Problems with Bush's campaign media strategy

[Darkefang]

Anyone else disturbed by some of the things the Bush campaign has been doing in their latest media blitz?

First, they may or may not beusing taxpayer money to fund what are essentially Bush campaign ads. The GAO certainly thinks the ads are at least misleading, even if they aren't illegal.

In those ads, they use fake news reporters to extoll the benefits of the new Medicare legislation. A HHS official defended their actions with this somewhat disturbing comment:
Quote:The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Mr. Keane said. "Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools.

Then, they used fake firefighters in commercials reminding voters of 9-11.

I don't know what's going on in the Bush campaign, but stuff like this is going to alienate voters if he isn't careful. I don't know how this is playing with the undecided voters, but the conservatives are starting to get very upset about these tactics. And disillusioned supporters tend not to get out to the voting booths on election day.

[Gnmish Gearbinder]

The New York Times is a useless leftist rag that forces you to register and even then wants you to pay to see articles only a few days old.

And the firefighter thing was even corrected at the bottom of the article -

Quote:Editor's Note: In our initial reporting for this story, we were told by a member of the Bush-Cheney campaign's media team that paid actors had been used to portray firefighters in its first election ads, which drew heavily on images from 9/11. After publication, the official told us that he had been mistaken. The Bush-Cheney campaign also provided NEWSWEEK with documents indicating that the people in the ads were authentic volunteer firefighters, not actors. gnmish.gearbinder.ring.warden.sullon.zek
'Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest... Honestly.'

[EZ_joekreeper1]

Quote:Then, they used fake firefighters in commercials reminding voters of 9-11. and in Return of the Jedi they used FAKE EWOKS!!! /sigh

[Darkefang]

Even if they did use real firefighters in that commercial, plenty of Bush staffers were quick to defend the practice. Besides, one guy from the campaign said they were fake, another said they weren't. There seems to be some confusion one way or the other.

Quote:and in Return of the Jedi they used FAKE EWOKS!!! /sigh

Well sneer if you want, but I'm uncomfortable with this trend. I'd like to think the cynics aren't completely correct in their beliefs that there are no ethics left in politics. These are the kind of stories you read about in Alberto Fujimori's Peru, or in Thaksin Shinwatra's Thailand, not in the US.

[Caowyth]

Umm, they provided Newsweek with documents proving they were real firefighters. I don't think there is any confusion.

[Meddik]

But remember, if you take a Lie and scream it loud enough often enough, some people think its true.

See The whole "Bush was Awol" meme for further references.

[Krimzan]

See the whole Iraq has weapons meme for further references.

[Caowyth]

Krim, do you honestly believe that Iraq didn't have any weapons? Do you think that Saddam had the weapons destroyed while there were no inspectors?

[EZ_skewerzjoo]

we know he had the weapons, because he killed a few hundred thousand kurds with them, and a few hundred thousand Iranians, not to mention the 10's of thousands of upstarts after desert storm....

[EZ_Emmrys]

I think that if you're going to use the argument that Iraq not only possessed WMDs, and also was an immediate threat to the US and the world because of them, then you better damn well find evidence of their existance.

So far the Bush administration has only backpedaled to a stance that Iraq may have had them at one time or another, or at least they were persuing a goal of having them, or maybe they dreamt about having them last Tuesday night, etc.

If the whole WMD issue and Iraq's immediate threat to the world is your justification for invading a country, killing people, both soldiers on both sides and civilians collaterally, you better damn well have something in the end to back up your reasons for invading.

If Bush et al had put forth the fact that Hussein is an evil mother-@#%$ and his regime commits war crimes against his own his own people and his neighbors, and that cleansing that cancer from the world and giving the people freedom and some form of democracy, then great, I can support that. It's based on truth and principles that I can believe in.

HOWEVER, that is not THE justification that was given. That is simply now the backpedaling, "Well yeah we've found no WMDs but..." routine. Edited by: Emmrys at: 3/18/04 11:59 am

[Nocte]

Quote:Iraq may have had them at one time or another, or at least they were persuing a goal of having them,

You do remember the little holocaust that happened under Hussein's regime? The one where he gassed a whole town? The president at the time didn't seem to care to much one way or another.

And I'm not a Republican before that gibberrish starts flying again, just a loather of Hussein.

[Krimzan]

Yeah, he gassed a whole town with weapons WE GAVE HIM. He didn't develop them on his own, and our president didn't care because we were good buddies with Saddam.

Um, and yes...I do honestly believe they didn't have weapons. I'll believe otherwise when I see proof.

[Yalum]

No one is going to argue that he didn't have WMDs ten years ago, the receipts ought to be in the George Bush Presidential Library, but why is that at all relevant now?

[EZ_joekreeper1]

people acted like GW convinced the world that Iraq had WMDs, hell 1/2 the world thought he had WMDs,

like I said before he convinced the world he had a gun in his pocket and might shoot someone with that gun, we asked him to look in his pocket, he said no, we knocked him out and found he had no gun in his pocket.

and Kriz I tend to believe if we find a 10 mile long secret WMD lab in Iraq SOME people will say we put it there to make GW look better.....

