Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BGBMAW on March 19, 2003, 04:23:05 PM
-
Three weekends ago, millions of demonstrators across the globe protested on behalf of "human rights." Their marches, slogans, placards and speeches did not declaim against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, did not cite the human rights reports detailing his tyranny and torture, did not take account the plaints of Iraqis fortunate enough to live in exile.
Rather, they protested the U.S. and the U.K. and their efforts to topple Saddam and liberate Iraq. Now, we are seeing more television advertisements along these lines, and even a "virtual march on Washington."
Just after the celebration of Abraham Lincoln’s birthday, it is appropriate to remember his lament: "The world has never had a good definition of the word ‘liberty.’" With Saddam flouting international law, and President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair attempting to enforce it, portrayals of Bush as Adolf Hitler — as we saw and heard in the "human rights" protests — betray an ignorance of liberty, an ignorance of right and wrong, an ignorance of commonsense. Because Bush and Blair are putting together a coalition of countries to oust Saddam, they are labeled the warmongers and tyrants. We live in a confusing time indeed.
Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.
Those who march against the U.S. and the U.K. today, those who condemn Bush and Blair and remain silent when it comes to Saddam, are in league with the wolf’s view that the shepherds are destroying liberty. The people of Iraq will soon know what Afghanis know. The true wolf was devouring Afghanis, the true shepherd saved them.
It is worth remembering what those in the former Soviet republics know and what the anti-American Western street has forgotten: It was, and is, U.S. and British resolve that truly liberates the oppressed and that defends the lives and liberties of the free against the appetites and ill-will of the world’s dictators.
In 1998 then-President Bill Clinton stated: "What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal." Last year, former Vice President Al Gore stated, "[W]e know that he [Saddam] has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country."
It is not President Bush who woke up one day to discover that Saddam was making and harvesting weapons of mass destruction. Yet it is Bush who is blamed for doing something about it. Saddam may be mad, but he is not a scientist. He does not collect chemical and biological weapons for mere pleasure and intrigue. Just ask the survivors of Halabja. So when Saddam acts, it will be Bush and America who are blamed for inaction, for appeasement. We will be liable for such blame because we are the only ones who can do something about it.
We are not at war with Muslims or Arabs around the world; we are at war with some Muslim and Arab leaders who misinterpret their religion and put a primacy on war over peace and slavery over freedom. But among the leadership in the world’s moral democracies there is no misinterpretation, and nowhere is that more true than in the case of the U.S.
This is not a new role for us, but is a unique role we proudly inherit as the world’s liberator. As Wolf Blitzer pointed out: "Over the past two decades, almost every time U.S. military forces have been called into action to risk their lives and limbs, it's been on behalf of Muslims. ... [T]o assist the Afghan mujahadin … during the Soviet invasion in the 1980s, to liberate Kuwait following the Iraqi invasion of 1990, to help Somali Muslims suffering at the hands of a warlord in Mogadishu, to help Muslims first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo who faced a Serb onslaught, and more recently to liberate Afghanistan from its Taliban and Al Qaeda rulers."
Those who protest against the U.S. just now are legatees of those who protested against the U.S. in the 1980s, when we fought the focus of evil then, the Soviet Union. But ask a former Soviet, or East Berliner, if he is better off now than he was, say, 15 years ago. Ask a Nicaraguan. Ask a Bosnian Muslim. U.S. resolve can be thanked for all that, even as those who protested our defense and military postures marched in favor of appeasement.
Indeed, we live in a strange time when the anti-nuclear movement and its leaders of yesterday can today suggest a course of inaction such that Saddam will be able to join North Korea in becoming a nuclear power. The only logical conclusion one can reach is that for the protesters today, weapons in the hands of the U.S. are to be met with outrage while weapons in the hands of Saddam are to be met with silence.
We seek to liberate Iraq today, not only because for Saddam "[t]orture is not a method of last resort in Iraq, it is often the method of first resort," according to Kenneth Pollack, President Clinton’s director of Gulf Affairs at the NSC. We seek to liberate Iraq because after Sept. 11, 2001, we were put on notice. We were put on notice that civilized people can no longer live in a bubble and hope for the best. We were put on notice that there are fanatics and tyrants who want nothing from us but our death. And this notice requires action: the action of the brave, the action of the unthanked, the action of the free.
