I saw the Nick Berg video

[Rachels]

OMG, I'm so sickened and horrified. I thought I was following a news link, and the video popped up. I'm equally sickened and horrified by what we're doing in Iraq. I literally think I might throw up. OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[mharling]

OMG, how horrifying!!! I have no desire to see it and I'm sorry you did unknowingly.

Mary & Lane 4/6/03
[link:www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b370a2992536|Birthday Pics!!]

[Rachels]

I feel traumatized. I can't imagine what his parents must be going through. I'm not a big fan of censorship, but the fact that you can accidentally see someone being beheaded makes me just sick. Oh, his parents. OMG, again.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[s_gosney]

yikes. I would be freaking out too. I personally think that even the part that the US media is showing is inappropriate, but I know that others would disagree.
I think that we are naive though if we think that this sort of treatment of prisoners hasn't been occurring for quite some time though. On nightline last night, they had a discussion about the use of torture tactics, and some really thought-provoking questions were asked. One man said that he thinks that torture should absolutely never be used, that you should put your loved one's face on the prisoner's body and treat them like you would want your loved one treated, but then Ted Koppel said, but what about if your loved one is on a plane about to be killed and this prisoner has information that could prevent it from happening, what then? Would you not want all tactics possible to be used?
Tough, tough questions without clear answers.
This war has been a real eye opening experience for everyone though I think due to the media's close involvement. I'm not really sure if that's good or bad...
It is truly horrifying though.

[ismommy]

Rachel,

I am so sorry you saw it. I have made a point to try to saty away from Iraqi news knowing that DH will probably be back there.
I am working as a photo editor at AOL now and made the mistake of looking at the AP wire of the photos of the civilians in Falujah (the ones that havent run anywhere) when DH was in Iraq and it was beyond hard to get the images out of my mind so now I try to just not follow it. Maybe not the most intelligent thing but emotionally it works for me.
Hugs
Helene
mommy to Isabella

[Rachels]

Yes and no on the media's involvement, I think. We're not seeing even a fraction of the atrocities that we're perpetuating. The video here was the worst thing I've ever seen in my life, without question. But the fact that the White House spokesman said that it shows the true nature of the "enemies of freedom" is just a fallacy from where I sit. We've killed over 10,000 civilians in Iraq, and I imagine that the parents of a child whose limbs were blown off in our "liberation" efforts feel about as horrified as the parents of Nick Berg. I don't know that we're in much of a position to talk about ANYBODY'S "nature." What a nightmare.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[ismommy]

One thing to realize is we are also not seeing our soldiers who have been killed or badly injured. DH was there at the start of the war and took a photo of a dying soldier - there was no blood - only his eyes tell you he is dying and he is being attened to by other soldiers. Without bias - it is an amazing photo - poignant and tells what scarifices are being made. It has been seen very few places because the army didnt want it seen. when this happened I was furious my DH was over there to show what was happening and sadly that means losing our soldiers but they( meanning the people very high up in the military) didnt want that portrayed - only that USA is "winning" It sickens me that we( american media) shows dead iraquis but were forbidden to show the cost of war.
I dont want to start a political argument but I hope more than anything we get out of there soon.
ETA I put the winning in quotes becuase no one is winning this wra or any war for that matter. Also I want to point out that the soldiers who were over there wanted the photo seen because it shows what they were dealing with. The threat that was made to my DH's company about running it came from way up high in teh army's ranks
Helene
mommy to Isabella

[Rachels]

Me too. You must feel really scared. I'm sorry.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[flagger]

I am sorry that you clicked on a link and saw a video that you did not expect, but...(you knew that right) I am glad this video is being seen. To me it shows me exactly why we are there and the kinds of people we are fighting and WHERE they are.

The people killed during liberation is nowhere equal to the amount killed during the former regime by the regime itself.

[Rachels]

But Flagger, WE are also "those kinds of people." I am not debating the horror of this killing. As I said, it's the worst thing I've ever seen in my life. I'm also not debating the horror of the Saddam regime. But there are unthinkable atrocities being committed all over the world, and we're ignoring most of them. Going into Iraq was not the altruistic move it often gets presented as being. There is not a moral difference between the killers of Nick Berg and the US torturers of the Iraqi prisoners (90% of whom are estimated to be completely innocent of anything). The video proved, if proof were necessary, that yes, there are terrorists in Iraq. But we're kidding ourselves if we think we're not a terrorist nation also.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[flagger]

I think we are the lesser of two evils. I do think the torture of Iraqi prisoners are more isolated than the media is leading us to believe. I do not believe it is widespread.

Unfortunately this happens throughout our history. I am sure the former interred captives at places like Manzanar would have a few things to say about the government itself. That being said I am pretty mortified at the trashing of our Constitution in the name of (homeland security) by the current adminstration, but that is for another forum on another day.

This is going to be a long war and it won't just be fought on Iraq and Afghanistan. The only alternative is to just roll over and let them win.

[Rachels]

I agree with some of that, but I think that evil is evil. I just don't think there's such thing as anybody winning anymore. It's a huge, ongoing, unstoppable disaster.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

BEFORE ANYONE READS THIS...I want to remind us that the Field's agreed we could take this type of conversation here and that if it bothers folks to not read it...so before I upset anyone please know I am highly liberal and if this might upset you be forwarned...I say this respectfully for I don't want to upset anyone...but I do want to particpate in this thread desperatly!!!!!!
And have been tempted to start one (on the abuse atleast) for almost 2 weeks now!!!!


I could just throw up that you innocently clicked on a link and were exposed to that...that just disgust me beyond any words I can ever say. If I was exposed to that I would be physically SICK!!!!!! That was not fair to whoever posted a link without one knowing of it.

I couldn't agree more with you Rachel, our President said HIS agenda best months before we went to war "after all they tried to kill my pop (or did he say papa)"....

And whoever said imagine your loved ones head on there was right...I believe we live in a racest society when we decide who to help and who to give compassion to in such scenerios.

Hillary Clinton said it well a few days ago, I might (still don't really know) have backed a war that was to disarm Weapons of Mass Destruction...but that is not what this has turned into...my mom even referenced our military over there handing our info...that also is not what we went in there to do...

I am sickened and so mad that folks aren't TOTALLY UP IN ARMS of Bush playing cowboy and taking advantage of getting to dress up like a fighter pilot and landing romantically, dramatically and dreamly on an aircraft carrier announcing pretty much that the war was over and we were successful. He mis portrayed events and I don't know about you all but I certainly would love to land on an aircraft carrier and get to announce (FAKE) good news...I mean how romantic/dreamy is that????

We have screwed up to go over there and treat their prisoners badly...it disgust me as much as the idea of anyone getting murdered etc... how dare we go over there announcing we are freeing a group and then treat them this way ESPECIALLY since many were not even "prisoners" in the sense of the word.

For folks who say there is a difference is what "they" did the other day and what we have done you are wrong...I can tell you many honorable men would rather be killed then to be made to RAPE a 15 year old on a camera. We made a prisoner RAPE a 15 year old ON CAMERA!!!!!! I know my husband is classy enough to rather be killed then to made to RAPE a child let alone ON CAMERA!!!!!
So anyone who acts like our poop smells like roses is wrong!!!!
If I hear one more person say "they" and compare that to the US Military (that my money supports) I will explode.
We went on their turf...we can not compare our US Military (that we financially support) to acts that "they" do...who the hell are "they" anyway...aren't we over there because of these "theys"...

My blood boils over this...over the abuse that we did over there...and what will happen to our men and women over there based on what we allowed. Those people behind the abuse in the prisons have our blood on their hands as much as those murders do in my eyes.

I was so mad at Bush when he entered the rose garden a good 11 days ago AFTER the 9-11 meeting and said "I'm glad I made time to meet them (DUH)...and this abuse "bothers me" we'll reprimand them"...he looked like a bozo, his stance, stupid way of standing, stupid way of talking, his choice of words showed me the bozo he is.
You notice now he has different stance when discussing this....

I can only hope that Rumsfeld stays put as much as I can not stand him...for he makes Bush looks worse if he sticks around...so please god keep him there!!!!!

That Halliburten is controlling and profitting from every contract over there sickens me too....
Neve
http://home.nc.rr.com/ourbabytristan
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

That Senator from Oklahoma that thought he need to remind us that some of these prisoners might have American blood on their hands disgust me too!!!!!!!!
I mean this is a WAR...so is he telling me that if my hubby is over there and has "Iraqi blood on his hands" that if he is taken prisoner they have a right to do this to him???? I mean where has this man been???? I think he sounds like a racist biggot!!!!!