"I'm going to torment you until you're translucent!!!"

[Yalum]

Heh, so we're on the blame-the-victim page of the sinking defense attorney's playbook.

In another month, the war will be society's fault.

[EZ_MorrellVZ]

skewerzjoo:
Quote:we know he had the weapons, because he killed a few hundred thousand kurds with them, and a few hundred thousand Iranians, not to mention the 10's of thousands of upstarts after desert storm....

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First off, where are you getting all these numbers from, other than your rear end? Second off, thsoe first two events happened before Desert Storm, when he had those weapons supplied thanks to the U.S. and sanctioned by President HW Bush. Thirdly, the Kurdish gassing was actually Iranian. The Iranian deaths were in a war, both sides used chemical weapons. The suppression of the post-Desert Storm revolution didn't involve any WMD. And besides which, the U.S. is just as much at fault for those deaths, considering we encouraged them saying we'd support a revolution, even having military forces waiting at the border, but then left them to be squashed. Great move on our part. But when we need to invade, we'll use that as an excuse.

Nocte:
Quote:You do remember the little holocaust that happened under Hussein's regime? The one where he gassed a whole town? The president at the time didn't seem to care to much one way or another.

Again, it was Iranian, not Iraqi, gas. But don't worry, you don't have to be Repulbican to be fooled by their propaganda.

joekreeper:
Quote:people acted like GW convinced the world that Iraq had WMDs, hell 1/2 the world thought he had WMDs,

Well, it wouldn't have been an issue if GW hadn't brought it up in the first place. It's not like the threat got that much more imminent. Which it never was in the first place.

Quote:like I said before he convinced the world he had a gun in his pocket and might shoot someone with that gun, we asked him to look in his pocket, he said no, we knocked him out and found he had no gun in his pocket.

Besides the fact that this totally ignores the way diplomacy works (he needed to convince his neighbors of that to prevent their fooling around with his nation), it's a bogus analogy anyway, because you're neglecting the fact that he never said he'd attack anyone, just defend himself. Second off, you don't kill 10,000 innocent civilians just because one man may have a gun but isn't threatening people with it.

[EZ_Ciba]

Due diligence: A standard we should be able to hold our representatives to. Even congressmen. Kerry voted for action in Iraq, and holds just as much responsibility as bush does. He was convinced by the same evidence that convinced those with an (R) after their name.

[Darkefang]

As much as I hate to derail this spectacular derail...

Quote:Umm, they provided Newsweek with documents proving they were real firefighters. I don't think there is any confusion.
Well, if this is the case, then bully for them. That was the least unethical thing I posted about. What about releasing the fake news reports without making it very clear that they were government-produced news packs? And what about the fact that they are using taxpayer money to make "voter education" ads on Medicare, which are borderline partisan?

On the re-run of the Daily Show today, John Stewart joked that they got the ideas from their handbook, and showed a copy of the book "1984." That really seems to be a pretty good comparison. Let's just hope that this stuff was just a huge blunder by an over-eager junior staffer.

[EZ_Aurarier]

Thanks, Hord - I was hoping this wouldnt turn into another token "Safehouse Iraq Policy" board. Not that I didnt enjoy the first 50,000... its just that even when you hear well argued and thought out opinions 5,000 times each it gets redundant.

Campaign strategy ppl, not Iraq. Iraq's been argued to death. The next person to bring it up gets "bonk"ed.

[DarkOmen42]

If you want to post those NYtimes stories, then post them, instead of this link crap so that you have to register. Hara

[Darkefang]

Sorry about that. I have all these subscriptions through work, and didn't realize you had be subscribed to get the links to work.

First story - Quote:A Watchdog Sees Flaws In Bush's Ads On Medicare
Robert Pear. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 11, 2004. pg. A.26
The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that advertisements and brochures prepared by the Bush administration to publicize a new Medicare law, although not illegal, misrepresented the prescription drug benefits that would be offered to millions of elderly and disabled people.

The fliers and advertisements do not violate restrictions on the use of federal money for ''publicity or propaganda purposes,'' but they are flawed by ''omissions and other weaknesses,'' said the legal opinion by Anthony H. Gamboa, general counsel of the accounting office.

For example, Mr. Gamboa said, the administration did not point out that beneficiaries might be charged up to $30 for drug discount cards that become available in June. Likewise, he said, the administration incorrectly suggested that the law set a premium of $35 a month for drug coverage, beginning in 2006. That amount, he said, is only an estimate and ignores the penalties that could be imposed on people who delay enrolling.

The administration plans to spend more than $22 million on the advertisements and brochures, which publicize drug benefits, new coverage for preventive health services and new insurance options. Medicare officials said the advertisements and fliers were a way to educate beneficiaries, as the law requires.

