Eisenhower couldn't have been more right

[jfuh]

I start this thread with this quote from Eisenhower the night before he left office.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
Please keep this thread clean, ie none of this "you corrupt republican/conservative/right", or "you cowardly democrat/left/liberal" nonesense. This really is an issue that both sides bear responsibility for and also have constructive arguments to present.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

In the time in which the world was facing a very real threat of being annihalted this former 5 star general turned president warns against the very danger of society and military being so intertwined with each other.
It almost seems like he was prophesizing what has happened to the US today. Nearly every instance is met with a military solution vs a diplomatic one or alternative means.
The US now more than ever is built so solidly on military industry that it does indeed seem that we are getting a little too trigger happy.
It's a well known fact by now that the current Bush Inc. had indeed thought of methods of going to war with Iraq since they got Bush as a candidate.
Let me make clear my stance. I have no problem whatsoever that we took out this scum bag of a dictator, what I do have an incredible problem with is the pretenses that we went to war in Iraq for were completely false and inaccurate, yet we were so thirsty to get our revenge for the 9/11 cowardly attacks that we gladly gave the Ok to proceed, as well as the go ahead with allowing the Patriot act to pass, and now today even turning an eye to giving up our civil liberties to unwarrented domestic eaves dropping.

 

[Stinger]

It almost seems like he was prophesizing what has happened to the US today. Nearly every instance is met with a military solution vs a diplomatic one or alternative means.

Which ones are you talking about? Afghanistan, you think we should have negotiated with the Taliban? Iraq, we negotiated with Saddam for 10 years and gave him and extra 14 months. What other "military solutions" are you talking about?

The US now more than ever is built so solidly on military industry that it does indeed seem that we are getting a little too trigger happy.

There is no evidence that we are "built" on a military industry, in fact it's not that big a portion of our overall economy.

It's a well known fact by now that the current Bush Inc. had indeed thought of methods of going to war with Iraq since they got Bush as a candidate.

It's a know fact that the United States had thought of methods of going to war with Iraq all during the Clinton Adminsitration and in fact had made it the official policy of the United States that Saddam requiem MUST be remove and by force if necessary.

Let me make clear my stance. I have no problem whatsoever that we took out this scum bag of a dictator, what I do have an incredible problem with is the pretenses that we went to war in Iraq for were completely false and inaccurate,

Well then what were YOUR reasons for doing so, even though the reason we went were quite valid.

yet we were so thirsty to get our revenge for the 9/11 cowardly attacks that we gladly gave the Ok to proceed,

Our removing Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 directly, it was our policy before 9/11 even happened.

as well as the go ahead with allowing the Patriot act to pass, and now today even turning an eye to giving up our civil liberties

You gave up no liberties under the Patriot Act.

to unwarrented domestic eaves dropping.

Which hasn't occoured. The wire-taps are foriegn intelligence gathering not domestic.

 

[jfuh]

Which ones are you talking about? Afghanistan, you think we should have negotiated with the Taliban? Iraq, we negotiated with Saddam for 10 years and gave him and extra 14 months. What other "military solutions" are you talking about?

Not Afganistan, Iraq. So tell me then stinger, why did we go to Iraq?

There is no evidence that we are "built" on a military industry, in fact it's not that big a portion of our overall economy.

Can you name the number 1 American Export?

It's a know fact that the United States had thought of methods of going to war with Iraq all during the Clinton Adminsitration and in fact had made it the official policy of the United States that Saddam requiem MUST be remove and by force if necessary.

Have credible sources to back up your claim?

Well then what were YOUR reasons for doing so, even though the reason we went were quite valid.

Valid? really, so where're the nukes? Where's the anthrax and VX gas? Where are all the reasons that we went there for?

Our removing Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 directly, it was our policy before 9/11 even happened.

Then perhaps you can give a reason as to why that wasn't enforced during the first Gulf war?
You have no credible sources to back up this claim. Even if you did, it's still not the reason why we went over this time.