And how he got away with calling the Red Cross or folks with ethics and integrity "do-gooders" I will never know...
Granted I've been away from TV or the media the past 48 hours but I don't know this man got away with saying such STUPID things...

Did you really think we'd go to war and that neither side would have "blood on their hands" or do you just think that "our blood is different blood", I could say what I think he was thinking but it reminds us that I think he is racist so I will refrain.


Neve
http://home.nc.rr.com/ourbabytristan
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[MelissaTC]

I agree with you Neve...the whole thing is crazy...

Cowboy George irks me to no end. I hate his whole attitude towards the rest of the world. I really am afraid of what will happen when the real truths come out on all of this. I think there is a ton of information not being fed to the American people. And I fear for Americans every where.

There is still no clear legitimate reason to me as to why we are there. Please, don't anyone try to tell me it is to "free" the Iraqi people. That is BS and nothing you can say or do is going to change my mind about that.

I don't think it is our job to go and try to set everyone "free". I hate how we push our American agenda when it is convienent for us to do so. And yes we are free. I agree this is the best place to live. I love my country. But I do not love what my country is doing to the rest of the world as well as its own people. It disgusts me that we live in a country that mistreats its youth and elderly. Don't even get me started...lol...

I know I have rambled and have no desire to get into a discussion with anyone...just felt inspired to get this off of my chest...

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

I totally agree Melissa I'm the same way,I feel the same I have no desire to get into a deep discussion about it with anyone either but it sure did feel good to say what I wanted :)....
We have left those folks in a very bad situation it will take atleast our children's life time for them to ever be cleansed of what we have done (and I assume much longer)...and then all of our children left without parents over this as well...
Neve
http://home.nc.rr.com/ourbabytristan
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[blnony]

I do not often get involved in deep political and controversial topics; but this is a very powerful thing for me.
I completely support our troops and their families. However, I do not support George W and this war and occupation. In any fashion.
I am disgusted at the lies and coverups that this adminstration has perpertrated in the past few years. I do not think the media is the most unbiased at reporting; but the statistics speak for themselves IMO.
I don't think the troops have any choice but to do their jobs. As far as the abuse to POWs in Iraq; its sad; but I don't think its fair to thinksall our soldiers are that way. I think that is misleading. I think the men and women of our Armed Forces have been amazing and I'm so thankful that they have been willing to give their lives and leave their families and their homes to do this job that put forth for them.
I only hope that GW isn't reelected and we get those men and women home to their families. I don't think we should be the de facto police to the world; which is what this feels like.
I could really go on and on about this; but I think this sums it up for me. I'm NOT wanting to debate this issue, but I just wanted to express my feelings on this.
And Rachel; I can't believe you had to see that video. I would never be the same if I did; I'm sorry.

Edited to add the NOT b/c thats pretty darn important!

[Calmegja2]

Totally agreement here, Neve. Completely. When Bush said he thought Rumsfeld was doing a "superb job", I have to question just what definition of superb is being used. Colin POwell, at this point, is just about the only one I have much respect left for, and he seems as though he's about to jump ship. He doesn't even pretend to agree with Bush and company any longer.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.powell12may12,0,2804533.story?coll=

This affects not just the here and now, but so far forward. Hagel is speaking of the draft, and a generational war (Dem. Rangel brought it up first, but he was trying to make a point about the cost of war prior to the war), so this could be a war that drafts our sons and daughters. Over what? Lies and misinformation? Peak oil? Revenge?

And this....it just leaves me speechless.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4955074/

[MartiesMom2B]

From what I've read about be-heading for history, I know that it is not a quick death. I'm sorry that you had to see this and what I've read about the whole thing makes me sick. I couldn't image watching it. I hope that you'll be able to make the images go away - though I'm sure that will be very difficult.

It dissapoints me that you can see this on the front pages and it is the top story on the news. However the death of our soldiers are placed in the back of the paper, and there was a big hub bub over Nightline airing those who died for us in the Middle East.

Sonia
Proud Mommy to Martie 4/6/03

[ddmarsh]

I was unbelievably incensed over the administration's response to the nation's reaction to the Berg incident which was to attack the nation and the media for being outraged and claim it is being politicized. One Congressman was quoted as saying he was "outraged at the outrage."

I found this to be a wonderful writing today:

>
>
> Dancing Alone
>
> May 13, 2004
> By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
>
>
>
>
>
> It is time to ask this question: Do we have any chance of
> succeeding at regime change in Iraq without regime change
> here at home?
>
> "Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all
> of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing
> a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance
> to the country that it had to be kept above politics."
>
> Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was
> thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the
> administration would have to do the right things in Iraq -
> from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to
> dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence -
> because surely this was the most important thing for the
> president and the country. But I was wrong. There is
> something even more important to the Bush crowd than
> getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and
> staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has
> always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat
> liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they
> spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history.
> That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over
> this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern
> Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in
> the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the
> Middle West.
>
> I admit, I'm a little slow. Because I tried to think about
> something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11
> world, in a nonpartisan fashion - as Joe Biden, John McCain
> and #### Lugar did - I assumed the Bush officials were
> doing the same. I was wrong. They were always so slow to
> change course because confronting their mistakes didn't
> just involve confronting reality, but their own politics.
>
> Why, in the face of rampant looting in the war's aftermath,
> which dug us into such a deep and costly hole, wouldn't Mr.
> Rumsfeld put more troops into Iraq? Politics. First of all,
> Rummy wanted to crush once and for all the Powell doctrine,
> which says you fight a war like this only with overwhelming
> force. I know this is hard to believe, but the Pentagon
> crew hated Colin Powell, and wanted to see him humiliated
> 10 times more than Saddam. Second, Rummy wanted to prove to
> all those U.S. generals whose Army he was intent on
> downsizing that a small, mobile, high-tech force was all
> you needed today to take over a country. Third, the White
> House always knew this was a war of choice - its choice -
> so it made sure that average Americans never had to pay any
> price or bear any burden. Thus, it couldn't call up too
> many reservists, let alone have a draft. Yes, there was a
> contradiction between the Bush war on taxes and the Bush
> war on terrorism. But it was resolved: the Bush team
> decided to lower taxes rather than raise troop levels.
>
> Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the
> administration make some uniquely American gesture? Because
> these folks have no clue how to export hope. They would
> never think of saying, "Let's close this prison immediately
> and reopen it in a month as the Abu Ghraib Technical
> College for Computer Training - with all the equipment
> donated by Dell, H.P. and Microsoft." Why didn't the
> administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a
> Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation,
> so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly
> disengage from this region and speak truth to
> fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia? (Addicts
> never tell the truth to their pushers.) Because that might
> have required a gas tax or a confrontation with the
> administration's oil moneymen. Why did the administration
> always - rightly - bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a
> finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive
> building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because
> while that might have earned America credibility in the
> Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish
> votes in Florida.
>
> And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld
> rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the
> conservative base, you must always appear to be strong,
> decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president
> appear to be true to his team than that America appear to
> be true to its principles. (Here's the new Rummy Defense:
> "I am accountable. But the little guys were responsible. I
> was just giving orders.")
>
> Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq,
> why we are dancing alone in the world - and why our
> president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral
> influence.

[candybomiller]

Rachel,

I am so, so sorry that you had to see that. I haven't seen it, and Lord knows I don't want to. I don't want to get involved in the political debate, mostly because I don't think I'm well enough informed to have a real opinion, but I'm mostly disgusted by it all.

My heart bleeds for Nick Berg's parents and I know that my Jewish community has him in their prayers. I just don't understand why all of this is happening and it makes me sick to my stomach that my son is growing up in this world.

[AngelaS]

Wow, I agree with Flagger...... well said.

[lisams]

OMG, I am so sorry you had to see that.

There is so much going on that we don't know about. This whole war is a joke. Iraq has nothing to do with the fight against terrorism, it's Al Qaida which has no links to Iraq. It's all about Bush's agenda (and I'm Republican!!!) Makes me so sick.

It's sad that this video is out there, you can't stop the guys who did this from putting it out on the web. They want Americans to accidently come across it so that they can piss us off.

Once again, I'm so sorry you had to see this. I can't even imagine.

Lisa

[aliceinwonderland]

Rachel, I am so sorry you were unknowingly exposed to that...

I think it's funny (well, NOT), that the pro-war people accuse the rest of us of not supporting the troops, yet, I feel ill everyday I listen to NPR and they say "2 more soldiers died today in a roadside bombing" etc, etc. Wanting them home with their familis is not supporting them?? That is someone's son, husband, whole world!! And we NEVER EVER get any concrete numbers of Iraqi civilians who have died due to our freakin' "liberation".