Democrats said the advertisements were campaign commercials for President Bush, who has taken credit for delivering drug benefits long promised by lawmakers of both parties.

The accounting office said the multimedia campaign did ''not violate the prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda, because the Department of Health and Human Services has explicit authority to inform Medicare beneficiaries'' about the changes. Moreover, it said, the materials ''are not so purely partisan as to be unlawful, in light of our prior decisions and opinions.''

The flier is being sent to all 41 million Medicare beneficiaries. The administration has already revised parts of the leaflet that the Democrats have criticized. For example, it has deleted a section on tax-free savings accounts that can be used to pay medical expenses.

An earlier version of the flier told beneficiaries, ''If you are happy with the Medicare coverage you have, you can keep it exactly the same.'' The last three words of that sentence have been deleted. Democrats had complained that some beneficiaries would have to pay more for existing coverage and might be forced into managed care plans.

Since its creation more than 80 years ago, the accounting office has issued thousands of authoritative decisions on the legality of federal spending. Nine Congressional Democrats, led by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, asked it to review the advertisements.

Mr. Lautenberg welcomed the report as confirmation of his view that the materials were misleading.

''The G.A.O. agreed with us that the administration sugarcoats the drug discount cards and overstates the benefits of the prescription drug plan,'' he said.

Mr. Kennedy said the report confirmed that money from the Medicare trust fund was being used for advertisements full of errors and omissions.

''The more senior citizens learn about the bill,'' he said, ''the less they like it.''

But the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said the report showed the administration was ''following the spirit and letter of the law.''

Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, said, ''We are encouraged that the G.A.O. has affirmed our efforts to educate seniors.''

He promised to continue providing ''fact-based information.''

In a letter to all beneficiaries, Mr. Thompson says that the new law made ''some of the most significant improvements to the program since its inception in 1965.'' The flier gives credit to Mr. Bush and Congress. The accounting office said that statement was acceptable because it simply described ''the constitutional process for enacting legislation.''

The advertising theme is ''same Medicare, more benefits,'' and the flier says the new law ''preserves and strengthens'' Medicare.

Although those messages are political and may look like an effort to persuade the public, they are not ''purely partisan'' and therefore do not violate the ban on propaganda, the accounting office said.

But the office said the new law, rather than preserving and strengthening Medicare, might increase its long-term financial problems.


Second story - Quote:.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: March 15, 2004


ASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

Advertisement


The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.

The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it had hired her to read a script prepared by the government.

Another video, intended for Hispanic audiences, shows a Bush administration official being interviewed in Spanish by a man who identifies himself as a reporter named Alberto Garcia.

Another segment shows a pharmacist talking to an elderly customer. The pharmacist says the new law "helps you better afford your medications," and the customer says, "It sounds like a good idea." Indeed, the pharmacist says, "A very good idea."

The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."

In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."

The "reporter" then explains the benefits of the new law.

Lawyers from the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, discovered the materials last month when they were looking into the use of federal money to pay for certain fliers and advertisements that publicize the Medicare law.

In a report to Congress last week, the lawyers said those fliers and advertisements were legal, despite "notable omissions and other weaknesses." Administration officials said the television news segments were also a legal, effective way to educate beneficiaries.

Gary L. Kepplinger, deputy general counsel of the accounting office, said, "We are actively considering some follow-up work related to the materials we received from the Department of Health and Human Services."

One question is whether the government might mislead viewers by concealing the source of the Medicare videos, which have been broadcast by stations in Oklahoma, Louisiana and other states.

Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government or its contractors without identifying the source.

Kevin W. Keane, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said there was nothing nefarious about the television materials, which he said had been distributed to stations nationwide. Under federal law, he said, the government is required to inform beneficiaries about changes in Medicare.

"The use of video news releases is a common, routine practice in government and the private sector," Mr. Keane said. "Anyone who has questions about this practice needs to do some research on modern public information tools."

But Democrats disagreed. "These materials are even more disturbing than the Medicare flier and advertisements," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey. "The distribution of these videos is a covert attempt to manipulate the press."

Mr. Lautenberg, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and seven other members of Congress requested the original review by the accounting office.

In the videos and advertisements, the government urges beneficiaries to call a toll-free telephone number, 1-800-MEDICARE. People who call that number can obtain recorded information about prescription drug benefits if they recite the words "Medicare improvement."

Documents from the Medicare agency show why the administration is eager to advertise the benefits of the new law, on radio and television, in newspapers and on the Internet.

Advertisement


"Our consumer research has shown that beneficiaries are confused about the Medicare Modernization Act and uncertain about what it means for them," says one document from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Other documents suggest the scope of the publicity campaign: $12.6 million for advertising this winter, $18.5 million to publicize drug discount cards this spring, about $18.5 million this summer, $30 million for a year of beneficiary education starting this fall and $44 million starting in the fall of 2005.

"Video news releases" have been used for more than a decade. Pharmaceutical companies have done particularly well with them, producing news-style health features about the afflictions their drugs are meant to cure.