In Iraq as in other contemporary situations, the responsibility to act has been ours because the ability has been ours. The responsibility has been ours because oppressed people look to us for their deliverance. There is a duty in being the nation that Abraham Lincoln, speaking of our Declaration of Independence, called "a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." That is who we happen to be. And it is an honor.
William J. Bennett,
pasted and cutted by BiGB
lol i know ..speeling:)
-
Man you have really improved your grammar and writing skills!
-
Either that or he just learned how to "copy & paste".
-
i am against the war...not against removing saddam...but with luck the war will be over in under 3 weeks...or by christmas
-
yes thank you guys...
This is exactly how i feel..no its not mine..I will put authors name on it..I thot i did
Vort..I hope so too..Im scared of the Bio-chem stuff on our guys:(
I really am..God Bless them.please
here you go..
William J. Bennett, chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, is a former secretary of Education and the author of Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism, re-released and updated in paperback (Regnery, 2003).
Salute BiGB
xoxo
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
yes thank you guys...
This is exactly how i feel..no its not mine..I will put authors name on it..I thot i did
LOL Like anyone really believed you actually have the mental capacity to put forth reasoned, articulate thought. LMAO, don't flatter yourself, imbicile.
-
Airhead, you need a beer or a joint or sex... or something... just don't quit the UBB and say the reason was because I offered you sex or drugs.
:)
-SW
-
clever...
Americans for Victory Over Terrorism
AVOTerr.
A Voter
Like there are Americans that are against a victory over terrorism. LOL.
-
Wulfie, it's harder to follow the discussions when you leave for a few days, come back and are confronted with zero response threads like "Flies fornicating on a windowsill" or "My cat has farted." (rc51) Then you have your graphic images of burn victims (courtesy Davidpt40) or posts full of F-Bombs (BGBMAW) and frankly I prefer AGW due to its slower pace and the fact the Three Stooges haven't yet spammed those boards.
I will no longer sit silently by - looking at images I find distasteful, reading F-Bombs dropped by idiots with a fourth grade education, or spam generated by a disgruntled worker at Taco Bell on his mommy's computer- any longer. The war is on- when they post I will respond. Harshly.
-
This should be good.
-
dang BGB, sometimes knowing what to cut and paste is just as good as writing it yourself. I notice airhead still calling names; good, you've moved up in the standings, vs. him. Keep it up, bro
-
LOL Rasker, you're a good squadie. I
you for that, and as I fly in the Main Arena killing MAWS I will show you mercy and kill you last. .
-
sure bro, right after I kill you
-
Originally posted by vorticon
i am against the war...not against removing saddam...
I've heard this alot recently.
Just how do you expect Saddam to be removed? By asking nicely?
-
Originally posted by Curval
I've heard this alot recently.
Just how do you expect Saddam to be removed? By asking nicely?
By presenting a resolution in the UN for it to be voted. A resolution that calls for Saddam Hussein&family leaving Irak or face the use of force.
If it passes, and if the doesn't leave, then you go to a legal war and remove him from power.
See how easy?.
I'm all for removing Saddam from power in a legal war. Not to doing it in an illegal war that seriously shatters UN credibility.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Lincoln described liberty by a useful analogy: "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty." Lincoln made it clear who the sheep was and who the wolf was. It is equally important to recognize who the liberator is.
I don't get this part... was the wolf implying the shepherd was doing the sheep?
-
the problem is that kind of "legal" war must be approved by the current government of France, and that wasnt gonna happen. 70% of Americans are convinced of that. If our leaders made a reasonable effort for U.N. approval, and most of us are convinced they did, then we will support them and our troops.
-
Originally posted by RRAM
See how easy?.
I'm all for removing Saddam from power in a legal war. Not to doing it in an illegal war that seriously shatters UN credibility.
LOL...easy?
So basically we wait for the UN, for what, another 12 years?
..and even then..it is still war. If a soldier get blown apart in a legal war is that somehow better?
Typical double speak.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
LOL Like anyone really believed you actually have the mental capacity to put forth reasoned, articulate thought. LMAO, don't flatter yourself, imbicile.
imbecile[/i]
-
Originally posted by Curval
LOL...easy?
So basically we wait for the UN, for what, another 12 years?
read the other thread to understand my point of view in this matter. UN inspectors say their job will be fullfitted in monts. not weeks,not years. Months. But that it will be done.
..and even then..it is still war. If a soldier get blown apart in a legal war is that somehow better?