I think it is so sad that a lot of Americans do not know what war is really like, therefore they rush into it and support this twisted agenda. Just think when we were watching the bombing of Baghdad on TV like it was a freaking fireworks show...

I go around with something at the bottom of my stomach everytime I think of this....Especially now that I have a child. I look at him, and ask myself what kind of world did I bring him into...

[lukkykatt]

Rachel, I too am very sorry that you had to see what had to be a horrendous execution. I am also sickened that this video is "out there" - if I was a member of his family, it would grieve me to no end. NPR had a little piece on him and he seemed to be an honorable person who was there to try to help (if their piece was accurate), which makes this even worse.

I have so many thoughts on this subject, but I will just share a few.

Some people have seemed to take the stance that "we" are better than "them". It is fine for everyone to have their own opinion, which is one of the great things about this country. BUT, if anyone thinks that we are getting the whole story, they are sadly mistaken. I have a few very good Arabic friends and there many are things that never make it into "our" news. It is quite eye-opening, when we are supposed to be the home of the "free" press.

One of my very good friends is the daughter of someone who had quite an active role in the first Gulf War. I asked her about her father's thoughts on the recent goings-on. I was hoping that he had a different perspective, based on his experience and on his insider information. My friend told me that he is relieved that he is retired and has nothing to do with the situation we are now in. I was quite surprised.

John McCain was on the Diane Rehm show today on NPR - talking about his new book, but also had some good insights about recent events.

I hope and pray that none of our troops are now captured. I think there are many who will have an eye on further revenge after the pictures were released of the Iraquis being tortured. I hope that our soldiers can return home quickly and safely. I have always thought this war was wrong, and that was even when we had been told that there were definitely WMD there. I find it astonishing how we have managed to allienate our closest allies and deepen the hatred that the world has against us.

I usually stay out of political discussions, but I have been continually shocked and saddened by what we have been doing in the name of freedom.

[Vajrastorm]

Though I'm not sure I want Rumsfeld to stay.

I too have seen the video, only I did it intentionally. For me, it was the chance, however difficult and horrifying, to bring it all home. Not just the murder of Nick Berg, but the horror of this entire war and the deaths/tortures on all sides.

My heart breaks.

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

and "the outrage over the outrage" bozo is the one who I referenced above can you believe he is elected????
Neve
http://home.nc.rr.com/ourbabytristan
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[flagger]

>Iraq has nothing to do with the fight against terrorism, it's Al Qaida which has no links to Iraq.

We are there BECAUSE al-Qaeda is there.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/13/iraq.berg/index.html

The man who beheaded American captive Nicholas Berg was likely al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a CIA official said Thursday. An assessment of the video showing Berg's death concludes it is a "high probability" al-Zarqawi is the hooded speaker who is shown decapitating Berg, the CIA official said. The video was posted on an al Qaeda linked Web site and discovered Tuesday.

It was al-Qaeda who planned 9/11. It was Al-Qaeda who planned the USS Cole bombing. It was Al-Qaeda who planned the bombings at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (?) and it was Al-Qaeda who planned the bombings in Madrid. They must be stopped.

I think of Truman making that horrible decision to wipe out 100,000 Japanese civilians, and I thank g*d he did. His decision saved an estimated 2 MILLION lives. I am willing to wipe out a few thousand civilians to save countless American lives.

[candybomiller]

Not to simplify this, but how can you weigh the cost of even one human life?

[flagger]

Because the purpose of war is to make the person you are fighting die for his country. It is not to ensure the peace. We didn't start this fight, but we are determined to finish it.

And it will take years.

[ddmarsh]

>It was al-Qaeda who planned 9/11. It was Al-Qaeda who planned the USS >Cole bombing. It was Al-Qaeda who planned the bombings at the embassies >in Kenya and Tanzania (?) and it was Al-Qaeda who planned the bombings >in Madrid. They must be stopped.

Yes they did and they are located in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We are in Iraq as a result of the Saddam issues. The administration encourages the blurring of these lines, but they are in fact quite distinct.

The reality is that Al Queda actually despised Saddam b/c he was the rule of a secular government and they are opposed to all secular states.

[flagger]

Click the link. THEY ARE IN IRAQ. That murder happened in Iraq. They have been in IRAQ. There are training camps we have photos of IN IRAQ.

[Calmegja2]

>>.
>
>The reality is that Al Queda actually despised Saddam b/c he
>was the rule of a secular government and they are opposed to
>all secular states.
>
>
*************
This completely bears repeating.

We went to war under false pretenses, with Bush and company making allegations we now know to be patently false. Listen to Colin Powell. He's letting go more and more. He knows how wrong this exercise is.

We know Iraq had nothing to do with 911. We know that, and yet the neo cons in charge went ahead anyway, with their own agenda.

AQ is based in Afghanistan. Their presence, if any, was *absolutely minimal* (you do know the credibility of the so called pictures of the camps was nil, right?) in Iraq until the war started, and the dissembling of order left so many openings for terrorism to get into the picture there.

Are you trying to saying that AQ killed Nick Berg? Not so. A man who has previously been reported dead, but was considered sympathetic to OBL, but not in AQ is getting the blame for this.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=2&u=/ap/20040513/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_american_beheaded

If we were so set on getting countries that are the hotbeds of terrorism, and where the majority of the AQ action stemmed from, we are looking in the wrong place. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia...those are the places the terrorists are coming from, not Iraq. But we have lucrative oil contracts and business dealing with some of the countries where the vast majority of AQ terrorists are living and working, and that hinders quite a lot.

Tell me, which of the hijackers was it that came from Iraq?

The answer would be none. GWB is attempting, poorly, to change horses midstream. We went there under the pretense of mass destruction weapons, there aren't any, so now we're going after terrorists. Supposedly. This week. This administration can't even get it's story straight on whether or not Nick Berg was ever in US custody. Pathetic.

http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040513/APA/405130871

The war on terror is a war that needs to be fought. But we're not fighting it in the right place, and we are, as frightening as it seems, actually making it worse.

[ddmarsh]

>Click the link. THEY ARE IN IRAQ. That murder happened in Iraq


Firstly you will note the use of the word LIKELY. Do you recall that there have been many purported "facts" throughout this process which have turned out to be quite false. Secondly, if it does turn out to be the case it is certainly no surprise that in response to the occurances in the recent months that some of AQ has migrated to the source of their most despised foe. Of course what will happen if this turns out to be the case, which again I believe it is still quite suspect, is that the administration will use this to justify everything that has happened up to this point.

[flagger]

I fully believe there are or were WMD in IRAQ. We absolutely are fighting in the right place and will take the fight around the globe if necessary. It will take years.

I fully believe Saddam needed to be stopped regardless of an involvement in 9/11. If we had the chance to stop Hitler in '39, I bet there would have been people who would have been against that as well.

All it will take is another catastrophic event in the US (which will happen btw sooner if not later) for our nation's resolve to be once again strong in what must be done.

[cuca_]

Rachel,

I am sorry that you had to see the video. I don't think I would be able to stomach such a thing. Such a tragedy for Nick Berg's family.

I usually do not participate in these heated debates, however, I am equally outraged by what is going on in Iraq. I believe that terrorism has become the new communism for the Bush administration. It is a tragedy that they are using the tragedy of 9/11 to foster economic interests abroad. As someone else mentioned, I believe a large motivator behind this war is oil. Does anyone remember latin america, the banana republics. While the U.S. did end inhumane regimes in some countries, it did place what it deemed to be the appropriate governments in power, and this in turn had terrible consequences for the development of their politics and society in general. Not to mention the oppresive and cruel nature of many of the leaders put in place by us.

Obviously this appears to be much, much worse. The loss of lives on both sides is unjustifiable. As someone else said, I love this country, and wholeheartedly support the men and women who are putting their lives at risk, as most of them are not to blame for the decisions made regarding this war. However, I cannot help but wonder if we will ever understand that we are not the one and only, that our system of democracy will not necessarily work elsewhere, and that we as a nation are accountable for our actions and for the debacles that we cause elsewhere.

I don't mean to get into a debate with anyone. That is not my purpose in posting. I am simply expressing my opinions about this war, and the feeling of doom that overcomes me any time I read something about Iraq.

[Calmegja2]

>I fully believe there are or were WMD in IRAQ. We absolutely
>are fighting in the right place and will take the fight around
>the globe if necessary. It will take years.
>
>I fully believe Saddam needed to be stopped regardless of an
>involvement in 9/11. If we had the chance to stop Hitler in
>'39, I bet there would have been people who would have been
>against that as well.
>
>All it will take is another catastrophic event in the US
>(which will happen btw sooner if not later) for our nation's
>resolve to be once again strong in what must be done.


