy, his cabinet is deplorable, we need a real STRONG leader willing to overlook his popularity poll and do what's right for this country. There hasn't been quality leadership in this country since 1988, that's 20 years!

I think you've hit on a fundamental point of all wars since WWII. Simply put, well-trained, well-equipped, well-led armies win wars. Politicians lose wars.

Think about the difference between WWII and all subsequent wars. Roosevelt and Truman demanded the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER of the combatants before they would discuss terms. They allowed the military to carry out the conditions which led to that unconditional surrender. Rarely did the president direct the actions of the military commanders and when they did, it was only on big issues (read:A-bomb).

In all wars since, the politicians have intervened prematurely to impose a political agenda BEFORE the enemy was defeated. This is true of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. War was prolonged in these cases because politicians hog-tied the military while the enemy was still actively engaged. Al Quaeda has not been defeated in either Iraq or Afghanistan, even as politicians attempt (futilely) to set up civilian governments in combat zones because they have not allowed the military to defeat the enemy and secure the theater of operations before interfering.

Culpability for America's lost wars lie directly at the feet of America's politicians. Currently, the cowards of the liberal left with Pelosi as their able spokesperson are setting America up for a cowardly retreat from wars that the American soldiers have the means, ability and honor to win if only they were unshackled by their spineless political masters. Even in this analysis, Bush is not exempt, as it was he who prevented the military from winning quickly when winning quickly was possible by declaring combat operations over, adopting new rules of engagement and turning the active combat zone over to politicians while the enemy was still engaged.

 

[jinjuku]

Check this out from CNN:

Saudi officials ban everything that is red ahead of St. Valentines day

What a double edged sword in trying to 'democratize' a region. The ones that we assume need it the most are the ones who will mess it up.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

We could have been fighting Al qaeda in Afghanistan. They weren't in Iraq. I understand that we were attacked, and they still want to. You have made my point for me: All the money, effort, manpower that is being expended on Iraq could have been expended in the real goal: going after terrorist cells. Iraq had nothing to do w/ terrorism and everything to do with oil $$. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Don't even start with the oil thing. That has already been proven wrong so many times it is pointless.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

I think we all agree that Pelosi sucks and terrorists are scum.

You forgot to add traitor

 

[jinjuku]

Don't even start with the oil thing. That has already been proven wrong so many times it is pointless.

It's the only reasonable explanation I have seen. I am not sure what else we are there for.