Author Topic: RECKLESS ADMINISTRATION MAY REAP DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES by US Senator Robert Byrd (Read 710 times)

miko2d · « **Reply #15 on:** February 20, 2003, 11:25:41 AM »

I'd say half or the speech is BS and half is truth. Too bad he yielded to temptatioin to score demicratic points while bringing up worthy fundamental issues.

miko

Kanth · « **Reply #16 on:** February 20, 2003, 11:27:41 AM »

I am unwilling to read it without some basic formatting.

I'd like to keep my eyesight for a few more years.

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
I was unable to read that post

AKIron · « **Reply #17 on:** February 20, 2003, 11:29:40 AM »

I think his revealed character precludes or at least taints any judgement value regarding any fundamental issues.

Vermillion · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2003, 11:57:40 AM »

StSanta, its not just name calling !!

I have met the man in person and shook his hand. I am describing him and his actions, exactly as I have experienced. Simple facts.

SaburoS · « **Reply #19 on:** February 20, 2003, 02:26:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kanth
I am unwilling to read it without some basic formatting.

I'd like to keep my eyesight for a few more years.

Sorry Kanth,
I had to take the email and put it in Word to take out the gaps from the word wrap not working properly. I edited the post with paragraph breaks.

blitz · « **Reply #20 on:** February 20, 2003, 03:41:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vermillion
StSanta, its not just name calling !! I have met the man in person and shook his hand. I am describing him and his actions, exactly as I have experienced. Simple facts.

Ahoi vermillion,

he might be senile, blind and takes his head under his arm, his speech is far from being senile , though.

Regards Blitz

Mercy asked and given

Furious · « **Reply #21 on:** February 20, 2003, 03:53:23 PM »

saying it and writing it are two different things.

Montezuma · « **Reply #22 on:** February 20, 2003, 05:40:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Here is Democratic Senator Robert Byrd marching against the war last Saturday in Washington DC...

I don't think he is old enough to have been in that demonstration, unless he went as a very young Ku-Klux-Kid.

Airhead · « **Reply #23 on:** February 20, 2003, 06:41:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I think his revealed character precludes or at least taints any judgement value regarding any fundamental issues.

I disagree, Iron. What you're doing is killing the messenger. What did you think of his message? (besides the usual party politicing)

AKIron · « **Reply #24 on:** February 20, 2003, 08:44:42 PM »

I didn't make it past the second paragraph before it became clear to me that he is trying to manipulate the current situation to political advatage. That's when I stopped reading. I really didn't expect much more from a man of such character, or lack thereof.

"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list"

Airhead · « **Reply #25 on:** February 20, 2003, 10:17:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I didn't make it past the second paragraph before it became clear to me that he is trying to manipulate the current situation to political advatage. That's when I stopped reading. I really didn't expect much more from a man of such character, or lack thereof.

"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list"

What is false about that paragraph? As a matter of fact we ARE embarking on a new doctrine of pre-emptiveness, and with the advancements in technology and the spread of technology (thus qualifying the "future" requirement of this doctrine) there are few nations we can't use this same doctrine against...the only constant be that they be opposed to bending to our will. What is the acceptance and approval requirements for foreign goverments? That they treat their citizens humanely, or they become valuable economically to us? We've supported (and continue to support) more brutal regimes than Sadaam Hussein's, simply because they are willing to play ball with us.

AKIron · « **Reply #26 on:** February 20, 2003, 10:55:25 PM »

I disagree that Iraq is not "imminently threatening" and that is the crux of the matter.

However, the US has engaged in several wars where we were not being directly threatened, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War and other smaller engagements. Like I said, just more political rhetoric.

Airhead · « **Reply #27 on:** February 20, 2003, 11:34:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron

However, the US has engaged in several wars where we were not being directly threatened, WWI, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War and other smaller engagements. Like I said, just more political rhetoric.

Tell me, out of the four conflicts you named which ones were successful? WW1 was the dumbest excuse for a war ever, and led directly to WW2- Korea has required our assets for half a friggin century, and in spite of that we're threatened with nuclear war- Viet Nam can stand on its own merits- and the Gulf War now requires a sequel? Sorry, but you make my arguement for me- obviously none of those succeeded in finding peace... except for Viet Nam, anyway.

Toad · « **Reply #28 on:** February 21, 2003, 12:29:00 AM »

I'll not address Byrd but I will say I'm not in favor of the US becoming "pre-emptive". Other than that Byrd and I don't agree on much.

However......

WWI was successful form the allied war aim point of view. Armies returned to their homelands and the killing stopped. It was the "peace" that was porked.

WWII was extremely successful, particularly from the point of view of the "undesirables". The peace was well done with regard to the former enemies. It was the former allies that porked peace.

Korea? Again, incredibly successful. Simply compare North Korea to South Korea. The war was fought to prevent the North from conquering the South and instituting the "living death" form of existence that the North now enjoys.

VietNam? That's peace? You must have forgotten the military adventures of the "new" VietNam after the South was conquered. I'll wager VietNam's neighbors would have something to say about the "peace". I think Kennedy's original intent was fine but even he was getting ready to pull out when he was assassinated. It was LBJ that made the huge goof ups. Shouldn't have stayed; when he did, he should never have tried to run it himself with the help of Robert STRANGE McNamara.

Ask yourself why the Gulf War requires a sequel. It's not like SH wasn't totally whipped militarily last time. It doesn't need a sequel because of any military failing. It needs a sequel because the "coalition" didn't have the political sand to do what needed to be done. And they set it up that way from the beginning. The never was a "replace Saddam" war goal. Right there's the failing, because it could easily have been done. So, while the war went well and was successful, it can only achieve what the politicians set as goals.

Just some thoughts.

Toad · « **Reply #29 on:** February 21, 2003, 06:34:42 AM »

Just got this from a friend. I think it sums up my thoughts very well.

"General Matt Ridgway knew the score.

In a message he wrote personally in January of 1951, the general put it this way. 'To me, the issues are clear: whether the rule of men who shoot their prisoners, enslave their citizens, and deride the dignity of man shall displace the rule of those to whom the individual and his individual rights are sacred. These are the things for which we fight.' "