*****

Thinking like this frightens me.

Not the event in the US. I agree that it is coming at some point, but the argument that there are/were WMD that needed taking out without the UN, and without the world's support.

With our actions in Iraq, we are mostly confirming the thought that we are an imperialistic nation out to destroy the Middle East. I know that wasn't the goal, but when we've got a president who claims that he's been divinely chosen to bring peace to the ME, I get very, very worried about what exactly it is he's trying to accomplish. And when he has generals under his authority who say things like this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040511/ts_nm/iraq_abuse_general_dc

I get very worried.

And when he says things like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm

Did you find the president's video at the correspondent's dinner funny (3.24.04)? Looking for WMB under his desk, and around corners, in a joking manner? I bet the families of the servicemen who've died in that task didn't find it funny at all.

So, it's keep going, never admit you're wrong, and just keep making it worse, while the world stands by and gets angrier and angrier with us?

The vast majority of the rest of the world isn't buying the portrait of Bush as the guy in the white cowboy hat saving the day. He's considered to be an arrogant warmonger at this point, and it's not going well.

I'm glad you believe there's WMD. Very few people still do.

[Rachels]

Jessica, ITA. That kick-a$$ mentality is frightening, and it ignores a lot of the facts. Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorism, but there's no evidence that it was before we went in there. Terrifying.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Vajrastorm]

Bush's reelection campaign should to titled, "No rosebush left unturned."

[flagger]

>I'm glad you believe there's WMD. Very few people still do.

The vast majority of us do and Bush will win again in November and it won't even be close.

[Rachels]

Gag.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[ddmarsh]

>I fully believe there are or were WMD in IRAQ

I honestly do not get this kind of thinking. Beliefs have no place in events like this --- FACTS do. What are the facts upon which this belief is based? To date no stone has been left unturned in Iraq and nothing has been found. Furthermore, a great deal of the "intelligence" upon which the entry into war was based and been, not only completely discredited, but found to have never really been altogether clear in the first place.

I'll say you may be correct in Dubya winning in light of the evidence on Diebold machines.

[Calmegja2]

When you can't refute the facts of the matter, it is best, isn't it, to go to empty propaganda? Is that your strategy here?



The vast majority of people still incorrectly think that 911 is directly connected to Saddam as well. They're wrong.

And as for that landslide, good luck with that. Bush's poll numbers are slipping, and if you recall, he didn't win in a landslide last time. He didn't get the popular vote, and he squeaked through courtesy of his brother's corruption and his father's SC appointees. There was no mandate for his regime last time, and with what he's done, I don't see it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/12/opinion/12KOHU.htm

And I agree with Deb. If you're counting on a landslide from the help of Diebold, you may be on to something, but it won't be the will of the people.

[flagger]

Actually the facts are that al-Qaeda was and still IS in Iraq. There are or were WMD in Iraq. It is NOT supposition it is FACT.

If you are suggesting that we not get rid of Saddam, well too bad for you. Oh and were are your FACTS that 9/11 is not connected to Saddam. Sorry but you are dead wrong.

Thankfully the other guy wasn't in office on 9/11.

Ah and empty liberal lies about his brother's corruption. The people spoke in Florida and our process worked.

I am done with this thread frankly as there are far more things more important and closer to home to worry about.

We will see in November who is right.

[ddmarsh]

>Actually the facts are that al-Qaeda was and still IS in Iraq. There are >or were WMD in Iraq. It is NOT supposition it is FACT.

That is your refrain, but upon what facts is it actually based? Funny that you are so insistent when even administration officials at this point have conceded the point.

>Oh and were are your FACTS that 9/11 is not connected to Saddam

Are you serious? There is a plethora of information on all of this. Of course I could list a host of sources and it would matter none.

[MelissaTC]

Debbie,

Don't waste your time... :)
Hopefully in November, we will see ourselves in a better situation in terms of administration. I hope so, for all of our sakes...

[Calmegja2]

>I am done with this thread frankly as there are far more
>things more important and closer to home to worry about.
>

Your last line shows the difference between us.

I think what's going on over there is close to home, and the safety and future well being of those I love the most is connected to what's going on over there. It does no one any good to shut our eyes tight and think of that as a faraway place that doesn't connect with our everyday life. We're not isolated, our actions affect others. I'm sorry you can't see that.

As for the rest, you're clinging to ideas that even the administration has conceded on at this point. Interesting way to look at the world.

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

We have given them the greatest recruiting tool of all time with the photos and video of the abuse in those prisons...we aided terrorist efforts in recruiting more than we will ever know...and with the passion that many around the world feel (for instance they will fight today because your great grand father took my great grand father's land...when we Americans can't even say the name of our great granfather's or where they lived for the most part, we have given them a recruiting tool for generations to come.


We have totally set up a petri dish for future terrorist there is no doubt!!!!!

Edited to say I don't doubt for a moment that we'll find an Al Queda presense in Iraq of some sort...they are in many places...even here in our country...Singapore, the Phillipines, Bali...EVERYWHERE, so that one can prove they are in Iraq to me is different than the reasons we chose to go to War with them.

Without UN support, going against the Geneva Convention, Albright not going to Congressional Meeting "in over a year"...I mean everything Bush is doing is against the Merican Way he is changing "our process"...it is very dangerous!!!!
Neve
http://home.nc.rr.com/ourbabytristan
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[jd11365]

I get the shivers when I see him just sitting there in that orange jumpsuit knowing it was the last minute of his life, so I can't even imagine what you are feeling after seeing his actual violent death.

Jamie
Mommy to Kayla
5-1-03

[Rachels]

I'm feeling sleepless and sick and more disgusted at this war than ever before-- and I was pretty disgusted before. :(

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

I hope he had no idea...I suspect they made awful threats during much of his capture. I am so mad at CBS for I didn't know that that jump suit footage was his last minutes and they pretty much showed everything up until the final seconds and that pisses me off, I could have gone without seeing that for the rest of my life.

I am facinated in that he had what they are saying was an innocent incounter with Moucasoui (????) the bleived 9-11 terrorist who was captured prior to 9-11. Evidently he either shared his password, or his computer with him and a terrorist email was sent from his computer...what are the chances???????

I'm not even going to begin to speculate but it will be interesting to watch this unfold I suspect...
Neve
http://home.nc.rr.com/ourbabytristan
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[twinmama]

My sentiments exactly, Rachel. I've never been a fan of Bush, but the recent events have really sent me over the edge. I'm seriously considering starting a VA chapter of Mothers Opposing Bush (www.mob.org) because I have never been this angry over a political leader before. BTW, I'm so sorry you saw the beheading video. I have been avoiding almost all media because I am terrified of accidently seeing it. I can't even imagine how horrible it must be for his parents that their son's death can be viewed all over the internet.

-Lisa

[candybomiller]

Lisa,

Thanks for the MOB link. I just signed up. Should cause some nice friction since DH is a Bush supporter.

[MelissaTC]

I just signed up as well. Not surprisingly, there isn't a chapter in my state. I hope that changes soon. DH is going to love this! He "thinks" he is a Bush supporter but once he starts expressing his view on most issues, he really isn't. LOL. I am dying to slap a huge John Kerry sticker on my new minivan...

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

I hope you mean a KERRY/EDWARDS sticker...
As one NCer to the next :)
Neve
http://home.nc.rr.com/ourbabytristan
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[candybomiller]

I don't know if this post belongs here, but I just found a web site:
www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om explaining why you should vote for Kerry. I thought it was amusing.

[jojo2324]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Even if we do capture Osama Bin Laden, does that really solve anything??? Not at all. There are a hundred people below him who will glady step up to the plate. And I can't imagine the images of abuse are making the Iraqis yearn for a relationship with the US. Uh, doubt it.

What I truly don't understand is how we, as AMERICANS, cannot understand why the Iraqis would behave like this. I am NOT condoning the beheading of Nick Berg, or the burning of soldiers and dragging their remains through the streets...But if we had people from another country with a mindset so completely different from ours blowing up OUR buildings, killing OUR people, in OUR backyards and streets...You bet your a$$ we'd be out there fighting tooth and nail to get our land back. It's how this country was started!! Why shouldn't others do the same? It wasn't our land to take, to destroy, to maim. (And I'm talking about if we were fighting a war in this country, not the 9/11 terror attacks.)

Kerry has been pretty quiet this week on Iraq. It's better for George W Bush to dig his own grave, though I don't know if Kerry will win the election.

