US Government has No Honor

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

No matter how you slice it, what they lived in prior to the war was no where better than present day paid-for-services- risking- death Iraq.

Atleast they would know WHY they were killed if in fact that is the case. The old regime offered no explainations. My nephew stayed in Abu Ghraib (prison) which was converted to living quarters for soldiers. The stories dont seem believable because no one wants to think a person was hung by a butcher's meat hook and tortured. The obsurdity of a "fake war" is something I cannot fathom but there are people who believe in UFO's and others still who believe readily in Big Foot (not the truck) so to each his own. It is illogical to think one would make up a story to create a war, it is furthermore foolish to believe other countries would believe a false story without checking it out for themselves.

Thank you for the kind words about my boy. I do love him so and he has grown on my heart tremendously. I should have known my daughter would pick someone so capable of loving her so deeply. He's so brave too. If you are so inclined send high thoughts his way for safe keeping.

Doesn't the United States have an obligation to these people after they asked them for help? Does anyone believe the US said, "Come work for us. We will pay you well and then we will turn our backs while you and your family are killed" and the Iraqis said, "Sounds like a good deal to me".

Have you ever heard of "Tonkin Bay" or "The Main"?

The USA has gone to war for phony reasons before.

[Elisabethsew 50]

Since you hate politicians, etc., why not consider running for office where you might be able to affect the changes you desire?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Since you hate politicians, etc., why not consider running for office where you might be able to affect the changes you desire?

I am almost 62 years old; a little late for becoming a politician, plus I only moved to the state where I now reside, slightly over 3 years ago, so I do not know the local political landscape as well as someone would need to know in order to become a local candidate. However, I have become a regular at my party's meetings and I am running for a position on the executive board.

I have been very active in politics and I know and share e-mails with 2 of the City Councilmen and the freshman US Congressman who I worked tirelessly to get elected (along with many others).

As more and more dirt comes out about the BuSh administration and its plans, I hope the US public wakes up in time to save their democracy. I believe that the average US citizen and voter is a good person, but because politics have become so influence with big money and because raising a family (with all parents working) has become such a full time job, that they (the voting public) are not up to keeping up with the subtleties of the politics de jour.

Too many things are phrased in a way to totally mislead the public. BuSh proposed a new "Clean Water Act" to congress a few years ago. The new bill actually lowers the standards that had been scheduled to become law by the old law, but because it still is better than what was in place the year the bill was proposed, BuSh bragged that the Republican congress passed and he signed a new "Clear Water Act". Same thing for clean air.

The Republicans passed a new budget that increases spending on Medicaid, food Stamps and Veterans Benefits, but doesn't increase it enough to account for all the extra need (because of increases in poverty and increases in wounded vets and aging vets), so the Republicans and BuSh claim they increased the program, when they actually cut people (in need) off the program. When a Democrat says that BuSh cut Medicaid, food Stamps and Veterans Benefits, the Republicans say, no we increased them.

Analogy: Let's say I had three children living with me and I gave them $30 a week allowance between them. They would get $10 each. Let's say I adopt a 10 year old child and I "Increase" the allowance to $32 per week, then each child would get only $8 per week. To each of the first 3 children, that would be a cut in his allowance.

To the people on Medicaid, Food Stamps and Veterans Benefits, they had a cut in benefits.

Should the Republicans have cut Medicaid, Food Stamps and Veterans Benefits? Maybe they should have. I would be a lot happier if the Republicans and BuSh just said that we are spending too much on Medicaid, Food Stamps and Veterans Benefits, so we will cut the benefits (effectively per recipient). But no, they want to get the US voting public to belief that they are supporting these programs (which have the voting support of a majority of the voters) while still doing what the minority wants; cutting.

Right now there is an ad being played on TV and radio telling people how wonderful the Medicare Prescription Plan is and how it helped Mrs. (name) of (name of town). Then they say that some people are trying to thinker with the wonderful Rx plan and then ask you to contact your Senator and tell him to give the Rx plan a chance to succeed.

The Rx plan is costing seniors a lot of money. The Rx plan is too complicated for the average senior to understand and the Rx plan is going to bankrupt Medicare. The tinkering that the commercial objects to is a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies, like Canada does, like the Veteran's administration does and like all major company's employee medical insurance Rx benefit plans do.

