 |
Welcome to thebackpacker.com create account login |
 |
Discussion points (political)View MessagesViewing posts 1 to 16 of 16 messages posted.
What do you think? “By Paul Craig Roberts, Washington Times We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945. Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America's allies. What better illustrates Mr. Bush's isolation than the fact that he delivered his March 16 ultimatum to the U.N. concerning Iraq from an air base in the Azores, where there was no prospect for massive demonstrations against his policy. Standing with Mr. Bush against the world were Britain and Spain. The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor. Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. If Iraqis attempt to resist invasion, they will be slaughtered. On the eve of Mr. Bush's ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the origin of the forged documents that the Bush administration used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. Secretary of State Colin Powell denies that the Bush administration created the phony documents. "It came from other sources," Mr. Powell told Congress, but he could not identify the source. As George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." The administration's use of forged evidence opens Mr. Bush to unflattering comparisons that his enemies will not hesitate to make. They will point out that it was Adolf Hitler's strategy to fabricate evidence in order to justify his invasion of a helpless country. He used S.S. troops dressed in Polish uniforms to fake an attack on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on Aug. 31, 1939. Following the faked attack, Hitler announced: "This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory." As German troops poured into Poland, Hitler declared: "The Polish state has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms." The German High Command called the German invasion of Poland a "counterattack." Thanks to his neoconservative cadre, outside the U.S. Mr. Bush is now a disliked and distrusted politician. Mr. Bush's enemies will exploit parallels to "naked aggression." After many decades of U.S. leadership in building an "international order," Mr. Bush's enemies will hold him accountable for his defiance of this order. As much as those of us who prefer national sovereignty to world government lament the fact, the many decades of appealing to "world opinion" and enlisting it in behalf of our foreign policies has resulted in considerable authority being poured into that nebulous concept. In setting Mr. Bush in opposition to this American creation, neoconservatives have exposed him to serious charges. Democrats, who intended to use allegations about the 2000 Florida vote to destroy Mr. Bush's presidency as illegitimate, now have more deadly ammunition. Mr. Rockefeller will not be the only one to ask if the forged nuclear documents are part of a Bush administration campaign to deceive the public. Polls show that 50 percent of Americans believe it was Iraqis who hijacked the airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Towers and Pentagon. Inattention or media incompetence are the likely explanations for this extraordinary misinformation, but some will now blame deception. Others are already thinking the forged documents are part of a neoconservative campaign to deceive President Bush and win his support for their Middle Eastern policy. Many perceive Mr. Bush as following a reckless path, one that politicians normally try to avoid at all costs. If Iraq resists and devastating new explosives, which our military has been testing at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, are dropped on Baghdad, there will be massive civilian deaths and charges of war crimes fueled by anger at American arrogance. Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative. The U.S. is supposed to be the world's leader. For the Bush administration to pursue a policy that sets the U.S. government at odds with the world is to invite comparisons with recklessness that we have not seen in international politics since Nikita Khrushchev tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Is Saddam Hussein worth this much grief? Paul Craig Roberts is a nationaly syndicated columnist. Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. ” 5:58:42 PM 3/21/03 Unfortunately,TheMostTheWorldCitizensHateTheUSANow “To answer the last sentence/question...I've wondered the same thing myself for a while now and frankly think that not dealing with Saddam would be worse in the long run.” 7:05:52 PM 3/21/03 “This is hogwash, just like most of the left-wing garbage that Phaedrus puts out there. "The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor." A weak, generalized opinion based on no facts whatsoever. If a million europeans demonstarted throughout Europe, what percentage is that? That is what I thought, rhetoric like this can't be logically proven, and it's sad that people will embrace it as true. "Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. " Currently, 6 iraqui's are being hunted in Mexico after it was found they were looking for assistance from smugglers to get them over the border. They allegedly have a "dirty" bomb. If this proves to be true, it will debunk this weak arguement, which was weak to begin with after the 9/11 attacks. All you need is a box cutter, and liberl backed immigration laws for this to happen. I could spend hours debunking this rhetoric with factual examples, that are measured by knowns, like MATH, LAWS, HISTORY, not innuendo and half-truths and spin. Please disregard Mr. Phaedrus's post, and recognize it for the waste of words that it is.” 7:15:40 PM 3/21/03 “I have.” 7:23:43 PM 3/21/03 “Yeah, and it was really long and takes to much time to read...lol” 7:28:51 PM 3/21/03 “They printed that in Sun Myung Moon's cult fishwrapper? Amazing. (News World Communications, Inc.)” 9:01:59 PM 3/21/03 “ZZZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzz...” 8:29:07 AM 3/22/03 “Well, the Bush admin's diplomatic and PR skills stink - there's no doubt about that.” 8:34:27 AM 3/22/03 “ZZZZzzzzZZZZ*snort*ZZZZzzzZZZZzzz...” 8:37:41 AM 3/22/03 “"The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor." A weak, generalized opinion based on no facts whatsoever. If a million europeans demonstarted throughout Europe, what percentage is that? That is what I thought, rhetoric like this can't be logically proven, and it's sad that people will embrace it as true. Opinion? Opinion? Opinion? referencing polls qoute: Even in Britain, only 39 percent of citizens favor going to war , down from 47 percent in November, though other surveys suggest that support may have rebounded in recent weeks. In Spain, which joined with Britain and the United States in a recent unsuccessful effort to win U.N. Security Council support for war, eight in 10 oppose military action against Iraq. Still, some experts say that these differences, which can be expected to widen even further once the war begins, could largely heal if the war is quick, relatively bloodless and does not spread beyond Iraq There are no polls since the war started that I was able to find.” 10:29:20 AM 3/22/03 ca-ca, I messed up the html. “This is how it was supposed to look: "The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor." A weak, generalized opinion based on no facts whatsoever. If a million europeans demonstarted throughout Europe, what percentage is that? That is what I thought, rhetoric like this can't be logically proven, and it's sad that people will embrace it as true. Opinion? Opinion? Opinion? And more opinion, I suppose? Oh, but you want polls, right? Here's one article: referencing polls qoute: Even in Britain, only 39 percent of citizens favor going to war , down from 47 percent in November, though other surveys suggest that support may have rebounded in recent weeks. In Spain, which joined with Britain and the United States in a recent unsuccessful effort to win U.N. Security Council support for war, eight in 10 oppose military action against Iraq. Still, some experts say that these differences, which can be expected to widen even further once the war begins, could largely heal if the war is quick, relatively bloodless and does not spread beyond Iraq There are no polls since the war started that I was able to find.” 10:31:22 AM 3/22/03 “oh, and I mistyped quote. Sorry.” 10:31:58 AM 3/22/03 “Currently, 6 iraqui's are being hunted in Mexico after it was found they were looking for assistance from smugglers to get them over the border. They allegedly have a "dirty" bomb. I'm unable to find any information on this... Do you have a source?” 10:48:37 AM 3/22/03 “#1: I don't trust the Washington Times. #2: The talk of impeaching Bush is nuts, it is "hyperbolic" - he has full authorization from congress - if I remember correctly only a small portion of the Dems opposed him. Nonetheless, the Nuremberg quote from a Supreme Court Justice - along with JFK's proud anouncement that the USA would never start a war - stands in contrast to the Bush doctrine of pre-emption.” 12:33:02 PM 3/22/03 “The U.S. didn't start the war, Iraq did. There was only a cease fire at the conclusion of hostilites in the first gulf war. Iraq has broke the terms of the cease fire and therefore reaping the hell on earth caused by such disregard for those terms.” 12:42:09 PM 3/22/03 “I Agree with Pedxing that the talk about Bush being held accountable is far-fetched. I also agree that the Senators and Congressmen who voted with the administration for political reasons are responsible. The thing I find really interesting about the article, though, is that after being handed false documents by a "source", the administration continued to protect that source. It sounds suspicious.” 12:55:12 PM 3/22/03
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
|
SearchReady to Buy Gear?Sponsored Links
Great Outdoor SitesLinks |