I just don't know what to think anymore. Last night a plane flew so low over my house my heart fell into my stomach. I honestly thought it might land on my home. I can't hear a plane now without wondering if it's just a little too close. Planes seem to fly lower now, seem to be louder now. I worry about my kids, just what they're going to face in their lifetimes. It makes me so sad. And what makes me even more sad is that I feel so helpless.

[Rachels]

I feel the same. The world is so much more dangerous than it was right after 9-11, and I'm terrified to think what might happen if we have to endure this administration for another four years.

And did you see his recent comment that he thinks that "people whose skin color may be different than ours can still have the ability to self-govern"? Lovely. Apparently nobody has informed him that not everyone in the US is white.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[AngelaS]

Nah, she can have a Kerry/Vilsack sticker...that'll get the stupid Vilsack out of Iowa and I can keep my George W in the White House. :D

[ddmarsh]

From The NYT today:



The Wrong Direction

Watching President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld this week, it was hard to avoid the sinking feeling that they had already moved on from the Abu Ghraib prison mess and were back to their well-established practice of ignoring all bad news and marching blindly ahead as if nothing unusual had happened. That was the impression that emerged from Mr. Bush's disconnected performance on Monday, when he viewed photos and video stills of the atrocious treatment of prisoners by soldiers under his and Mr. Rumsfeld's command, and then announced that the defense secretary was doing a "superb job." It was stronger than ever yesterday, during Mr. Rumsfeld's road trip to Iraq, where he drew a curious parallel between himself and Ulysses S. Grant and announced his approach to the prison scandal: "I've stopped reading newspapers."

Mr. Rumsfeld told the soldiers that they had broad public support at home despite the Abu Ghraib scandal. That is obviously true. It is also beside the point. The proper way for Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld to show support for the troops is not to use them as a screen from the heat over the mismanagement of the military prisons. It is to fix the problem, now. The solution is real changes, not cosmetic ones like yesterday's announcement that Abu Ghraib's inmates would be moved within the prison grounds to new temporary quarters, which have been dubbed Camp Redemption.

Each passing day has made it more clear that the routine treatment of prisoners in military prisons violates international law, the Geneva Conventions and American values of due process and humane behavior. This is a terrible burden for the fine men and women serving in Iraq to bear, as they live their lives among an ever more hostile populace. Rather than assuring his uniformed audience — and the world — that the administration is moving heaven and earth to wipe out the rottenness within the prison system, the defense secretary simply urged the soldiers to ignore the politics back home.

There are things Mr. Bush can do quickly to demonstrate the American commitment to the decent treatment of Iraqi prisoners without jeopardizing the fairness of the coming trials of the soldiers charged with inexcusable actions at Abu Ghraib. The first is to drop the Camp Redemption foolishness, remove the prisoners from Abu Ghraib and raze the entire compound, a symbol of Saddam Hussein's reign of terror that has become a symbol of American brutality. Beyond that, the president should take these steps:

¶Order Mr. Rumsfeld to get military intelligence personnel out of the business of overseeing the detention and interrogation of Iraqi prisoners; an overwhelming majority of the prisoners have no intelligence value.

¶Ban private contractors from American military prisons.

¶Take all of the available trained military prison guards and send them to Iraq to relieve the exhausted troops who are doing work for which they were never prepared.

¶Order Mr. Rumsfeld to immediately issue new regulations that not only say that prisoners and detainees must be treated according to the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions, but also ban, one by one, the harsh practices inflicted on prisoners.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld should also stop trying to dump the blame on the shoulders of America's enlisted men and women. The entire chain of command in Iraq must be part of the investigation. That includes Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq who authorized the use of dogs during interrogations. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who may have helped create the conditions that led to the outrages at Abu Ghraib, should be replaced as the head of the military prisons in Iraq.

Finally, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress should stop trying to evade responsibility by accusing those who want to ask tough questions of being disloyal to the troops and the war effort

[jk3]

I completely agree that the entire situation in horrifying. This is not the world in which I imagined raising my children. However, I'd like to know what everyone thinks we should be doing-waiting for another major attack and then retaliate, lay low and hope the situation improves + somehow the masses in the Middle East are suddenly not indoctinated to hate Westerners + the like? I think Bush is a nightmare but having a hands-off philosophy would be too. This is not a situation that will likely improve but I think it's better to be proactive + to show force because I fear if we don't we will be an easy target. I'm personally in a quandary about the upcomning election because in all other areas I am quite liberal + I generally vote for Democrats but I am definitely unsure how the Democrats will deal with this issue-or even if they will...

Jenn
DS 6/3/03

[MelissaTC]

You bet girl! The world needs to change and I am willing to vote anyone in that wants to change it...I don't know if I can take another 4 years of this bs...GW needs to go back to the ranch...

[Calmegja2]

The Dems are quite ready to step up to the plate and work a solution. Kerry's plan is here:

http://johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/

I generally don't understand why Dems are painted as anti-military by Republicans who avoided service. It confuses me, and it's untrue. I thought it was the height of arrogance for Bush and company to question Kerry's wounds in Vietnam. At least he went, as opposed to Bush who cannot account for large portions of his NG service, and Cheney, who took 5 deferrments.

Military service is not necessary to the office of president. I understand that, and agree with that. But I will never understand those who didn't service questioning the service of those who did. ;-)

[jk3]

Thanks fo the link. =)

Jenn
DS 6/3/03

[Calmegja2]

No problem...;-)

[llcoddington]

Just wanted to say that I agree with Flagger.

Lana
mommy to Lauren 12/5/03

[vpalmer]

>
>We have totally set up a petri dish for future terrorist
>there is no doubt!!!!!
>


Neve,

I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. To me, that is the most frightening aspect of recent events. We have started a cycle that most likely will span generations.

Veronica
Mom to Eva
Born on 6-12-03

[lag555]

I have a number of points to make. I don’t know why I’m bothering, but here goes:

Regarding pacifism or the “no more wars” philosophy:
If you believe that pacifism works, that is fine. But go talk to the Czechoslovakians who were alive in the forties and fifties. The problem with the “no armies/ no wars” idea is that the first country that develops an army can then conquer the world. That is human nature. Wishing it was different doesn’t make it different. Believing that it could be better doesn’t make it better, either.

Regarding the poster who said there is no “moral difference between the killers of Nick Berg and the US torturers of the Iraqi prisoners”
There is a very significant difference between the two situations. The US soldiers who are taking advantage of their position have definitely let their power get to their heads. Their actions are wrong. However, the US has a society which does not allow for behavior like that. Therefore, there will be investigations and changes will be made. It is not relevant whether the changes will be through the removal of certain individuals or through changes in the system. The point is that American society does not tolerate that of our fellow countrymen. Especially from those countrymen who are representing us.
But the men who murdered Nick Berg do not have that saving grace. Not only does their society tolerate these actions, it can well be argued that they support it. It is even more disturbing because they claim that they are doing this in response to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by American troops. Sorry. Not a valid argument. Because how do you explain the murder and mutilation of the American contractors in April, well before the breaking news story of abuse in the prisons. And if you want to argue that the murders and mutilations are a result of the “war in Iraq”, (aka “the occupation”), how do you explain the beheading of Daniel Pearl? That is why I disagree with the “petri dish for future terrorists” comparison, too. So what if we incite anger? What more are they going to do? And it wasn't just anger which gave us 9/11. It was anger and the knowledge that they could do it. If we start showing our muscle, that will give more second thoughts than if we just did nothing. And it will certainly be more effective than trying to pacify a culture and society that hates what America stands for.

Regarding the idea that so many people have died on both sides.
You have to be careful when you start counting lives and deaths. Especially after a war has started. It puts you in danger of falling into two traps: One trap is the “side with more casualties is morally superior” trap, and the other is the “is this war worth the lives of x number of soldiers”. The first is wrong because the number of casualties rarely reflects anything significant. If there is a car crash, is the person with fewer injuries automatically at fault? The second trap is dangerous because wars in which no one is hurt are very rare. And if you have decided to do something serious like mobilize your army, you can’t do it halfway. That might be more dangerous than not doing anything at all. (As we saw from the first gulf war.) Again, this is important to consider before you go into a war, but once you are in, you have to be in whole-heartedly.

The last point I would like to make is about the greater number of “anti-war” posters on this board. Not many people (especially women) are trained in debate tactics. It is much easier to make the argument that “war is bad because people get hurt” than to form a good argument about why sometimes war is beneficial to society. So don’t feel intimdated if all you can say is “hear hear”.



Aggie

[Calmegja2]

>I have a number of points to make. I don’t know why I’m
>>>The last point I would like to make is about the greater
>number of “anti-war” posters on this board. Not many people
>(especially women) are trained in debate tactics. It is much
>easier to make the argument that “war is bad because people
>get hurt” than to form a good argument about why sometimes war
>is beneficial to society. So don’t feel intimdated if all you
>can say is “hear hear”.
>
>
>
>Aggie


Women are not as likely to be trained in debate tactics?