No, it's not better. But he will be killed in a war that respects international law and doesn't break the international sovereigny rights. There's something called "international laws", and USA ,UK and Spain are about to break them in an agression war.
-
Yep...Bennet has always had his toejam together.
-
I see, now it's months. roadkill. They didn't do the job in 12 years and NOW they are saying months. I just don't buy it.
So..you are essentially saying it is okay to kill people and remove Hussein as long as France says it's okay? They were the only country who said they would veto no matter what.
Now France says that they will support US actions in Iraq IF Sadaam uses chemical or biological weapons...yet their objection to the war was that there wasn't proof that these weapons existed. It is this kind of political roadkill that makes ridding the world of Sadaam Hussein extremly difficult with UN sanctioned action.
Frankly we probably wouldn't even be IN this situation (of the US going in without a UN mandate) if France had not been so concerned about losing their oil rights.
You are so nieve man, sorry.
-
The attack on Iraq actually is legal by international law.
Refer to the other thread "Do we care about world opinion?"
May not want to listen to the hippies RAM, they don't know law... they actually don't know much of anything except hearsay and redundant slogans.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Curval
I see, now it's months. roadkill. They didn't do the job in 12 years and NOW they are saying months. I just don't buy it.
[/b]
Saddam suddenly had the need to cooperate with inspectors and disarm his nation in a hurry when he found 200,000 US troops at the other side of the fence ;).
Yes, they are getting disarmed according to UN inspectors, and yes, that disarmement will be done in months, according to those inspectors. You might not believe it, but that's what the inspector's reports to the UN say.
So..you are essentially saying it is okay to kill people and remove Hussein as long as France says it's okay? They were the only country who said they would veto no matter what.
no, I'm saying that as long as a war is backed by the UN, it is within the legal limits of the international laws. And that no illegal war should be waged, no matter what.
Regarding French stance, I think they were talking about any resolution involving an ultimatum with a time frame of days or weeks. France was asking for giving ONE MONTH more for the inspectors to give a more accurate report on the situation of Irak's disarmement.
Now France says that they will support US actions in Iraq IF Sadaam uses chemical or biological weapons...yet their objection to the war was that there wasn't proof that these weapons existed. It is this kind of political roadkill that makes ridding the world of Sadaam Hussein extremly difficult with UN sanctioned action.
UN Security council should get rid of the veto roadkill. In that I agree with you. That was what prevented a proper resolution in the war in Yugoslavia, and that is what has carried us to this situation. I'm not ,in any way, defending French stance; a stance that for me is as bad as US's stance declaring a war of agression against Irak at this moment.
Frankly we probably wouldn't even be IN this situation (of the US going in without a UN mandate) if France had not been so concerned about losing their oil rights.
Absolutely agreed. But remember that Russia and China were going to veto the resolution too. To each it's share of responsability.
SWulfe, I already answered in the other thread.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Yep...Bennet has always had his toejam together.
Yeah, the chain smoking drug czar.
-
UN inspectors say their job will be fullfitted in monts. not weeks,not years. Months. But that it will be done.
How can they possible know this? The inspectors' job is to have the Iraqis show them proof that they have destroyed all the weapons they agreed to destroy 11 years ago. How can Blix possibly know that they will be shown this proof within a given time frame? Especially considering that Hussein once simply threw them out of the country. The UN has shown that it wasn't serious about this issue.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
How can they possible know this? The inspectors' job is to have the Iraqis show them proof that they have destroyed all the weapons they agreed to destroy 11 years ago. How can Blix possibly know that they will be shown this proof within a given time frame? Especially considering that Hussein once simply threw them out of the country. The UN has shown that it wasn't serious about this issue.
ra
You imply that Blix was lying in his report to the UN?. That's a pretty serious accusation.
I think that if he said what he did, he had enough reasons to say so. He's the one who has been in Irak several times, and the one who reads all and every comment coming from UN inspectors working in Irak. So he must know better than you or I.
BTW, I'd say he isn't an irak-lover exactly...after all he also has said that cooperation hasn't been plenty, even while it has been much better than in previous times. But that he expected cooperation to improve given the real threat Saddam was facing.
BTW I'd say that Blix assumed that UN inspectors won't be thrown out of Irak in any case. I'd have assumed it too if I was in his boots, given that Saddam knew that this time the threat was for real, because if this time he didn't cooperate he was to find himself in another war to kick him out of power.