Result if bill passes and becomes law: Lower Costs to Seniors and Lower Costs to Tax Payers.

Recently there was another add on TV and Radio in my area claiming that HR800 is a bill sponsored by Unions to force Union workers to lose their right to vote in private (in union elections) and then the add claimed that these same Liberals want to allow Mexicans to be able vote in private. Call your Congressman (a Democrat) and tell him you object to HR800: "Americans: No private vote, Mexicans: Private vote" paid for by the "Committee for Democratic Voting". Guess what? The "Committee for Democratic Voting" is a Republican political organization.

Was anything illegal? No! But why not call a spade, "a spade"?

[Lap_dancer 8]

Doesn't the United States have an obligation to these people after they asked them for help? Does anyone believe the US said, "Come work for us. We will pay you well and then we will turn our backs while you and your family are killed" and the Iraqis said, "Sounds like a good deal to me".

Have you ever heard of "Tonkin Bay" or "The Main"?

The USA has gone to war for phony reasons before.

See I don't look at it that way. Paid for services rendered. If they do not think they risk death or retaliation by working for the Allied as translators they have their heads buried in the ample sand over there. I would counter with, "Why not ask Great Britain for asylum? or Canada?" There are other countries to ask for asylum but the states always make the press as the bad guys (see horse on the ground no longer moving).

Do we see a soldier asking to go home because it got to tough? They felt threatened? Like they were in threat of losing their life? No, you pretty much know what you are signing up for and if you don't Boot Camp clears it up.

I have not heard of The Main or Tonkin probably because they were so remote and didn't involve the world on such a large scale. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. Again, I nod to the Allied countries and their intelligence.

See those photos of buried in the sand fighter aircraft? No weapons at all? Why the cat and mouse with SH? If you have the UN heat blowing down your neck and in your back door asking, on behalf of the world, to inspect what you have blown off your mouth touting to the world as possessing, and you continue to blow off at the mouth and disregard respectful requests to diplomatically allow for a neutral inspection, and you hand signed a treaty agreeing to such ten years prior and you still don't comply, we can expect to lose the house, the truck, or whatever else is at stake. There may not have been WMD but SH brought this heat on his people by his own arrogance and belief he was not accountable to anyone. Not even to his own people that he killed.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

See I don't look at it that way. Paid for services rendered. If they do not think they risk death or retaliation by working for the Allied as translators they have their heads buried in the ample sand over there. I would counter with, "Why not ask Great Britain for asylum? or Canada?" There are other countries to ask for asylum but the states always make the press as the bad guys (see horse on the ground no longer moving).

Do we see a soldier asking to go home because it got to tough? They felt threatened? Like they were in threat of losing their life? No, you pretty much know what you are signing up for and if you don't Boot Camp clears it up.

The US soldiers go home to their barracks every night (or every day, if on night patrol), but the translators have to go home to their neighborhoods. And the familes of the translators are sitting ducks. The reason that the USA gets the bad press is for doing stuff just like this; not taking care of the people that help the USA.

I have not heard of The Main or Tonkin probably because they were so remote and didn't involve the world on such a large scale. You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. Again, I nod to the Allied countries and their intelligence.

The "Maine" and "Tonkin Bay incident" were two issues of faked excuses for the USA to get into previous wars.

It appears that the people who were fooled were the US and its allies and it was all the time. Before the war started, there was ample proof (as per the CIA) that there were no WMD in Iraq, but the head of the CIA, George Tenent, needed to keep his job and he told BuSh what BuSh wanted to hear. Tony (the Liar) Blair was not going to sabotage BuSh, so he went along with it, too.

See those photos of buried in the sand fighter aircraft? No weapons at all? Why the cat and mouse with SH? If you have the UN heat blowing down your neck and in your back door asking, on behalf of the world, to inspect what you have blown off your mouth touting to the world as possessing, and you continue to blow off at the mouth and disregard respectful requests to diplomatically allow for a neutral inspection, and you hand signed a treaty agreeing to such ten years prior and you still don't comply, we can expect to lose the house, the truck, or whatever else is at stake. There may not have been WMD but SH brought this heat on his people by his own arrogance and belief he was not accountable to anyone. Not even to his own people that he killed.