You gave up no liberties under the Patriot Act.

Which hasn't occoured. The wire-taps are foriegn intelligence gathering not domestic.

Perhaps you have not been paying much attention to current publications.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/politics/03threats.html

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — Senate Democrats on Thursday angrily accused the Bush administration of mounting a public relations campaign to defend the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program while withholding details of the secret eavesdropping from Congressional oversight committees.

An annual hearing on national security threats, led for the first time by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence, was overtaken by acrimonious partisan debate about the program. In response to the Democrats' complaints, Republicans and top administration intelligence officials said the real problem was leaks about N.S.A. eavesdropping and other classified matters.

I don't think it can be denied of such warrentless eavesdropping.

 

[Stinger]

Not Afganistan, Iraq. So tell me then stinger, why did we go to Iraq?

If I have to tell you that then you are so uninformed on the matter I have no desire at all to try and discuss it with you. It would be a total waste of my time.

 

[jfuh]

If I have to tell you that then you are so uninformed on the matter I have no desire at all to try and discuss it with you. It would be a total waste of my time.

Evasion of the remainder of my arguments?

 

[Conflict]

Dwight D Eisenhower was one of the best, most empirically experienced presidents, this country has ever had the fortune to be presided upon.

Take a look at his platform... at his belief. THis is patriotism. This is the American way.

 

[Stinger]

Evasion of the remainder of my arguments?

No a statement of fact, if you still don't know why we went to war in Iraq and removed Saddam Hussien I have no time for any our your uniformed arguements.

 

[jfuh]

No a statement of fact, if you still don't know why we went to war in Iraq and removed Saddam Hussien I have no time for any our your uniformed arguements.

Evasion and cowardice.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
If I have to tell you that then you are so uninformed on the matter I have no desire at all to try and discuss it with you. It would be a total waste of my time.

That is a total cop-out! You have just shown the entire forum you don't have a clue as to what your talking about.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
No a statement of fact, if you still don't know why we went to war in Iraq and removed Saddam Hussien I have no time for any our your uniformed arguements.

Oh no, it's the Killer Rabbit! Run away, run away!

 

[Stinger]

Evasion and cowardice.

Let me know when you figure out why we went to war, start with the congressional resolution it spells it out quite clearly and then the Iraqi Liberation Act. Then we might have something to discuss. But if you don't even know that I have no time for it.

 

[jfuh]

Let me know when you figure out why we went to war, start with the congressional resolution it spells it out quite clearly and then the Iraqi Liberation Act. Then we might have something to discuss. But if you don't even know that I have no time for it.

As Billo put it, total cop-out.
Evasionist, that's all. Give it up, you've got nothing.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by jfuh
As Billo put it, total cop-out.
Evasionist, that's all. Give it up, you've got nothing.

Since I'm on Stinger's ignore list, I want to thank you for letting him know I'm still around and talking about him and his trashy stratocaster.

Anytime I can return the favor, just let me know.

 

[t125eagle]

question. if Saddam Hussein didnt have wmd, how did he send missles again Iraq in the 1st gulf war? or against iran? how was he able to gas the kurds? just because no wmd were found, doesnt mean he didnt have them. besides, it wasnt just the cia saying he had wmd, but also the british, french, germans, russians, etc. all of that intelligence cant be wrong.

 

[jfuh]

question. if Saddam Hussein didnt have wmd, how did he send missles again Iraq in the 1st gulf war?

Know what a WMD is? Missles do not constitute WMD's

or against iran? how was he able to gas the kurds? just because no wmd were found, doesnt mean he didnt have them.

