Originally posted by Refman It's not a slanted viewpoint at all. The fact is that without pressure from the US and the UN that the Israeli government would have ended this situation already via military might. The US and our allies have cautioned Israel to not take such action and to this point they have heeded that call. It's puzzling that you can't see this. It's puzzling that you can't see that Israel is in violation of many UN resolutions. Is that being "in check"? Who's pressuring Israel to come into compliance with anything? You think that because Israel hasn't slaughtered a hundred thousand Palestinians that they're in check. Please. But they haven't. I wonder why? Uh, yeah they have. Different situation. We damned well KNOW where the Palestinian suicide bombers reside. We don't even know what hemisphere bin Laden is in...much less any specific coordinates. Any attempt to analogize the two groups is ridiculous. We don't know now but we sure did know where bin Laden was now didn't we. Bin Laden is wanted "dead or alive" by our big bad President until we can't find him, then everything isn't about just one man. That was a pretty nifty switcheroo there. Israelis know more about where Palestinian suicide bombers come from than we do. Instead of Israeli troops attacking refugee camps it will be American troops, great call man. We already know how you feel about Iraq. If you're so damned warm and fuzzy to them then why don't you serve as a weapons inspector? I'm sure you won't find anything. Yeah we know how you feel too. We should invade Iraq because secular Saddam has WMD that he can give to religious crazies that they can't get anywhere else like Iran, or Syria, or Pakistan, or North Korea, or any old Soviet block countries. If that reason doesn't work then we have to invade Iraq because the most powerful nation on Earth can't deter him from invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabai. Instead of giving our full attention to terrorists who've actually targeted us around the world and who are going to attack us again on our soil we must send 250,000 American soldiers and spend $200 billion on verifying Saddam's lies. That is so wise, I'm just in awe of that policy. So now that it's getting tough it's time to abdicate the responsibility that President Carter (and every President since) took on for the US? Very strange notion indeed. This situation requires an impartial and neutral party, we are not either in this case. We should not be giving Israel $3billion in aid while they keep defying the international community. You know, the same international community that Saddam is defying that requires you to want to invade Iraq. If the US really had influence on Israel, we would force them to accept UN Peacekeepers but we don't and they won't. It's a big hypocrisy and it's gotten old. We should not be in the business of supporting stupid policies, no matter who started us down that road.
I promise you that were it not for US diplomatic intervention that the situation would be infinitely worse than what it currently is. Really? Were you by any chance aware that the hawks which ruled Israel not long ago were in favor of forcibly removing all of the Palestinians? That didn't happen...that means they didn't do "whatever they wanted." Bringing in bin Laden is important for more reasons than I care to ennumerate here. That being said...if you really think that this was ever all about one guy, then you're nuts. If the Israelis actually attacked refugee camps as fervently as you'd like to believe...there would be any left standing. He has them and is the only guy out there currently who has shown a propensity and desire to use them. Catch a clue. Until the next round of Anthrax attacks. Then you'll be the first in line to bash the government for not doing enough. It must be very comfortable to prognosticate and then second guess when you don't actually have to make the tough decisions...and when there are no consequences for the policies you suggest. But you are against an Iraq attack and in favor of cutting aid to Israel. The world community you speak of doesn't seem to have a problem with either policy. Sounds like it is you who are picking and choosing when you want to agree with the world community. You might want to make sure that the UN is willing to send in peacekeepers prior to offering them up. News flash: the UN has no interest in sending peacekeepers over there. We can't offer what we haven't been authorized to offer. I'll be sure to remind you of that in future threads.