No one said that Iraq had no weapons, but they had no WMD. After all the heat BuSh has taken for Iraq having no WMD, do you think he wouldn't be telling the US public if WMD had been found? Do you think BuSh is a shill for the Democrats? Book after book comes out claiming that the US found WMD in Iraq, so I guess there are two choices; either BuSh can't read or BuSh is a masochist. Oh, wait, there is a third choice; the books are full of BS.

As far as Saddam not living up to his treaty. His treaty was with the UN, not the USA. It was the UN's job to enforce it. The USA was so worried about Hussein not living up to the UN's rules that the USA violated the #1 rule of the UN; not to attack a fellow UN nation.

Of course, Hussein had to play it coy and claim he had no WMD, while leaving a doubt that he might have some. He had Iran, a country with twice the population of Iraq and a Shiite population too boot, ready to invade at any time that Iran saw weakness. Hussein knew that if Iran invaded southern Iraq, the Iraqi Shiites in the South of Iraq might join forces with the invading Iranians.

These are things that BuSh should have realized, but never thought of.

[Lap_dancer 8]

The US soldiers go home to their barracks every night (or every day, if on night patrol), but the translators have to go home to their neighborhoods. And the familes of the translators are sitting ducks. The reason that the USA gets the bad press is for doing stuff just like this; not taking care of the people that help the USA.

Again, it's a choice. Some jobs have high risks. Although my heart is pressed to sympathize with my soldier and the bravery he displays living in a trench, sleeping in a trench for weeks (true, not barracks) having morters blow up 10 feet away, he joined the Army at a time when we did not have the draft. He elected to do that job. So do police officers (two good friends), firefighters, cave diver rescuers ( I personally know one), and any other unnamed job that has a high risk to it. People have choices. They make choices and shouldn't blame others if things don't go their way. My main issue with the translator is what did he hope to gain by coming out to the press? To make better relations with the U.S.? To keep his family? What the translator may consider is that he is earning a wage for services he has provided. Those wages are better than what he would be earning elsewhere. I've not heard of any deal where translators are automatically granted asylum in the event their very public job is revealed.

It appears that the people who were fooled were the US and its allies and it was all the time. Before the war started, there was ample proof (as per the CIA) that there were no WMD in Iraq, but the head of the CIA, George Tenent, needed to keep his job and he told BuSh what BuSh wanted to hear. Tony (the Liar) Blair was not going to sabotage BuSh, so he went along with it, too.

And the other nations?

No one said that Iraq had no weapons, but they had no WMD. After all the heat BuSh has taken for Iraq having no WMD, do you think he wouldn't be telling the US public if WMD had been found? Do you think BuSh is a shill for the Democrats? Book after book comes out claiming that the US found WMD in Iraq, so I guess there are two choices; either BuSh can't read or BuSh is a masochist. Oh, wait, there is a third choice; the books are full of BS.

Bush has already admitted that we went to war with information that wasn't totally accurate. I don't believe Bush was trigger happy though and here is why. Take the time to do a historical study of Sadam Hussein. He was not elected by his people yet he called himself a President. He overthrew the seated government in a military coupe and his regime executed all former leaders. He targeted the Kurds and murdered thousands of them. Under his orders, squads regularly tortured, raped (even small girls) burned and executed. When he invaded Kuwait thus began the Gulf War. We know what happened there but what few know is the UN Resolutions he AGREED to at the end of that war and failed to comply with for over ten years.

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

• 
  
  
• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
  
  
• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
  
  
• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

• 
  
  
• Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
  
  
• Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

Complete Index of UN Security Council Resolutions

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

The question remains that with intelligence pointing to him housing and protecting terrorists (and SH was stupid enough to publically applaud 9-11) Did the U.S., who had just experienced a Pearl Harbor level of attack the year before, have a reasonable cause to feel a threat by Iraq?

At the end of the day, it is our President's responsibility to take care of our country and make prudent decisions not alone, but based on a collective of information. With the UN Inspectors coming back to report to the U.N. a mixed bag of results and more news of delays and cat and mouse treatment by Sadam Hussein, I think he left us no recourse.

*speaking locally for folks around where I live, about the second time the inspectors showed up and were turned away because he wasn't ready... that would have been the time aggression would have kicked in.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

#1. The treaty was with the UN, not the USA. The USA had no right to invade a sovereign nation and fellow UN Member State.