When he gassed the Kurds, he absolutely had WMD. The US had WMD's in 1945 for a brief 3 weeks, then after expending them on Japan, no more.
The intelligence, in particular to Powell's UN briefing showed that not only did US intelligence know Iraq held WMD stockpiles or processing facilities, but exactly where. That being the case finding them should have been as easy as pie.
So why then have we not found a single smoking gun, reports that there was no such continue program keep popping up, the need to oust an undercover CIA operative to discredit her husband, and finally even the war president himself coming out and admitting of flawed intelligence. Though also adding on that he would've gone in anyway.

besides, it wasnt just the cia saying he had wmd, but also the british, french, germans, russians, etc. all of that intelligence cant be wrong.

Neither French, German, nor Russian intelligence collected any such evidence. Your source for this information?

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Let me know when you figure out why we went to war, start with the congressional resolution it spells it out quite clearly and then the Iraqi Liberation Act. Then we might have something to discuss. But if you don't even know that I have no time for it.

As Billo put it, total cop-out.
Evasionist, that's all. Give it up, you've got nothing.

Let me know when you educate yourself in the matter, I'll be around.

 

[jfuh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Let me know when you figure out why we went to war, start with the congressional resolution it spells it out quite clearly and then the Iraqi Liberation Act. Then we might have something to discuss. But if you don't even know that I have no time for it.


Let me know when you educate yourself in the matter, I'll be around.

If lame responses are all you have, why even bother? Clearly you're clearly evading all the points brought up, so just let it go and admit you've got nothing.

 

[Stinger]

Know what a WMD is?

Yes, you don't/

Missles do not constitute WMD's

Depends on the missle and what it is carrying. These did and his hidden research into even bigger ones was in direct violation of the UN sanctions and cease-fire. See if you had bothered to educate yourself on the reasons we went to war you would know that.

When he gassed the Kurds, he absolutely had WMD.

And what happened to the ones he told he had left and the UN said he had?

The US had WMD's in 1945 for a brief 3 weeks, then after expending them on Japan, no more.

No we still had WMD, we had gases we could have used but didn't but more important we had programs to develope even bigger ones and the desire to do so. Just like Saddam.

The intelligence, in particular to Powell's UN briefing showed that not only did US intelligence know Iraq held WMD stockpiles or processing facilities, but exactly where. That being the case finding them should have been as easy as pie.

Not if he moved them but then you are fixated on what we didn't find, how about what we did find. Ever read the Kay report or the Duelfer report or anything about the documents we are uncovering?

Do you know what organophosphates are. Search Saddam and organophosphates and read about what he had and where.

So why then have we not found a single smoking gun,

We found lots of smoking guns and bullets too. The only thing we didn't find were bubblin cauldrons of nerve gas ready to go.

the need to oust an undercover CIA operative to discredit her husband, and finally

And her too, they were engaged in an attempt to pass off fraudulent information on the public.

even the war president himself coming out and admitting of flawed intelligence.

Can you name a war in which we didn't get flawed intelligence? But the only thing that was flawed was whether he had a swimming pool size cache of WMD. We didn't find it but one of his top most Generals says they went to Syria which conicides with other reports we have.
Though also adding on that he would've gone in anyway.

Neither French, German, nor Russian intelligence collected any such evidence. Your source for this information?

You're denying the intelligence services of those country's also believed he was in pocession of WMD?

 

[Stinger]

If lame responses are all you have, why even bother? Clearly you're clearly evading all the points brought up, so just let it go and admit you've got nothing.

They aren't lame they are quite to the point. Have you read the resolution authorizing the war yet? It will tell you why we went to war and resolve your self admitted ignorance of the matter. How about the Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by President Clinton? How about the several SOTU speeches Bush gave, did you bother to listen? How about his tour over the summer/fall where he went over it all AGAIN?

 

[jfuh]

Yes, you don't/

Lame

Depends on the missle and what it is carrying. These did and his hidden research into even bigger ones was in direct violation of the UN sanctions and cease-fire. See if you had bothered to educate yourself on the reasons we went to war you would know that.

Know what a missle is? It's nothing but an unmaned vessel. Your argument was clearly that missles were WMD's. Why not just suck it up and admit you faulted on this one.