Originally posted by Refman I promise you that were it not for US diplomatic intervention that the situation would be infinitely worse than what it currently is. That says a lot. 20 years of diplomatic intervention gets us suicide attacks, Israeli retaliations, and an outraged Muslim world. Hurray for the US! Really? Were you by any chance aware that the hawks which ruled Israel not long ago were in favor of forcibly removing all of the Palestinians? That didn't happen...that means they didn't do "whatever they wanted." Riiight, because the "hawks" weren't allowed to implement the most extreme remedy possible that declares that Israel is "in check" even if they're in violation of many UN resolutions. Everything is "in check" as long as we're preventing the "final solution". Bringing in bin Laden is important for more reasons than I care to ennumerate here. That being said...if you really think that this was ever all about one guy, then you're nuts. I'm pointing out how your man Bush is operating. He hasn't even finished the first thing he started and you want to forget what that thing was. Bush rallied support by fingering bin Laden with his stupid press conferences about "dead or alive" and how he seen them there posters when he was a youngin about outlaws wanted dead or alive. Now that he couldn't find him and nobody remembers his stupid rhetoric it's not just about one man. Well no **** it's not just about one man but that man is pretty damn important and we still haven't found him. So by all means let's just move on and start a new war somewhere. If the Israelis actually attacked refugee camps as fervently as you'd like to believe...there would be any left standing. They attacked "fervently" enough to kill a 2 year old kid the other day. They've killed something like 1,500 Palestinians in the last 2 years. That's not even counting the wounded. I guess if you're not trying to kill them all then it's okay and you want to put US troops in this situation? Now not only will we have funded the country with resources and weapons that are killing these people, we'll actually be doing the killing ourselves. He has them and is the only guy out there currently who has shown a propensity and desire to use them. Catch a clue. The CIA (otherwise known as the people paid to know these things) says he's not attacking anyone unless attacked. He didn't use WMD when he invaded Kuwait. He didn't use them when we invaded Iraq. We have troops in Kuwait and Saudi while we patrol the no fly zones in Iraq. Where is he going? Until the next round of Anthrax attacks. Then you'll be the first in line to bash the government for not doing enough. It must be very comfortable to prognosticate and then second guess when you don't actually have to make the tough decisions...and when there are no consequences for the policies you suggest. What do our Anthrax attacks have to do with Iraq? Nothing as far as the government can tell. I can prognosticate and second guess as easily as you can. I don't see you getting misty over the prospects of Americans coming home in body bags so Bush can have his war in Iraq. I think I'd be happy if Mr Air National Guard considered whether he personally would fight in his wars prior to sending Americans to fight and possibly die overseas in some damn desert, especially when he's not even given containment a chance. But you are against an Iraq attack and in favor of cutting aid to Israel. The world community you speak of doesn't seem to have a problem with either policy. Sounds like it is you who are picking and choosing when you want to agree with the world community. The UN authorized a US invasion of Iraq? Can you post that here? I want to read that. As for aid to Israel, you must be out of touch with how the Muslim world feels about our funding Israel while they kill Palestinians. How about how the US picks and chooses which UN resolutions to enforce? How about the US using it's Security Council seat to block resolutions against Israel? I think the current count of resolutions against Iraq is around 15 or 16 while the count against Israel is over 50 I'm sure which would probably be over 100 if not for US vetoes. Yes, we call that selective enforcement. War on Israel after Iraq? Your call man! You might want to make sure that the UN is willing to send in peacekeepers prior to offering them up. News flash: the UN has no interest in sending peacekeepers over there. We can't offer what we haven't been authorized to offer. News flash: In 2001 the US vetoed a resolution to send monitors/peacekeepers to the territories. We can't offer what we veto, believe it or not.
You can be jerky about this all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that the US has done more to try to broker peace over there than anybody. Would you prefer the alternative? You haven't really atated what you want...all you've done is express sarcasm and naysaying. Time to offer up solutions if you understand the problem so well. I haven't forgotten that first thing. I have merely acknowledged that the objectives aren't mutually exclusive of each other. OK...you have no real argument here so you'll just fall back into the familiar position of lobbing jabs at the President. If you could do such a better job...please run. Oh spare me the rhetoric. The term peacekeeper implies that we'd be there to prevent atrocities by BOTH sides. When...exactly...did the Kurds attack him? Which was mandated by the UN and every time we do fly bys we get shot at. The Iraqi government has access to Anthrax...it is widely hypothesized that the next anthrax attacks will be comprised of strains obtained from those sources. You don't know me nearly well enough to even begin to assume what my morals are and how I would feel about our boys dying. Even so...in your wisdom you have deemed it necessary to paint me as an unfeeling jerk merely because I disagree with you on this. You just left the realm of being wrong and entered the realm of being a presumptuous jerk. Kind of like Mr. Draft Dodger (Clinton) did when he sent our boys to Somalia and Kosovo? Have you even seen the UN resolution that passed last week? We are sending in weapons inspectors and ONLY if Saddam is in violation will force even be considered. If force is used it will be a UN coalition. See above reference to the UN resolution that passed a vote of the full security council 15 to 0. I'm not just sitting here posting stuff about this just from 30 second news clips on CNN (not that you are either). I have educated myself on the Middle East from the news and my wife's relatives who have spent several months on a kibbutz. They came back from there very critical of the Israeli government because of the way the Palestinians are treated. Yet they would have been targets last week, right? Where do you get your information? Do you know anybody who has been there for any period of time?