The videos became more prominent in the late 1980's, as more and more television stations cut news-gathering budgets and were glad to have packaged news bits to call their own, even if they were prepared by corporations seeking to sell products.

As such, the videos have drawn criticism from some news media ethicists, who consider them to be at odds with journalism's mission to verify independently the claims of corporations and governments.

Government agencies have also produced such videos for years, often on subjects like teenage smoking and the dangers of using steroids. But the Medicare materials wander into more controversial territory.

Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, expressed disbelief that any television stations would present the Medicare videos as real news segments, considering the current debate about the merits of the new law.

"Those to me are just the next thing to fraud," Mr. Kovach said. "It's running a paid advertisement in the heart of a news program."


Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article. Hodur Wisepaw - Oracle

Darkefang - Deceiver


Cazic Thule

[shehab aldean]

saddam didn't do anything !!

iran gassed the kurds , iran gassed the irany soliders by mistake , he didn't have gas

and iraq never devolep anything , hell he didn't have hand guns in iraq , all this weapons you are see'ing in iraq nowdays are propoganda from the american scums !

kuwait invaded iraq !

iraq doesn't even have death penalty !

poor poor saddam

[Lilum]

The commercial from Bush I hate the most is the one where, he claims that tossing parts of the patriot act will lead to more terrorist acts. Forget how the patriot act has shredded what this country really stands for.

[EZ_joekreeper1]

YEAH!!! what Shehab said!

kuwait GAVE their country to Iraq then kuwait shot scuds at Tel Aviv!!

"I'm going to torment you until you're translucent!!!"

[Aidden]

Shehab you are an enigma wrapaed inside of a riddle.. You are both Yin and Yang.
You sooth the soul , and rattle the brain..

[Nocte]

You realy are a gem at the Safehouse Shehab. Never leave us.

[Meddik]

Quote:The commercial from Bush I hate the most is the one where, he claims that tossing parts of the patriot act will lead to more terrorist acts. Forget how the patriot act has shredded what this country really stands for.

Ok Lilum, you want to have some criticism of the Patriot act, thats fine. You could discuss how a the laws surrounding a particular part of it worked pre-patriot act, and then show how the act has changed it, and why you feel that that change was bad, and needs to be undone. Thats an intelligent discussion that one could deal with.

Instead, we get third rate hysterics about how it has "Shredded what this country really stands for." Woe is me, {insert wailing and gnashing of teeth here.}

And they say Shatner was bad about overacting.

[EZ_Emmrys]

Meddik!
You MUST...be....KIDDING!

[Aidden]

No, I have to agree with him, Shatner is pretty well known for overacting..

You dont think so?

[EZ_Ciba]

I love it when people who think Lincoln was a great president bash bush over the patriot act.

[Nocte]

Hey didn't Captain Kirk meet Lincoln in one of the original Star Trek episodes? It was a pretty symbolic peice if I recall correctly.

[Meddik]

Is that the one where we found out his beard was actually a large number of tribbles clinging to his face?

[EZ_Emmrys]

Aidden!
TELL me...did you...MISS...my humor MAN!

[edit: added more periods for added dramatic effect.] Edited by: Emmrys at: 3/19/04 9:52 am

[Nocte]

For what it's worth Emmrys, I did get after the second time I came back.

[EZ_Aurarier]

Took me three reads to get it, but then again, I'm a product of TN schools. We don't read good in TN.

Pointlessly continuing the shatner train:
KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!

(Shehab, I'd bonk you for bringing up the Iraq/Kuwait thing, but I love you way too much.)

[EZ_skewerzjoo]

yeah..Kirk met Lincoln, but then again Happy Gilmore did, too....

[Marbh]

Actually I have long despised the glossing over of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus. Read up on the prison ships and death rates associated with them.

And Shatner wasn't that bad in Miss Congeniality, though he was supposed to be schlocky.

[Lisboa]

how about Section 411 of the PATRIOT Act, which was found unconstituional by a lower court judge this year?

Section 411 bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated as foreign terrorist organizations.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4065424/

The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.

The Humanitarian Law Project, a human rights advocacy group based in Los Angeles that brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds’ campaign for self-determination in Turkey.

The judge’s ruling said the law, which was enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, did not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.

“The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature,” the judge said.

[Aidden]

Quote:Aidden!
TELL me...did you...MISS...my humor MAN!

Did you miss mine?

[EZ_Emmrys]

yes.

[shehab aldean]

[EZ_MorrellVZ]

Quote:iran gassed the kurds , iran gassed the irany soliders by mistake , he didn't have gas

(rest of Shehab's message)

Quote:kuwait GAVE their country to Iraq then kuwait shot scuds at Tel Aviv!!

Alas, when the opposition provides proper evidence, it's best to launch into hysterics and create many a ********.