Surely, that's not the position you're taking with regards to this issue. My jaw is officially on the floor if it is.

No one on here has ever distilled the argument down to "war is bad, because people get hurt". So the bulk of the position you took becomes invalidated immediately, because you're arguing a position that wasn't taken. You set up a straw man, and took it down yourself.

That, in itself, isn't much in a debate, but there have been several excellent examples of solid debate on the thread. And to be clear, people are objecting about the policies being implemented in this war, the false pretenses it was started under, and the continuing operations we're engaged in with no real solution. Those are quite worthy points of consideration.

[Marisa6826]

Women aren't trained in debate tactics?

Aggie, you clearly haven't been here long enough to state that about this board.

Some of the best debaters I have ever seen are members here. In fact Jessica (calmegja2) can run circles around just about any man I've ever met or watched debate. Debbie (ddmarsh), Rachel (rachels) and many others are quite accomplished as well.

It's not about training. It's about being empassioned about your beliefs.

Stick around and observe before making such bold statements. You will be awed.

-m

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

How on Earth did I miss that one....
does he not have the mechanism to keep his mouth shut??????
Neve
http://home.nc.rr.com/ourbabytristan
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[momathome]

One can only hope that is not true. Bush has done more than enough damage. If Gore had been elected into office, you have to wonder how different the world would be right now.
-Lauren

[C99]

Oh and he's wrong. There were no "Czechoslovakians." Ever. There were Czechs and there were Slavs, but Czechoslovakia functionally existed in name only.

[Vajrastorm]

>But the men who murdered Nick Berg do not have that saving
>grace. Not only does their society tolerate these actions, it
>can well be argued that they support it.

Then why have several Arab states expressed outrage ober the beheading, including Jordan, where Al Zarqawi is from?
You have made a sweeping generalization about people "over there" that does hold true.

It is even more
>disturbing because they claim that they are doing this in
>response to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners by American
>troops. Sorry. Not a valid argument. Because how do you
>explain the murder and mutilation of the American contractors
>in April, well before the breaking news story of abuse in the
>prisons. And if you want to argue that the murders and
>mutilations are a result of the “war in Iraq”, (aka “the
>occupation”), how do you explain the beheading of Daniel
>Pearl?

Obviously you agree that Irag was a valid target in the "War on terror." I don't.

>That is why I disagree with the “petri dish for future
>terrorists” comparison, too. So what if we incite anger?

Indeed! So what if more and more Muslims around the world begin to see America as the enemy? So what if oridnary people who once were outraged at the killing of Americans now think it is justified? So what if we are now in GREATER danger than we were before.

>What more are they going to do? And it wasn't just anger
>which gave us 9/11. It was anger and the knowledge that they
>could do it. If we start showing our muscle, that will give
>more second thoughts than if we just did nothing. And it will
>certainly be more effective than trying to pacify a culture
>and society that hates what America stands for.


>are very rare. And if you have decided to do something
>serious like mobilize your army, you can’t do it halfway.
>That might be more dangerous than not doing anything at all.
>(As we saw from the first gulf war.)

How so? How was that dangerous? True, Saddam stayed in power, but his ability to wage war or create WMD was crippled. Absolutely crippled, as we've seen. You could make the point that Iraq continued to be a dangerous place for Iraqis, but from the standpoint of the U.S. and our security, the first Gulf War left us safer in regards to Iraq.

[ddmarsh]

>The last point I would like to make is about the greater number of >“anti-war” posters on this board. Not many people (especially women) are >trained in debate tactics. It is much easier to make the argument that >“war is bad because people get hurt” than to form a good argument about >why sometimes war is beneficial to society. So don’t feel intimdated if >all you can say is “hear hear

I can't quite imagine why it is that you've chosen to distill what has been discussed down to such a sophomoric statement. As Jessica stated, the objections, many of which have been explicitly and quite eloquently outlined, are myriad. Much of the basis for objection stems from the manner in which this war has played out, policies that led to the war and those that continue to cause such a devastating mess (i.e. abuse of prisoners).

Of course it's much easier to attack those who have stated objections to the war by reducing those objections to something so simplistic isn't it? For someone who apparantly fancies themselves quite the debator I find it curious that you did not present a specific analysis of these arguments and your response to same. More intersting though is the fact that you accuse others of stating such a simplistic view but yet say that it is perfectly acceptable for those from your point of view to merely say "hear, hear."

Your comment on women I will assume is some trollian attempt to stir things up. Surely you must be aware that there are quite a few female lawyers here who are well trained in debate and myriad other women who are more than capable as well.

[mamicka]

Actually, You're wrong. There were, in fact, Czechoslovakians. Some of US still consider ourselves Czechoslovakians. Wrong again: The country of Czechoslovakia was made up of Czechs and SLOVAKS, not Slavs. Slav refers to all slavic peoples, but SLOVAKS, specifically, were part of Czechoslovakia.

Allison (Mamicka to Lawrence 6/17/03)

[Rachels]

Disgusting, racist, uneducated, unthinking, but true. :(

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Melanie]

I'm so sorry. =( I haven't seen it and am purposefully not. Although they got pretty close on the news.

I know it's terrible of me, but I'm trying to keep my head in the sand reg. war lately. I just get so frustrated sometimes that it's hard to deal with.

[tippy]

AMEN TO THAT! I pretty much second your opinion right down the line. Not to mention....Bin Laden....what ever happened to him??? I guess Saddams attack on Dear Old Dad won out over the killing of thousands of our own innocent civilians. For sure the invasion of Iraq didn't have much to do with any killings of innocent civilians there or we would have "liberated them" when George #1 was in office:) Can you say ENRON boys and girls. I still haven't gotten over the fact that the Admininstration wasn't forced to disclose the transcripts of their "Energy" meetings.

[tippy]

LOL

[raynjen]

Actually, Flagger is quite right. If you read the UN information about Iraq the inspectors DID find WMD. Their (the UN inspector's) whole purpose over the last five years or so was to monitor the destruction of these WMDs. The Iraquis claimed to have destroyed them but showed no evidence of any destruction.

More people died violent deaths last month in Chicago than American soldiers did in Iraq.

Jen in Okinawa
Mom to Noelle (2 1/2)

[Calmegja2]

Yes. They did. 10 years or so ago, and then the weapons inspectors were doing their job in monitoring what was going on. We jumped the UN ship and decided to go in, even in the face of the best evidence that said not to. We went to war on the rationale of an imminent threat from WMD from Iraq. It's not true, and it wasn't true.

I have read the report. Especially the parts written by the chief inspector, who says that they aren't there. Did Iraq make it difficult to inspect? Yes, yes, they did. But were any weapons found? Nope.

The pointed fact is, and it's what the Bush administration has mostly copped to now, is that at the time we went to war, we knew of no active WMD, no utilization of them being planned, and we've been there for over a year now, and there's been nothing found. The intelligence that pointed to it has been shown to be false.

I'm really confused when people keep supporting points that have already been largely dismissed by the administration they are supporting. The reasons for the Iraq war have been evolving, in the administration's terms, because the information we went to war on has been shown to be bad information, and that they knew it was bad information, but went on in regardless.

[mamicka]

>And when he says things like this:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm

The only Bush quotes in the above link are these:
"We are in a conflict between good and evil. And America will call evil by its name,"
&
"There is wonder-working power in the goodness and idealism of the American people,"

How is that in any way frightening or worrisome?

Allison (Mamicka to Lawrence 6/17/03)

[mamicka]

If the first link is supposed to be some kind of proof that Powell is "about to jump ship", I just don't see it. I see a partial quote about Bush being "fully informed... in general terms" followed by an account that Powell SUGGESTED that Bush MAY have known earlier than acknowledged. If Powell made such an apparent suggestion, where's the full quote?

Allison (Mamicka to Lawrence 6/17/03)

[himom]

I honestly don't get THIS kind of thinking!

It is not a fact that no stone has been left unturned. Did people walk every centimeter in Iraq and flip over every stone? You would do better back up your own argument and use actual facts instead of gross exaggerations.

And on a separate subject: Do you really know everything about this subject? Toured Iraq, lived as a fly on the wall in the White House? Can anybody know everything about this subject? No. So we gather what evidence we can and form our own opinions.

This is YOUR belief. That was HER belief. Both are legitimate, since yours cannot be definitively proven any more than hers can.

Were there WMD? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But please don't just assume that whatever you believe is the correct thing and put down anyone that disagrees.