Originally posted by Refman You can be jerky about this all you'd like, but that doesn't change the fact that the US has done more to try to broker peace over there than anybody. Jerky!?! What progress has been made in 20 years? It's been a failure, flat out. It's time to try something new. Would you prefer the alternative? You haven't really atated what you want...all you've done is express sarcasm and naysaying. Time to offer up solutions if you understand the problem so well. I'd prefer the introduction of UN Peacekeepers until a settlement is reached. If Israel doesn't agree to abide by UN resolutions then we impose economic sanctions until they do. If it's good enough for Iraq then it's good enough for Israel. OK...you have no real argument here so you'll just fall back into the familiar position of lobbing jabs at the President. If you could do such a better job...please run. He did exactly what I said he did and he's still not found bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Al-Zawahiri after all this time. Obviously his failure in capturing these men has forced him to go chameleon and restate the focus of our actions. If my daddy had gotten me into Yale and I could become governor off his name then I might consider running but I'm Puerto Rican and we're not allowed to run for President. My dad could be drafted and sent to the jungles of Vietnam but didn't have the right to vote for his Commander in Chief. Ain't that a b****? lol Oh spare me the rhetoric. The term peacekeeper implies that we'd be there to prevent atrocities by BOTH sides. How are US troops going to be any more effective preventing Palestinian atrocities than the Israelis? We're not. When...exactly...did the Kurds attack him? The CIA obviously meant outside of his borders. You want to fight a war over the Kurds? What happened to the WMD, and the terrorists, and the oil, and the whatever? Now it's the Kurds! We're not going to spend $200billion to free the Kurds. The Iraqi government has access to Anthrax...it is widely hypothesized that the next anthrax attacks will be comprised of strains obtained from those sources. Widely hypothesized by who? Paul Wolfowitz? Terrorists can get Anthrax and other weapons in many countries. Saddam had hell fighting Iran and I'm guessing has little love for Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden. You don't know me nearly well enough to even begin to assume what my morals are and how I would feel about our boys dying. Even so...in your wisdom you have deemed it necessary to paint me as an unfeeling jerk merely because I disagree with you on this. You just left the realm of being wrong and entered the realm of being a presumptuous jerk. I guess you know me well enough to say I'm "warm and fuzzy" with Iraq and that I'm somehow flippant about my country's defense because I don't have to live with the consequences of my views. Pot meet kettle. Kind of like Mr. Draft Dodger (Clinton) did when he sent our boys to Somalia and Kosovo? Yes, except Draft Dodger Bubba never sent 250,000 troops into potential chem and guerrilla warfare to free the Kurds. I have a big problem with Clinton's failure to track down bin Laden after the first WTC bombing so we can finger point but ultimately it's all on Bush's plate now. Bush is on the clock. Have you even seen the UN resolution that passed last week? We are sending in weapons inspectors and ONLY if Saddam is in violation will force even be considered. If force is used it will be a UN coalition. That's fine. He still did not give containment a chance, he just tried to ram things through the UN and kept softening his stance until he got agreement. I'm sure quite a bit of arm twisting was involved but if Russia, Syria, and everyone feels it's important enough to send their own troops to Iraq as part of a UN force then I have less of a problem with that. I'm not just sitting here posting stuff about this just from 30 second news clips on CNN (not that you are either). I have educated myself on the Middle East from the news and my wife's relatives who have spent several months on a kibbutz. They came back from there very critical of the Israeli government because of the way the Palestinians are treated. Yet they would have been targets last week, right? Where do you get your information? Do you know anybody who has been there for any period of time? Nobody who's lived there recently, no. I try to read mostly and whatever tv specials I come across. CSPAN2 has good stuff on the topic sometimes. Bernard Lewis is really informative.