Let's not forget that Kuwait was only an independent state because Britain said so. Let's not forget that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraqi oil supplies and its economy leading up to the invasion. Let's not forget that many of the claims of Iraqi brutality were simply made up. Let's not forget that the US said they didn't care either way in the conflict and that if Iraq invaded Kuwait they would do nothing.

No, no, Kuwait and the US were not the innocent sheep attacked by a random wolf. Not at all.

Was Saddam a bad man? Yes. Was he led into some of his exploits by foreign influences? Yes. Was he worth killing 10,000 more civilians and igniting the world? No.

[shehab aldean]

Quote:Let's not forget (rest of lets not forget crap )

okay want a point by point answer here it come

Quote:Kuwait was only an independent state because Britain said so

OMG its not like all the freaking borders in arabic were planed by the britis , hell the first monarchy in iraq was installed by them also , sudan , qatar , bahrain , UAE , saudi , iraq , sryia , lebanon , israel , jordan , egypt , oman , and yemen were all made countries beacse of of britian , read world history

Quote:Though internally Kuwait was enjoying peace and prosperity, there were forces outside that caused great concern to the rulers. Pirates ranged freely along the Arabian coast. The Persians had taken Basra to the north. The Ottomans threatened from the northeast, and various Arab tribes from the west and south.


The British dominated trade in the area by that time, and the Kuwaitis saw that they were thus their natural allies. As early as the 1770s, Amir Abdullah I contracted with Britain to deliver mail between the Gulf and Aleppo in Syria. By the end of the century, Kuwait handled virtually all trade in the Gulf, including trans-shipments to India, and was the keystone of the overland route to the Mediterranean.


Prosperous commerce continued throughout the 1800s. In 1841, the British attaché reported that Kuwait was a free port, carrying on extensive import and trans-shipment business in textiles, rice, coffee, sugar, wheat, tobacco, fruits, spices, teak, and mangrove. Ships plied routes throughout the Gulf, as well as east to India and west to Africa. There were also many caravan links to the interior of Arabia.



www.1website.com/c_t1_ind..._t1_2.html

Quote:Let's not forget that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraqi oil supplies and its economy leading up to the invasion

made up statment by iraq , nothing to back it up , we can't produce over 2 milion barriel , we can't flood the market with extra 500 k barriel per day

Quote:Let's not forget that many of the claims of Iraqi brutality were simply made up

made up ? i'm sure you are going to post that crap story that the daughter of the kuwait empasador talked to congress and she lied , she didn't lie , she was a better speaker and you know how hard was it to bring someone who wittness it and talk english ??

www.kuwait.com.ar/agres100.htm

( sorry kuwait embasy site in argentina , didn't have time to search for other )

Quote:Let's not forget that the US said they didn't care either way in the conflict and that if Iraq invaded Kuwait they would do nothing.

never heard that , were did you make that up ?


don't let you hate for some party blind you of the truth , it did happen , and we didn't provoke it , and we are still suffering till today for it

[DarkOmen42]

Quote:Let's not forget that the US said they didn't care either way in the conflict and that if Iraq invaded Kuwait they would do nothing.

Haha there's a rumor I've had democrats I know try and use. Hara

[Meddik]

Quote:Let's not forget that Kuwait was only an independent state because Britain said so. Let's not forget that Kuwait was sabotaging Iraqi oil supplies and its economy leading up to the invasion. Let's not forget that many of the claims of Iraqi brutality were simply made up. Let's not forget that the US said they didn't care either way in the conflict and that if Iraq invaded Kuwait they would do nothing.

No, no, Kuwait and the US were not the innocent sheep attacked by a random wolf. Not at all.

Morrel, At a rape trial, would you be the person saying "Look how she's dressed, she was askin' for it!"?

[Yalum]

Are you suggesting the aggressor is always the one in the wrong, Meddik?

[EZ_Cirrion]

Wow, how much did I drink last night?

My deepest apologies for this post. I in no way meant what I said. Again. I apologize to anyone I may have offended with this post.


Edited by: Cirrion at: 3/21/04 12:27 pm

[DarkOmen42]

Quote:Actually, I have yet to see a good argument as to why Kuwait deserved to be bailed out be the Americans.

Uh, maybe cause they were invaded? Hara

[shehab aldean]

Quote:Actually, I have yet to see a good argument as to why Kuwait deserved to be bailed out be the Americans

we are a country and we are humans ?
we don't want saddam maybe ?

Quote:They got Iraq to fight a war for them, then bitched when they had to pay for it

is there someone who is making up history ? look , we didn't get iraq to fight iran , he went to fight iran himself , claiming that the algeres treaty is invalid and he want his land back , he attack , got the @#%$ kicked out of him first few rounds , started shouting that the ayatollah are going to get the oil , america got scared , gulf emarate got scared , they all chimed in to help him
8 years later , they reached a cease fire , then at 1990 he returned iran land so he can count on them as allys Vs UN

and whats this @#%$ about pay for it ? we did pay for it , kuwait is the biggest country to loss in all the gulf wars
we lost a lot in iraq / iran war , we had to raise the USA / USSR flags on our oil ship so they can pass , we got hit with rockets , terroiest opration , airplane kidnapping , hell even the amir was attacked with a explosie car
we paid the price , and it was low

our econemy is still trying to recover , pre the war our econemy was better than UAE , now dubai alone have more invesment that kuwait

Quote:Any country that gets another to fight a proxy war for them then bails when it comes time to pay for it deserves to get invaded

what kind of idiotic logic is this ?
pure ignorant

[EZ_Cirrion]

Iraw fought a bloody war for Kuwait and S.A. You have to admit that they owe them something for it.