All I know is that UN resolutions say that Inspectors are the ones to say wether Irak is disarming or not, and Inspectors' reports so far say Irak is doing so, and that the supervision of that disarmement would be over in an estimated time of some months. If he said that, they had reasons to do it.
-
Damn, sorry for using the verb "say" so many times...my english still is quite limited when I'm trying to write about things like this one :D
-
But what about the sheep?
-
Saddam suddenly had the need to cooperate with inspectors and disarm his nation in a hurry when he found 200,000 US troops at the other side of the fence ;).
Well now you are arguing my point. There were 200,000 troops in his backyard when he finally started disarming some missiles and other banned weapons. Weapons he cartegorically denied posessing in the 12,000 page "tell all" report the Iraqis handed over to the UN a few months back.
There are huge numbers of chemicals artillery shells and bombs unaccounted for based on conservative estimates of Iraqi inventories, logically like the ones, when used against US forces, could result in French forces rushing to "help" in the cause. You however want to believe that the weapons inpectors are going to be finnished their job and Sadaam will be disarmed within a few months, but they haven't been able to find them in 12 years? I have a beautiful bridge to sell you!
Sadaam has been leading everyone on since 1991, he had no choice but to appear to be capitulating with all those troops ready to invade. He just put his faith in the fact that enough gullible people like yourself would swell opinion against any US lead attempt to force him to comply with those UN RESOLUTIONS he constantly defied. He rolled the dice, and he lost.
Yes, they are getting disarmed according to UN inspectors, and yes, that disarmement will be done in months, according to those inspectors. You might not believe it, but that's what the inspector's reports to the UN say.
Correct, I don't believe it and they (the authors of the report)are fools for believing, it in my opinion.
I'm saying that as long as a war is backed by the UN, it is within the legal limits of the international laws. And that no illegal war should be waged, no matter what.
War is war. People suffer and people die. If it looks like toejam, smells like toejam and tastes like toejam...it is toejam. Save your legal vs illegal for the classroom.
Regarding French stance, I think they were talking about any resolution involving an ultimatum with a time frame of days or weeks. France was asking for giving ONE MONTH more for the inspectors to give a more accurate report on the situation of Irak's disarmement.
I have made my position clear on French politics as it relates to this issue.
a stance that for me is as bad as US's stance declaring a war of agression against Irak at this moment.
Boy, out of Sadaam's mouth, and right into your computer. Amazing!
But remember that Russia and China were going to veto the resolution too. To each it's share of responsability.
They deserve a share of the blame, no question. Germany too.
-
I agree with airhead. I liked his quote on this subject in another thread.
I would also say that cutting and pasting someone else's opinion, and then saying ditto hardly makes you an intellectual giant. By all means quote other people's opinions, but don't pass them off as your own.
-
I think we should go easy on BGBMAW. I think he would concede that typing/spelling/grammar may not be his strong suits. But that does not disqualify him from having an opinion. He has found a worthy text which matches his views, and has reproduced it here without trying to pass it off as his own. And I agree with him. :)
So now BGBMAW and I can have our own group hug. :D;)
-
please ..read again for you who havent:)
Saburo.Blitz.Airhead..
And I thougth I saw a Bulldozer over there!! Go play hide and seek please.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I think we should go easy on BGBMAW. I think he would concede that typing/spelling/grammar may not be his strong suits. But that does not disqualify him from having an opinion. He has found a worthy text which matches his views, and has reproduced it here without trying to pass it off as his own. And I agree with him. :)
So now BGBMAW and I can have our own group hug. :D;)
I never dogged him over his spelling, but now that you mention it the only words he spelled correctly were the F-bombs he dropped on me. As far as his opinion goes I just can't get past someone F-bombing me enough to even consider his opinion- but thanks to the safety of the Internet he can cuss me out, call me names and YOU think that is OK?
If I were in a restaurant, or a grocery store, or a service station if someone wanted to call me the kinds of names he has I guarantee you I wouldn't tolorate it.
Now he's spouting something about bulldozers, which I believe is a reference to that protestor killed last week in Gaza although I can't be sure. Whatever, he has a standing offer to meet me face to face where we can discuss our differences. I guess he finds it easier- and much less risky- to continue on with his name calling from the safety of his computer. Maybe he's smarter than I thought.