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing that something new needs to be tried. I disagree wholeheartedly that the US has accomplished nothing and that what is going on over there is somehow countenanced by Bush or any other politician. I don't necessarily disagree with that either. Now if Israel complies with all UN resolutions and the bombings continue (which most agree is the likely scenario) then what? Would you have said that our war in the 1940s was against Japan and that going to Europe was going chameleon and refocusing that country? It is a war which will need to be faught on many fronts. The simple fact is that we don't know what is being done covertly at this point. We've been going after al-Qaeda enough to have blown up one of their senior leaders last week. Actually...yes. If you can be drafted then you should be able to run for office (President once you turn 35). It is possible that the frequency of the bombings could decrease (but not likely) once peacekeepers are introduced and Israel is forced to comply with all resolutions. Other than that you do what you can with the full backing of the world community. You said that he never used WMD without being provoked. I gave you an example of how that isn't true. The WMD are the crux of the issue...mostly because he has shown a willingness to use them. The inspectors are going in next week. Should they find something the UN Security Council will reconvene and a coalition set up to take him out. I have seen several reports on the TV over the last few months hypothesizing just such a thing. There are only 3 places to obtain such strains. (US, Russia, Iraq) Touche...let's try to kill the sarcasm and keep this civil and stray away from personal attacks. It appears we both have done a poor job of this so far. No...just Somalia (where every warlord in the place viewed us as the enemy) and Kosovo (which was pretty damned dangerous in its own right). Am I disappointed that Bush hasn't found bin Laden yet? Sure...who isn't? But Bush didn't have a foreign government offer us bin Laden on a silver platter TWICE, like Clinton did. That's the way the UN is supposed to work. He got an agreement and part of that agreement is to try sending in inspectors and getting Saddam to disarm his WMD program. Of course he sent a letter to the UN stating that he has no WMD program. Should the inspectors find one drop of weaponized Anthrax sample then it's automatically a violation. It sounds as though Saddam is once again speaking in large bravado and obfuscating the issue. I don't know how many troops everybody would send, but it would be a UN coalition. It's hard to get good information on this over here because everybody is biased. Some outlets favor the Palestinians and others the Israelis. Thank you for the tip about CSPAN2 I'll be sure to check it out.
Depends on where he was born. Naturalized citizens can be drafted, but only people born in the United States can run for president. I wish people would stop calling Clinton a draft dodger on one hand and voting for one on the other. Clinton didn't serve, but he had a legit deferment and it wasn't gained by special privilege. There's been a great lot of evidence that Bush didn't even fulfill the requirements of the cushy National Guard post his dad got for him. In fact, he was probably AWOL for a good portion of his term. Worse though, Max Cleland, a paraplegic vet, was recently defeated by a Republican who didn't serve and who had the gall to accuse Cleland of being unpatriotic. Come on, fellas. You can't have it both ways.
bj, on Clinton , I read in that chickenhawk link someone posted here a few mos. back that Clinton made himself available for the draft in 1968/1969 or something. I think that that is probably untrue, but I bring the subject up just to see if anyone else had come across that information (or if I had just read something completely out of context). But I agree, it's peculiar that the republicans were constantly at Clinton's neck b/c of his putative draft dodging... and then they elect someone who was AWOL during his term in the guard. Mother Mary... and then the nerve to insult the integrity of Cleland. More than anything else in this election, that just hurt... b/c it was so disgusting.
I realize that. The shoulds and the reality do not always meet. Yep..no special privilege...guys from Arkansas end up at Oxford ALL THE TIME. What was I thinking? Post it if it's there. In that era guys were gettingNational Guard assignments for their kids everywhere. BTW...please don't tell me how cushy the Guard was. My Dad signed up with a buddy of his and they were put into the Guard. From his stories it wasn't a piece of cake. It was more demanding than either one of us could handle I'm sure. For the record my father was honorably discharged two months before the unit was sent to Vietnam...real cushy, eh?
Just a useless question, but if a person is born in an American embassy in a foreign country, can he/she be eligible for Presidency? Embassies are considered American soil, so would that work?