Edited by: Cirrion at: 3/21/04 1:36 am

[shehab aldean]

Quote:Iraw fought a bloody war for Kuwait and S.A. You have to admit that they owe them something for it.

he fought it for him self not for us

[Krimzan]

Try that when they come and take your car if you stop paying the bank. It works well.

[shehab aldean]

Quote:Try that when they come and take your car if you stop paying the bank. It works well.


is this anolgy about kuwait and iraq ? i hope not , i expect a better understanding from someone who passed high school

[Llabak Tharr]

Take it down a notch Shehab. You know better.

[EZ_MorrellVZ]

Quote:OMG its not like all the freaking borders in arabic were planed by the britis , hell the first monarchy in iraq was installed by them also , sudan , qatar , bahrain , UAE , saudi , iraq , sryia , lebanon , israel , jordan , egypt , oman , and yemen were all made countries beacse of of britian , read world history

Okay, you've somewhat a point. First, Kuwait was considered by Iraq an autonomous province until World War I, when both came under British control. Then, Britain established Kuwait as independent. It's not quite clear whether Kuwait was independent prior to that or not. But it's still defintely a legitimate concern, because it's a good thing to analyze why these conflicts exist in the first place. Some would like to remain ignorant and not do this, but Shehab, I'm sure you've got some concern about it too. I probably did stretch that claim a bit though.

Quote:made up statment by iraq , nothing to back it up , we can't produce over 2 milion barriel , we can't flood the market with extra 500 k barriel per day

It's not made up at all:

Quote:Following the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, Iraq was extremely indebted to several Arab countries, including a $14 billion debt to Kuwait (Hiro, 1992). Iraq hoped to repay its debts by raising the price of oil through OPEC oil production cuts, but instead, Kuwait increased production, lowering prices, in an attempt to leverage a better resolution of their border dispute. In addition, Iraq charged that Kuwait had taken advantage of the Iran-Iraq War to drill for oil and build military outposts on Iraqi soil near Kuwait. Furthermore, Iraq charged that it had performed a collective service for all Arabs by acting as a buffer against Iran and that therefore Kuwait and Saudi Arabia should negotiate or cancel Iraq's war debts.

Indeed, Kuwait did ramp up production. In fact, oil prices at that time got as low as $11 a barrel, not enough for Iraq to even pay for the production, let alone get a profit so as to repay its debts. I don't blame them for being a little upset when their economy is being destroyed by their neighboring state that they had just got done defending, even though they'd been a thorn in their side anyway.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

Quote:made up ? i'm sure you are going to post that crap story that the daughter of the kuwait empasador talked to congress and she lied , she didn't lie , she was a better speaker and you know how hard was it to bring someone who wittness it and talk english ??

Wait, how could she witness it when she'd been in DC the entire time? How come there were never any of the pictures that supposedly existed? Why did Amnesty International later retract the same claim? Why did she refused to answer any questions about it afterwards? BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Yes, Iraqi soldiers, just like most soldiers, are brutal when they're fighting a guerilla force in foreign lands. But this story, the story that pretty much was the propaganda winner for the American people, is false. That we should believe the daughter of an ambassador from a country that wanted us to invade that an event happened that she didn't witness with no evidence to back her up is a stupid idea. Oh, and do you read Spanish? I don't.

Quote:never heard that , were did you make that up ?
Quote:Haha there's a rumor I've had democrats I know try and use.

'Twasn't made up:
Quote:In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq amassed troops on Kuwait's borders and summoned American ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. In that meeting, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. Although Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, some people perceived her answers as giving tacit approval for an invasion, by saying that the US "[has] no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait" (from the Iraqi transcript of the meeting, as published in Sifry). To emphasize this point, she also said at the meeting, "James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction." Although ambassador Glaspie shortly after left the foreign service, US sources say that she had handled everything "by the book" and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League's Jeddah crisis squad which conducted the negotiations. However, Saddam's expectations may have been preoccupied by the perception that the US just at this time was approving the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border.