Jodi
Mommy to Joshua, born February 2003

[lag555]

This is not related to the original post, but I wanted to explain what I meant by saying that people are not trained in debate. It used to be that debating skills were taught as a matter of course in junior high and high school. For some reason, this has changed and now, you really only see debating skills taught as an after school activity to select individuals. So most run-of-the-mill people (like me) aren't skilled at debating. There are a some people who are born with a knack for debating and just naturally know how to string an argument together. Other people (like those who go through law school) are specially trained to structure an argument.

Political debate can get very thorny. For someone who is not used to putting an argument together, it is very intimidating to try to present his/her point. However, I find that men are more likely to say what they are thinking, while women will wonder, "Is this a good argument?" or "Is this going to get flamed?". Especially in a "community" like these boards, when people don't want everyone jumping down their throat.

So I was not in any way saying that women can not be good at debate. I was trying to say that in this forum, a lot of women who would agree or disagree with any given issue are not going to say anything either through intimidation or because they don't feel confident that they can make a good argument. Although, of course, there are plenty of eloquent, well-spoken women on this board who have no problem saying whatever they want.

Aggie

[Rachels]

Because it's inaccurate. We're not all good; the people of Iraq are not all evil. It is not consistent with all (or even most) of our ideals to be in Iraq in the first place. When anyone draws that much of a line in the sand in which WE are right and THEY are bad and wrong, it becomes impossible to fully evaluate our choices and actions. Life is not that simple. Trying to make it that simple is a way to keep people from seeking information and education about what exactly we're doing in the world, and from where I sit, that's pretty scary.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[cuca_]

I was trying to say that in this forum, a lot of
>women who would agree or disagree with any given issue are not
>going to say anything either through intimidation or because
>they don't feel confident that they can make a good argument.

Aggie, you probably chose the wrong word, but I don't really think there is any intimidation going on in this boards. This implies that are not posting their opinions because of threats they are receiving! Also, I think you are underestimating a lot of people here. While I agree that maybe some may not post because they may not want to express unpopular views, I bet that the majority of non-posters are simply not interested in participating in the discussion despite having an opinion on the matter.

Also, IMO this is not a true debate (of the sort you refer to), as it is not an oral argument where people have to express their positions on the spot. Moreover, I disagree with you as to the lack of training. At least in my experience, this is what I was mostly taught throughout college. Present my position about something (political issue, literature, etc...) and the facts and my arguments in support of it. While this was done mostly in writing, there were certainly plenty of discussions during class. So, judging from my experience I bet you the majority of the members of these boards are very well "trained" to state their points of view and hold a discussion about them.

Finally, despite my previous explanations, I hardly think that a person needs to attend law school (and I did), or college for that matter, in order to be able to formulate her/his opinion about a particular issue, and adequately support it.

I know you were not trying to insult anyone, but I really disagree with your take on the whole thing.

JMHO.

[Calmegja2]

Mamicka-

If you read reports about Powell, he is saying things, and making statements in contradiction with the White House more and more. The White House will state something, and Powell will state the opposite, or say something different. That link shows the WH said one thing, and he said another. They're incongruent.

One of the latest examples is the Vietnam parallel. The administration, obviously has been flat out saying this is not like that at all, yet other people, like Hagel,like Powell, have been comparing it to Vietnam. Powell used specific incidents is abuse as they occurred in Vietnam, and Hagel talked about a generational 25 year war.

That's what I'm talking about. Is his suitcase packed and in the corner? No. Is he deviating from what the WH says more and more? Yes. That to me suggests perhaps he's done towing a line he doesn't follow.

[Calmegja2]

>>
>This is YOUR belief. That was HER belief. Both are
>legitimate, since yours cannot be definitively proven any more
>than hers can.
>
>

I respectfully have to say that this is a military operation, not a religious experience. Beliefs do not, in fact, have any place in this- this being a search for actual physical weapons. The best intelligence available shows quite clearly that there aren't WMD there, and there haven't been for quite some time. That's a fact, not a belief. I completely agree that with belief (like religion), everyone has an equal chance of being right. But this is about physical evidence.

Even the WH has backed away from this claim, and shifted onto the terrorist theme, of Iraq as a hotbed of terrorism, because the WMD's aren't there. Read the UN report, and the corresponding agencies. Read the reports that debunk US intelligence (heck, we've even debunked our own intelligence, which is why the WH is pointing fingers at the CIA/FBI now).

Or maybe we will find them in Bush's office. Did you see the video he did at the correspondent's dinner (3.24.04)? He pretended to look for WMD under his desk in his office and behind furniture, laughing as he did so. I hardly find that funny for the families of the soldiers who gave their lives in this war.

[bluej]

Did I miss where he called Iraqi's evil? I believe it is terrorists he refers to as evil. And I don't recall him ever saying that all Iraqi's are terrorists.

[llcoddington]

It depends on what you mean by intimidation. I find it rather intimidating that when I have expressed my beliefs, some people have called my beliefs ignorant, uninformed and uneducated and accused me of "hating". Often, I avoid posting even though I am VERY interested in the topic simply because I don't want to be bashed. Those people are not debating, they are insulting. And, I can tell you ahead of time who might do that. There are only a few who are consistently rude.


Lana
mommy to Lauren 12/5/03

[ddmarsh]

>It is not a fact that no stone has been left unturned. Did people walk >every centimeter in Iraq and flip over every stone? You would do better >back up your own argument and use actual facts instead of gross >exaggerations.

"Left no stone unturned" is a figure of speech. There is a plethora of information available on the extent and outcome of the search.

As Jessica as stated I am confused why this particular argument (still may be WMDs) persists when the administration and the host of agencies and individuals who supported them have now conceded the point.

[cuca_]

Lana, I believe intimidation implies threats. I am so sorry that you feel that you can't post your beliefs on these boards. I don't necessarily post mine all the time, but that is because I choose not to. I know some posts can be insulting, but hey as the saying goes, offenses are taken not given. Believe me, I have seen plenty of posts in these boards that imply that my parenting decissions make me an abusive parent (i.e. ear piercing), but I am very confident in my parenting skills and decisions to let a blanket statement like that offend me. Sometimes I reply to this type of posts, sometimes I don't, but my lack of response is never a result of feeling intimidated. Anyway, I'm way off topic.

Carmen

[Calmegja2]

>It depends on what you mean by intimidation. I find it rather
>intimidating that when I have expressed my beliefs, some
>people have called my beliefs ignorant, uninformed and
>uneducated and accused me of "hating". Often, I avoid posting
>even though I am VERY interested in the topic simply because I
>don't want to be bashed. Those people are not debating, they
>are insulting. And, I can tell you ahead of time who might do
>that. There are only a few who are consistently rude.
>
>
>Lana
>mommy to Lauren 12/5/03

I'm not sure who you think is consistently rude (probably me), but there is a difference in discussing an issue, on whether a not a person is uninformed or ignorant about an issue, and whether or not that person is uninformed and ignorant in general.

For example, I am quite ignorant on astrophysics. I find it a fascinating topic, and I grasp some bare concepts of it, but by and large, I am ignorant on the topic, and were I to discuss it, I wouldn't have much to go on, and would rightfully be considered uninformed. In general, I don't think I'm an ignorant or uninformed person. But on some subjects, we all are. That's what makes a community. Different experiences, different plates to bring to the party.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. If a poster posts something that is untrue, or doesn't reflect current knowledge of a subject, it is, in fact, okay to label those arguments as ignorant, if that's what they reflect. Ignorant means not having knowledge of the subject at hand. It's not a reflection on an entire person. A person can be ignorant about subject matter, without meaning they are ignorant in general.

Look at me, I'm much too verbose to use it as a sweeping generalization. I never would, and I never have.

For the record, I do hang out at much hotter discussion boards (meaning hot topic politics and religion boards), and the behavior on here, by and large, is quite genteel compared to things I've seen. I think we do a darn good job of peaceful discussion.

We aren't name calling, we aren't attacking people's characters, we're simply saying, especially in this thread, that truth matters, and knowledge matters, and if you're going to talk about the situation and hand, and give opinions, you've got to be able to either back yourself up, or admit it when you're wrong, in the face of evidence.

At the end of the day, we're all grownups, and should be able to look at it as a brain exercise, and a chance to think about things from both sides of the plate, and maybe learn a little bit along the way.

[llcoddington]

First of all, I wasn't referring to you. I can tell you exactly what I am objecting to. Belief that abortion is wrong is not ignorance. Belief that this war is right is not ignorance. Belief that gay marriage should not be legalized is not ignorance.