#2. The CIA workers knew that there were no WMD and only the head of the CIA went along with BuSh because BuSh brow-beat him

#3. Joe Wilson

#4. Hussein support the families of Palestinians suicide bombers . Not all terrorists are the same. Palestinian suicide bombers did not know down the WTC.

The US Military personal who used "Shock and Awe" on 3-16-2003 were terrorists also. So George W. BuSh supports terrorism. If you do not think planes bombing a city as was done with "Shock and Awe" is terrorism, then why would you think planes knocking down the WTC is terrorism?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

And getting back to the original topic.

When the US treats people that they needed like dirt, they will soon find that there will not be anyone around to help the next time they need someone.

The US Government has no Honor.

[Lap_dancer 8]

#4. Hussein support the families of Palestinians suicide bombers . Not all terrorists are the same. Palestinian suicide bombers did not know down the WTC.

The US Military personal who used "Shock and Awe" on 3-16-2003 were terrorists also. So George W. BuSh supports terrorism. If you do not think planes bombing a city as was done with "Shock and Awe" is terrorism, then why would you think planes knocking down the WTC is terrorism?

Okay I guess you missed the part I wrote about Bush having reasonable cause and not being trigger happy. Ignoring the UN RESOLUTION, despite WHO it is with, would be an item on that list of reasonable cause.

Hussein support(ed) the families of Palestiniian suicide bombers.....

So are you saying that SH was good in that if a bomber walked into a market place and blew up men,women and children in the name of Allah it was a good thing because SH supported their families?

[Lap_dancer 8]

And getting back to the original topic.

When the US treats people that they needed like dirt, they will soon find that there will not be anyone around to help the next time they need someone.quote]

I'm not holding my breath. People whore themselves for money.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

And getting back to the original topic.

When the US treats people that they needed like dirt, they will soon find that there will not be anyone around to help the next time they need someone.

I'm not holding my breath. People whore themselves for money.

Most US Generals say that the US Military desperately needed and needs these translators.

And you equate them with Whores?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Okay I guess you missed the part I wrote about Bush having reasonable cause and not being trigger happy. Ignoring the UN RESOLUTION, despite WHO it is with, would be an item on that list of reasonable cause.

The US has no right to enforce one resolution by violating the most important rule of the UN.

Hussein support(ed) the families of Palestiniian suicide bombers.....

So are you saying that SH was good in that if a bomber walked into a market place and blew up men,women and children in the name of Allah it was a good thing because SH supported their families?

It didn't make Hussein a nice person and he was a lowlife of the first order, but the BuSh administration has tried to use the argument that Hussein supported terror and then by using Al-Quaida's terrorism in the same sentence, they forged a false link in the minds of the US public.

Why didn't we invade Northern Ireland to stop the IRA?

[Lap_dancer 8]

Most US Generals say that the US Military desperately needed and needs these translators.

And you equate them with Whores?

Spar one for the oversimplification.

"People whore themselves out for money". Money talks bullshit walks. Money isn't the root of all evil, the love of money is the root of all evil.

"Money it's a hit, don't give me that do-goody good bullshit" - Pink Floyd

[Lap_dancer 8]

The US has no right to enforce one resolution by violating the most important rule of the UN.[/size]

It didn't make Hussein a nice person and he was a lowlife of the first order, but the BuSh administration has tried to use the argument that Hussein supported terror and then by using Al-Quaida's terrorism in the same sentence, they forged a false link in the minds of the US public.

Why didn't we invade Northern Ireland to stop the IRA?

Because the UK was taking care of its own situation.

Because it didn't have impacts of extermination of a race.

Because the IRA did not attempt to take over other countries.

Because one man did not act in the best interest of his people or his country?

I don't know .... the two are fields apart in my mind.

..........................

So you think it was a good thing that he paid these young people to blow themselves up, actually paid their families. Our government does pay our soldiers who put themselves on the line. But payment is not done in such a way as to encourage terrorism in the name of Allah.

Looks like someone in my daughter's graduating class.

Smiles like my son.

Looks like my Pulminary doc.

[Lap_dancer 8]

Sorry. Those were three hijacker terrorists from 9-11