Indeed, Iraq believed, with good reason, that Kuwait had been maliciously sabotaging them, based on this memo:
Quote:Subsequent to the invasion the Iraqis claimed to have found a memorandum pertaining to a conversation between CIA director William Webster and the Kuwaiti head of security, which read in part:
"We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country's government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us on condition that such activities be coordinated at a high level."
Though the CIA dismissed the document as a fabrication, there are other indications that the document was real. For example, when confronted by the Iraqi foreign minister with the document at an Arab summit in 1990, the Kuwaiti foreign minister was startled enough that he fainted. (Ibid)


Meddik:Quote:Morrel, At a rape trial, would you be the person saying "Look how she's dressed, she was askin' for it!"?

Haha, nice little pulling at the heart strings analogy. But alas, this is much more a murder trial in which the murder was not cold-blooded. Rape trials don't normally fit into international relations, but I can't expect you to know that. Instead, it's more like Iraq and Kuwait had been aggressing each other for a while and it just built up to war.

[Darkefang]

Is it that much to ask to have a discussion in one thread without mentioning Iraq? You guys do a helleuva job derailing topics.

[shehab aldean]

Quote:Wait, how could she witness it when she'd been in DC the entire time?

she told the congress what the witness said , as i said ( which i'm sure u didn't read )

she was a better speaker and you know how hard was it to bring someone who wittness it and talk english


Quote:How come there were never any of the pictures that supposedly existed?

there isn't much pictures because possion of a camara or a photo copy machaine or a fax or a satalite phone was declared a crime punshable by death by the iraqi army
my father friend was shot in front of his house for having a fax and a camera in his house

Quote:Oh, and do you read Spanish? I don't.

again IDRWSP* syndrome
( sorry kuwait embasy site in argentina , didn't have time to search for other )

members.tripod.com/~kuwai...ures2.html

oh and let me remind you that iraq in the first days said
said it was supporting a "popular revolution" in Kuwait

Quote:Baghdad had justified their invasion of Kuwait - a monarchy with only an extremely limited parliamentary franchise - in terms of supporting a popular revolution in the country.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world...856009.stm


and then dumped that when they couldn't find any kuwaiti to co-oprate with them

he wanted to do it , and was welling to make up reasons for it

[EZ_Aurarier]

bah, I leave you people alone for 2 days so I can work on a paper.

Step forward for your /bonks!

[EZ_MorrellVZ]

Quote:she told the congress what the witness said , as i said ( which i'm sure u didn't read )

she was a better speaker and you know how hard was it to bring someone who wittness it and talk english


I did read what you said, but misunderstood. Even then, there's still no evidence that it actually happened other than some "witness" who was never identified. It's a made up story from the Kuwaiti regime in order to tug on America's heart strings. Just like if I said "well I heard from someone in Haiti that US Marines were killing civilians so it must be true because it's what I heard" when there's no corrobating evidence. And I know she was a better speaker, she was trained by her father to cry for the cameras. Propaganda ain't good if there's no crying.

Quote:there isn't much pictures because possion of a camara or a photo copy machaine or a fax or a satalite phone was declared a crime punshable by death by the iraqi army

Yes, but, a part of the claim was that there were "pictures" of these Kuwaiti babies dying, etc. This isn't much of a defense of the propaganda ploy.

Quote:again IDRWSP* syndrome

Sorry, I did read your post. You didn't provide any evidence that it happened. You didn't even bother translating it, you just gave me a website in Spanish. Did you answer my question? No. Do you know what it said? If you do, please, translate. If you don't, then don't try and claim it as evidence of something. And still, you're providing a website of the Kuwaiti government. You think I should 100 % trust them when a major part of their agenda was tricking the U.S. into removing Iraq when their military couldn't do it?

Quote:members.tripod.com/~kuwai...ures2.html

Care to elaborate what this website is supposed to address? All I see are war scenes, which could've easily been caused by American bombing. Or, for that matter, Russian, Chinese, Kuwaiti, Egyptian, Isreali, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, South African, Ugandan, etc. (And preemptively responding if you say these pictures were taken during the occupation, I thought cameras were illegal by death at this time?). So there was a war, and there was some bombing. I don't see how that's any different than the US invasion of Iraq that I remember you being a proponent of.

Quote:oh and let me remind you that iraq in the first days said said it was supporting a "popular revolution" in Kuwait

Your point? Of course Iraq used propaganda, so did Kuwait, so did the U.S. Propaganda is a part of every war, every nation, every agenda. The trick is seeing propaganda on both sides. But please, just because I'm saying Kuwait wasn't the perfect angel you make it out to be doesn't mean I'm an Iraqi sympathizer. I hated Saddam's regime too, but for different reasons.

[Meddik]

Its funny how opponents of the war with Iraq constantly harp on 1 single story of Saddam's tyrannical regime as being untrue, While ignoring the other umpteen thousand instances.

Since they can dispute that one single event, then its all just a sham. Lets just ignore the 300,000 in mass graves, the torture of children to gain confessions from their parents, The people fed feet first into industrial plastic shredders, the rape rooms, the use of electrical current applied to the genitals as a torture device, etc. etc. Lets ignore the forest, because of that one tree.