Without looking for any caselaw or statutes, I would think that it would work. Outstanding question though.
Just to clear up my part, PR is American soil however it's legally a Commonwealth of the US and citizenship is given by the US Congress and not the US Constitution. I'm guessing people born in embassies and on military bases have the same issue as far as running for President. People who live in PR can't vote for President because the Constitution doesn't guarantee citizens the right to vote for President rather it gives the states the power to elect and since we're only a territory and not special like DC then no voting for President and no representation in Congress either.
Ref, guys from Arkansas don't go to Oxford all the time. Only the ones who do really well in school or have connections through their wealthy families. Clinton's mom was poor and he didn't have a dad. "What were you thinking?" I have no idea. Sounds like you think there's something sinister about a poor kid from Arkansas doing well in school. Maybe the Kremlin set it up for him. Draw your own conclusions as to how he got into Oxford, but don't try and pin connections on Clinton to excuse Bush's. Whatever you might think about the two of them, Bush was connected and Clinton got into Oxford through hard work and good grades. I'm sure you don't need me to post evidence of allegations that Bush was AWOL during his time in the National Guard. Do a google search. This isn't some whacko left wing conspiracy. It was all over the news, on Nightline etc, during the election. Superior officers in his unit acknowledged that there was no record of him reporting for duty and that the consensus was that, for a time at least, he didn't. It was also the virtually undisputed consensus that his dad got him in and he didn't fulfill his duties. I'm not looking to have this argument again, or to drag out old allegations, until someone calls Clinton a draft dodger while supporting Bush. It's just silly. I fully expected the Bush candidacy to be the end of this "draft dodging" bull****. As it was with drug use or cheating on a spouse, I figured when Republicans started running candidates who were equally guilty of avoiding combat, this would be one more issue off the table. Most Republicans don't talk about draft dodging anymore because of Bush. Maybe you didn't get the memo. They both avoided the war. Clinton did so through at least as legitimate means as Bush and he did so without family connections. I'd also love it if you'd agree the Cleland thing was abhorrent. You're usually very even handed in condemning both parties equally for like (mis)behavior. Your hatred of Clinton is so great though it seems to cloud your perception.
I don't know enough about Mr. Cleland to even consider opining regarding his level of patriotism. I find such blanket statements made by a candidate to be distasteful. If Cleland opposes security legislation, then I would expect the opposing candidate to merely state it factually without drawing a wild conclusion. If false conclusions were made by the candidate then I am disappointed and am left shking my head and wondering why such was "necessary." Maybe so. If so then it would be because Bill Clinton is a miserable excuse for a human being. I have family members that worked under Clinton in Arkansas. After hearing what he did while in office there, I can't bring myself to even view Clinton as a human being.
But Refman, you still didn't address this quote.... This doesn't make any sense to me. A friend of mine from Utah was accepted to Oxford last year (he settled on UC Berk. b/c of his woman), do you think that this was some amazing special privilege? Sometimes, people actually bust their asses and get the grades. Or sometimes they go AWOL. Sometimes people are stupid, and think that we live in Camelot, and that we should live up under one bloodline. But poor people can work their way to the top too. I thought that was the ruse you republicans have been pushing this whole time, right? Shouldn't dirt-ass poor people like Clinton be able to go to Oxford or Yale? What are you saying?
Everyone always mentions that if we went to war with the Arabs we would lose the precious oil from the region b/c the Arabs won't sell it to us anymore, but do you guys realize what would happen to them if they couldn't sell their oil to us? Their economies are based entirely on oil production. If they can't sell it to the west though, who the hell is going to buy it? Their economies would instantaneously fall apart. They need us just as much as we need them and they are just as dependent on us as we are on them. Just think about it. This however, does not mean that I am in favor of going to war with Iraq though. I just think people should realize the other side of the coin when its comes to Arab dependency on the west to sell their oil.
So you trot out this old, tired piece of crap. The Republicans are the "party of the rich" right? Wow...how surprising since I've never been rich, am not rich and likely will never be rich. This will be a certainty if the left wing of the Dem party has their way with taxation.
Refman, I never said that disenfranchised people know what's best for them. btw, you still didn't address your allegation that anybody from Arkansas that goes to Oxford is a person of privilege.
