Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SaburoS on February 20, 2003, 06:14:20 AM
-
RECKLESS ADMINISTRATION MAY REAP DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES by US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003
To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.
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. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.
In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.
Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land. Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?
And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?
Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?
In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years. One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.
Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate. We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.
To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time. "Peace is the only battle worth waging." --- Albert Camus
-
What a wise man!
-
Just pointing out one of many roadkill statements by this 'senator'.
"And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice."
"Hussein will be given 'a last chance to comply before he gets clobbered,' The New York Times on Monday quoted an unidentified U.S. official as saying."--CNN.com, Jan. 27, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/27/iraq.latest/index.html
"Annan Admits Iraq Trip Could Be Last Chance for Peace"--CNN.com, Feb. 18, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/iraq.un/index.html
"Clinton: Iraq Has Abused Its Last Chance"--CNN.com, Dec. 16, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/index.html
"The White House suggested Wednesday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has missed his 'last chance' to disarm."--CNN.com, Dec. 18, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/18/sproject.irq.us.iraq.war/index.html
"Future European Union members endorsed a joint declaration Tuesday warning Saddam Hussein he has one last chance to disarm."--Associated Press, Feb. 18, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/02/18/sprj.irq.brussels.ap/index.html
Yup, that evil Bush Administration. Always 'rushing to war'. Hussein hasn't been given any time to 'comply'.
Mike/wulfie
-
I was unable to read that post :(
-
the dumbacrats are hoping for a wmd hit in the middle of our troops - imagine what that's do for their party?
may even give them a chance of defeating the evil empire we now have in the WH...
-
Here is Democratic Senator Robert Byrd marching against the war last Saturday in Washington DC...
-
"We have not found bin Laden"
bin Laden is far from the most dangerous individual being hunted at the moment. bin Laden = Goebels. If you're at war with Nazi Germany Manstein is the guy you want taken out as quickly as possible.
Mike/wulfie
p.s. Before anyone chimes in about bin Laden as a 'recruiter for jihad' - the majority of the world isn't as stupid as alot of the peace marchers. They know the score. When was the last time you saw a march of 'bin Laden cheerleaders' taking place in some 3d world Nation?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the dumbacrats are hoping for a wmd hit in the middle of our troops - imagine what that's do for their party?
may even give them a chance of defeating the evil empire we now have in the WH...
LOL
Believe me if anyone is hoping for a WMD hit either on his own troops or citizens it’s Shrub. It would be his perfect “Incident” like Pearl Harbor.
The scary thing is that if a UN Iraq resolution authorizing military force isn’t forthcoming, I’m sure the Pentagon has plans in place to fabricate an “Incident” of their own to sort of help things along.
-
Originally posted by blur
LOL
Believe me if anyone is hoping for a WMD hit either on his own troops or citizens it’s Shrub. It would be his perfect “Incident” like Pearl Harbor.
The scary thing is that if a UN Iraq resolution authorizing military force isn’t forthcoming, I’m sure the Pentagon has plans in place to fabricate an “Incident” of their own to sort of help things along.
Oh Why am I not surprised you are insinuating PH was allowed to happend or at least hoped for by the USA....
BTW Take of the tin hat fool, it's bluring the signal and our black helicopters cannot track you any more....
-
Originally posted by Duedel
What a wise man!
You obviously have no knowledge of the man, his actions or views in public or private life. Robert Byrd is many things, wise aint one of them.
-
LOL! Senator Byrd is one my Senators, and let me tell you.....
In our state there is effectively only one party, the democrats. And Byrd has been in Washington SOOOOOOO long he has alot of power, and can bring alot of "pork" (ie money and other government projects for our non english speaking friends) to the state.
Otherwise he is a senile old biggot that talks out of both sides of his face. And when I say senile, I mean literally. Over ten years ago, when I was in the military. I had to stand in the hot August sun for almost two hours, on the tarmac of our airbase, and listen to how much he liked the city of Martinsburg and how nice the people were. Nice speech. The only problem is that we were not in Martinsburg, we were in Charleston (capital of the state). Thats the entire other side of the state, and almost 300+ miles away. He literally did not know which city he was in giving the speech, and he told part of it TWICE.
-
Pretty good speech.
Name calling the result.
In #philosophy on undernet, there is a large number of liberals. There it is impossible to discuss politics rationally.
Here, there are more republicans. The result is the same.
Address the points, rather than resort to name calling.
-
Byrd is just afraid there won't be any money left over for his pork barrels.
who is Albert Camus and why doesn't he use paragraph breaks?
-
A.Camus is a French author.
As you can guess he only wrote junk and worst this SOB has writen all is books in French.
But you're safe, he is boycotted like other French product.
-
Isn't that the same guy that said this:
"I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities." — Robert Byrd in letter to Klan Imperial Wizard Samuel Green of Atlanta, April 8, 1946.
and this:
"with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Ain't the Internet great? ;)
-
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
-
I am unwilling to read it without some basic formatting.
I'd like to keep my eyesight for a few more years.
Originally posted by straffo
I was unable to read that post :(
-
I think his revealed character precludes or at least taints any judgement value regarding any fundamental issues.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
saying it and writing it are two different things.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.' "