HB 139 (Wireless Internet Access Requirements, Chief Sponsor: Bradley M. Daw)
grhill at corp.untd.com
Thu Jan 24 13:53:11 MST 2008
> Wait, wait, wait. I wanted to respond with this:
> Right. I am agreeing with you and Von. I just think there are more
> powerful, rational, and logical reasons for agreeing with that
> position than saying "the other kids don't like us".
> However, I have to correct your grossly exaggerated parity.
> A) We didn't make up the intelligence that we had about Saddam
> Hussein. We knew he had WMDs because WE SOLD 'EM TO HIM in the '80s.
> French, UK, and German intelligence all AGREED with our intelligence.
> We all had believable intel on the WMDs because Saddam wanted the rest
> of the world generally and enemies in the middle east particularly to
> BELIEVE that he did have WMDs.
Wrong. We made up the "facts" that he was looking for nuclear material,
which has been documented and proven countless times by all sorts of
people. Our own intelligence agencies said the data was bogus long
before it was presented to the American people by Bush/Cheney and used
as reason to invade.
> B) 9/11 proceeded our invasion. We didn't cause 9/11 (or other
> terrorist attacks). We try to prevent and respond to them. Our
> attacks against Afghanistan were COMPLETELY warranted. Iraq wasn't.
We may or may not have been involved directly with 9/11, but our foreign
policy is the main motivating factor behind it.
> C) The UN made something like 21 resolutions (a.k.a. threatening
> letters) for Iraq to allow UN weapon's inspectors to come in and
> verify that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Saddam continued to not allow
> inspectors in even after the UN had sent SEVERAL resolutions promising
> to use FORCE against Iraq if he didn't comply. Of course the UN is a
> spineless, corrupt, joke so they didn't follow through on their
> promises, even after fixed dates blew past. So.... Congress declared
> war and America, the UK, and a handful of other countries, kicked down
> the door and spanked Saddam. A little rash -- we should have waited
> to firm up our intel. WAY too expensive of an operation (despite the
> right or wrong of it). And, yes, it didn't help our image with
> countries that were illegally selling minor weapons and other goods to
> Iraq in the Oil for Food scandal (hello France, Germany, and Russia),
> who didn't want the status quo rocked. America merely did what the UN
> promised they were going to do... And yet we're the bad guys. Screw
> the UN.
We had already disproved all the bogus intel that we used to justify the
invasion, but Bush/Cheney wanted to invade, so they used selective
> D) This has been the most successful military operation of this size
> EVER. There's never been fewer soldiers killed, nor fewer civilians
> killed in any war of this size in the past. We haven't killed
> millions of civilians -- rather Saddam killed millions of his own
> civilians. We're not monsters, etc., etc. Also note that more
> military personal died per year during Clinton peace time (due to
> accidents, etc.) than Bush war time.
> This doesn't make the war any less wrong. But some of the points used
> by those who appose the war makes them look stupid.
Last I heard, there were over 1 million Iraqi civilian casualties since
we invaded. That's more than were killed under Saddam's 15+ years in
power. I never referred to our military casualties because a) they
aren't that bad for the size of a war we're in and b) they pale by
> E) I don't think we should have gone into Iraq so hastily. However,
> we're there now, and I think pulling out the troupes abruptly would be
> a disaster. I agree with Ron Paul that we should pull out ALL of our
> troupes from around the world (not just Iraq). But this would have to
> be done very gradually. I love the military, but I hate government
> intervention and by that principle, we shouldn't be out policing the
> world. Also, we're broke as a nation, and we can't afford to do so.
We pulled out of Vietnam. They're doing just fine without us. Another
place we shouldn't have been in the first place, and we waited far too
long to pull out of. The reason Iraq is so instable is because we're
still there. Sure, it'll have a few rough years getting re-established,
but in the long run, the sooner we leave, the better off they are.
> So, we agree on the general direction we should have taken. But I
> disagree with your analogy about China and Mexico. Iraq is nothing
> like that. It was a bad case of government intervention and jumping
> the shark. It is an expensive and unnecessary war. We can't afford
> to liberate every sand pit country. We need to fix our own issues.
> Uphold our own laws and worry about ourselves. That doesn't mean we
> don't want to help others. And it doesn't mean we aren't entitled to
> self-defense (the war against Afghanistan was totally warranted). But
> we need to clean our own house first.
Iraq is exactly like that. We have bases in Israel and Turkey, and we'd
been violating Iraq's airspace and bombing them for around a decade
prior to our invasion.
I never mentioned Afghanistan because I agree that it was warranted, but
after that we should have gone into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, if
anywhere, to get at the people who actually produced and harbored the
terrorists that attacked us. But, we wanted to control Iraq's oil, just
like we wanted to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan, so we did
what would make us the most money. And oddly, it backfired, and we've
spent over a trillion dollars and wasted over a million lives fighting
an unjustified, illegal invasion of a foreign country.
More information about the PLUG