And what happened to the ones he told he had left and the UN said he had?

You tell me all knowing one. The last UN inspector to Iraq clearly stated he found no evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq prior to the invasion.

No we still had WMD, we had gases we could have used but didn't but more important we had programs to develope even bigger ones and the desire to do so. Just like Saddam.

Mustard gas is not lethal. Again you have no credible evidence of Saddam's later acquisition of any such weapons.

Not if he moved them but then you are fixated on what we didn't find, how about what we did find. Ever read the Kay report or the or anything about the documents we are uncovering?

Eye's in the sky, you think their movement wouldn't be tracked?
The reports stated of research into the development and acquisition of WMD's however go check the dates on those reports.
Just what documents have been uncovered? That Iraq was looking for WMD's? Trying to obtain these weapons? Wait a sec, that's a slight departure from the reason why we went to war isn't it? Referring again to Powell's breifing at the UN. Not only did the US know whether Iraq had such weapons, but also knew where.

Do you know what organophosphates are. Search Saddam and organophosphates and read about what he had and where.

Much more then you would ever know. Simple widely used neuro pesticide that are unfortunately, also toxic to humans. Fortunately, OP contamination is also easily treatable, move away from the area, get rid of all clothing involved with the contamination and wash.

We found lots of smoking guns and bullets too.

Wow, are you always this funny?

The only thing we didn't find were bubblin cauldrons of nerve gas ready to go.

Nor of any prepared nerve gas agents in canisters or aerosoulizable form

And her too, they were engaged in an attempt to pass off fraudulent information on the public.

Bullshit and lies.

Can you name a war in which we didn't get flawed intelligence? But the only thing that was flawed was whether he had a swimming pool size cache of WMD. We didn't find it but one of his top most Generals says they went to Syria which conicides with other reports we have.
Though also adding on that he would've gone in anyway.

Simple, the former Gulf war, the War in Afganistan, the removal of Panamanian dictator during Bush Sr.;the Cold War, WWII, WWI, the Korean War, Vietnam, Civil War, Revolutionary War. None of these took us to war under false pretenses or a complete denial of evidence that suggested otherwise.

You're denying the intelligence services of those country's also believed he was in pocession of WMD?

I'm not denying, I'm simply pointing out your lies.

 

[jfuh]

They aren't lame they are quite to the point. Have you read the resolution authorizing the war yet? It will tell you why we went to war and resolve your self admitted ignorance of the matter. How about the Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by President Clinton? How about the several SOTU speeches Bush gave, did you bother to listen? How about his tour over the summer/fall where he went over it all AGAIN?

There's good reason why Bush hasn't dared to go over nor repeat those speaches again.

 

[alphamale]

Eisenhower's armies would have been routed by the nazis and he personally probably would have been hung by them, except for the U.S. military-industrial complex.

 

[Stinger]

There's good reason why Bush hasn't dared to go over nor repeat those speaches again.

That's a phoney statement, he has gone over those points again and again and again. If you had bothered to educated yourself in the matter you would know that. So have you NOW bothered to read the resolution authorizing the war, how about the Iraqi Liberation Act which made removing Saddam, by force if necessary, the OFFICAL policy of the United States?

 

[jfuh]

That's a phoney statement, he has gone over those points again and again and again. If you had bothered to educated yourself in the matter you would know that. So have you NOW bothered to read the resolution authorizing the war, how about the Iraqi Liberation Act which made removing Saddam, by force if necessary, the OFFICAL policy of the United States?

Yep, long ways back, conclusion, you're full of crap. Nothing but a partisan evasionist.

 

[Stinger]

Yep, long ways back, conclusion, you're full of crap. Nothing but a partisan evasionist.

If you have read the resolution then why do you ask why we went to war, it is spelled out in the specific points of that document and reiterated by the Bush administration over and over and over. Those reasons are still valid. And I note that you cannot discuss this in a civil manner which proves you don't feel your own position is on solid ground.