Based on some of your other posts, I know that you do not believe in God; therefore, many of my beliefs you will discount and I will not debate them. You can knock my beliefs as non-fact based, but you cannot argue with my personal experience.

Just to let you know, I have always been impressed with your ability to express yourself. I may disagree with you, but I am still hoping to learn from you. Likewise, I hope that somehow I can show you why my beliefs are such an integral part of who I am.

Edited to change a word that I thought was too harsh.

Lana
mommy to Lauren 12/5/03

[mamicka]

Exactly, bluej. It seems like there's a lot of extrapolation of what he actually says to get to what's scary. To my knowledge, he's never said that all Americans & everything we do is good vs. all Iraqis & everything they do is evil.

& talking about keeping people from seeking information & education, I think that people need to educate themselves more about what being an evangelical Christian actually means instead of guessing.

Allison (Mamicka to Lawrence 6/17/03)

[Rachels]

But what does Christian evangelism have to do with foreign (or domestic, for that matter) policy? It's got no place there, any more than any other religious doctrine does.

As for the good and evil thing, he very often portrays America as all noble while saying we're going after evil. But we've killed ten thousand non-terrorists in the process. It's not as absolute as he paints it to be.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Calmegja2]

I know what Christian Evangelism is all about. I truly do. I was raised as a Christian, I have taken religion classes out my ears, and I do comprehend it, even if I don't have faith in it.

But as Rachel wisely said, evangelical Christianity has nothing to do with these decisions, even though Bush has attributed many of his decisions to Christianity, and is using an us vs. them type of mentality.

[mamicka]

Your responses only show how much you don't know/understand about evangelical Christianity.

I has everything to do with the decisions. If you have a strong faith & belief system, how can you separate it from ANY decision in your life. I understand how you may not like the fact that he's a Christian, & an evangelical one at that, but to say that it shouldn't have anything to do with how he lives his life, his life being the President, is just inconprehensible to me. I would expect that no matter what your religion or belief system, you would be true to it & it would be a HUGE part of how you make your decisions, even if your decisions affected me.

Allison (Mamicka to Lawrence 6/17/03)

The Bible--our only foundation;
Christ--our only hope;
Grace--our only gospel;
Faith--our only instrument;
God's glory--our only goal;
the priesthood of all believers--our only ministry
- Horton

[Rachels]

I do understand that it must be terribly difficult to separate an evangelical mentality from one's actions-- but then, this guy shouldn't be president. Our country was founded in part on the basis that any one religion would NOT have the power to create policy for all people here. How would you feel about an Islamic extremist claiming the right to make every decision about how your country would be run?

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[ddmarsh]

I'm curious how one should reconcile this with the notion of separation of church and state, one of our country's most fundamental ideals.

I am also curious how you would feel if the President were using religion in that same manner but was not a member of your particular religion. For example, would it be acceptable for the President to advocate his Jewish or Catholic views and use them as a basis for his decision-making process?

BTW, I am not being facetious, I really am curious to understand. Just want to clear since I'm not sure how it comes across.

[Calmegja2]

That's not true. Mamicka.

It matters not to me that Bush is a Christian. He could be an adherent of the church of giant orange shovels, and it wouldn't affect how I viewed him.

What I have an issue with, is because of his unique position as the president of a multi religious/non-religious, secularly constituted nation, he cannot use his Christianity as a reasoning for his policy decisions.

He may use Christianity as the guideline for his own life, and his own decisions, but he cannot make decisions that affect every person in this country from the standpoint of his religion's beliefs.

He has to separate that out, because that's the nature of his office. If there's sound reasoning, he'll be able to arrive at it in a different form other than simply because his religion tells him so.

Religion is supposed to be a private source of spiritual comfort. An adherent of one religion cannot force others to act in accordance with the tenets of their own religion.

When Bush makes the statements he does, regarding policy decisions and religion, he is crossing a long established line that shouldn;t be crossed.

I respect that EC affects every part of a person's life. I also respect the office of the presidency, and I know that there has to be a separation achieved for the pruposes of serving in that office.

If one cannot make that distinction, then one has to question whether or not it's the right office for them.

[mamicka]

Rachel, ddmarsh, Jessica:

So an evangelical Christian shouldn't be President? WOW! Just because one's EC 'mentality' has an affect on one's decisions, even decisions that affect other people, doesn't mean that other people's rights are trampled on in any way. I don't WANT a president of another religion in office but if they were, I would fully expect them to make decisions based on that faith, otherwise what's the point of having that faith? However, I probably wouldn't support that person in achieving the Presidency.

To me, separation of church & state ensures freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. The fact that George W is an evangelical Christian doesn't mean that he's forcing the rest of the nation to be one as well. Some would disagree, but our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles & I hope that those principles continue to guide our leaders.

> he cannot use his Christianity as a reasoning for his policy >decisions.
He most certainly can & apparently does.

> he cannot make decisions that affect every person in this country >from the standpoint of his religion's beliefs.
Again, he most certainly can.

>Religion is supposed to be a private source of spiritual comfort.
Actually, that's not all that it's supposed to be for evangelical Christians. It isn't private, its public, & it's way more that 'spiritual comfort'.

The opportunity of achieving the office of the Presidency shouldn't be barred to peoples of any religion or faith, even the religion of non-religion.

Allison (Mamicka to Lawrence 6/17/03)

The Bible--our only foundation;
Christ--our only hope;
Grace--our only gospel;
Faith--our only instrument;
God's glory--our only goal;
the priesthood of all believers--our only ministry
- Horton

[Rachels]

Nope, it shouldn't be barred. But we have very specific protections in this country that ensure that no one religion is to be responsible for unilateral decisions. The fact that Bush is doing this because he can represents an incredible abuse of his power.

Not everyone here is an Evangelical Christian. This is a government which is supposed to be of the people, not of the white heterosexual Christian people.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[Calmegja2]

>Rachel, ddmarsh, Jessica:
>
>So an evangelical Christian shouldn't be President? WOW!


*******

No one said that. Please read our responses carefully, and then explain how it's okay to abridge a secular nation using reasons rooted in one's own personal religious beliefs.

Jimmy Carter was an Evangelical Christian, and he did just fine in understanding that there was a time and place for it.

A good solid policy decision should be able to be supported in reasoning outside of faith. If the faith mandates that a person should act in one manner, and it's a good and just action, then surely that person would be able to find a reasoning for it that would exist independent of the faith.

And as for the JC origins argument, that's simply not so. Read about the framers, and their religious beliefs. They went to great pains to create a secular nation, and the so called principles are actually found in societies all over the world, Christian or not. They're not unique to JC tradition (which, in itself, is an arguable point, but that's for another day)....

[ddmarsh]

>To me, separation of church & state ensures freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Unfortunately that's not how they operate legally.

>The opportunity of achieving the office of the Presidency shouldn't be barred to peoples of any religion or faith, even the religion of non-religion.

Again please read what was said. The issue is not that the President should not be able to be whatever religion they may choose, but how they USE that religious orientation in guiding their work while in office.

When you say that you would NOT like to have someone of another faith directing the office does it give you pause at all? That is, allow you to see how someone else of another faith (or non-faith) feels similarly and the types of issues that leads to?

[elvisfan]

So, you think we're a terrorist nation? I don't know whether to laugh or cry after reading that statement.
>But Flagger, WE are also "those kinds of people." I am not
>debating the horror of this killing. As I said, it's the
>worst thing I've ever seen in my life. I'm also not debating
>the horror of the Saddam regime. But there are unthinkable
>atrocities being committed all over the world, and we're
>ignoring most of them. Going into Iraq was not the altruistic
>move it often gets presented as being. There is not a moral
>difference between the killers of Nick Berg and the US
>torturers of the Iraqi prisoners (90% of whom are estimated to
>be completely innocent of anything). The video proved, if
>proof were necessary, that yes, there are terrorists in Iraq.
>But we're kidding ourselves if we think we're not a terrorist
>nation also.
>
>-Rachel
>Mom to Abigail Rose
>5/18/02

[Rachels]

In some ways, yes, I do. I don't confuse our people overall with a few terroristic extremists, just as I don't confuse the people of Afghanistan or Jordan or wherever else with their terroristic extremists. But I do think that this administration frequently points at other countries as being bad and wrong (the "axis of evil" springs to mind-- no different than OBL calling all Americans evil). And we are blowing up civilians at a rate that far, far exceeds what has happened to our citizens. I'd imagine that the mothers whose innocent children have been bombed on their way to school feel pretty terrorized. And I think that there's a witch hunt happening in many ways, for reasons that have little to do with 9-11.

-Rachel
Mom to Abigail Rose
5/18/02

[candybomiller]

LMAO @ church of giant orange shovels.