[EZ_Emmrys]

While we're backpedaling on the US's given reasons for invading Iraq by justifying the war in Iraq through pointing out Hussein's horrendous human-rights and war-crimes record, let's also ignore the many other countries in the world, especially in Africa who have been being ravaged by similar or worse for years...

[Marbh]

All those things you mention Meddik have been done, are being done, and will be done by countries we support and trade with. A bit of a double standard on our part eh?

[Meddik]

And How many of thsoe countries ALSO funded International terrorism, AND Violated ceasefire Agreements regarding disarmament and inspections, and spent a decade firing missiles at US planes, AND violated a dozen UNSC resolutions over the past decade, AND have a record of WMD usage against dissidents, AND are strategically placed to influence a region of other coutnries that Have been heavily involved in terrorist Activities.

[Marbh]

Piling on after your orignal point gets refuted eh?

So are you saying that it's ok to do all those things that you originally said were bad as long as you don't also do this?

And if you want to put out a laundry list that is custom tailored to Iraq, how will you rationalize our next intervention if the government there doesn't fit this bill?

Your a sensationalist Meddik, used to bulldozing over the casual opponent with factoids you can quickly point to and scream from the bully pullpit. I ain't buying what your selling.

[Meddik]

All my original point was doing is pointing out the stupidity of harping on one tiny little issue regarding one woman's statement, when there is ample evidence of numerous other human rights violations by Iraq.

Also, the whole mindset "Unless we can fix all the world's ills at once, we should be paralyzed into inaction" meme isn't that bright a concept either.

[EZ_Emmrys]

Inaction != fixing our own problems (hi healthcare, hi poverty, hi dependence on foreign power resources, hi etc!).

I'm not promoting isolationist and ignoring the ills of the world, but jeez, if we're going to play on the global scale, we ought to be straight with the world on why we choose one theater over another in which to flex our muscles.

But hey, I guess if firing hundreds of multi-million dollar missiles into Iraq will protect the oil supply that we shouldn't even be so dependent upon in the first place (thanks corporate-political influence!), then I'm cool with it.

[Marbh]

Agreed, if your going to use military force to advance your national strategic goals, dont try to wrap yourself in the warm fuzzy blanket of human rights. If Bush had been motivated by human rights violations we would be duking it out with the North Koreans right now. If human rights and political violations were so important we wouldn't be basing out of the 'Stan republics, working so much with Pakistan, or be exporting suspects to Egypt and Syria for interrogation.

[Meddik]

Why do I get the feeling that if Bush DID go after North Korea, the same chorus of voices would be sayign "Hey, What about Iraq? Why not them first?"

Anything to criticize Bush.

[EZ_Emmrys]

I'm not sure I know anyone who would argue that NK is more of an immediate threat to not only the US, but the world than Iraq was. NK has been nothing but reckless and irresponsible over the past few years.

Granted, that war would cost the US and allies a LOT more lives. That's actually a whole different ball of wax I'd say.

[EZ_Cortadillo]

When in doubt, make a baseless assumption! Yay!

[Marbh]

North Korea would be something that would need to be planned a lot more, and we would have to have the promise from China to stay out of it. It would also take a hell of a lot more resources and cause a lot more casulaties. But if a measure to intervene passed in the U.N., I'd support it.

[Jhani Vandolay]

"Anything to criticize Bush."

Encapsulating the entire debate about all of these topics into that singular reason has got to be one of the funniest conspiracy theories proposed on the board. Yeah, no one comes up with any of these ideas or opinions or gets involved at all except for the singular reason to attack Bush. Everyone who's ever suggested they disagree with anything on principle alone, you're outed!

[Meddik]

Quote:But if a measure to intervene passed in the U.N., I'd support it.

Damn, that just says it all.

Yes, I think that this is a risky, but important goal, that if successful could lead to greater security nor only for my country, but the entire world.

But I'm only for it if I can get permission from the French (And other UNSC veto powers).

My god man, have some balls! Trojan Horseshoes
Need Help coming up with arguments against mine?

[Darkefang]

People are just making a rational choice about the opportunity costs of various actions. For some people, the possibility of pissing other nations off outweighs the possible benefits of taking that particular action. For others, the action's benefits outweigh the consequences.

And might I point out that we're still horribly derailed? I'm really disappointed that all the anti-Bushites on here haven't latched onto the original topic as something new to bash Bush on. It looks like this campaign is going to be testing the legality of many political fund-raising and spending type issues, and people just keep harping on the Iraq thing, which has been discussed a thousand times here.

[EZ_PandaJoe]

Quote:Encapsulating the entire debate about all of these topics into that singular reason has got to be one of the funniest conspiracy theories proposed on the board.

I think Meddik just topped himself. If you want to get international support, you're just a panzy!

[Marbh]

Well since our original force in Korea was a international UN force, I would suggest the same. We would have to get a UN resolution to have the best chance. By getting a UN resolution the Russians and Chinese would be agreeing to stay out of the fight.
Does this mean I think we need UN approval for everything we do? No. Does it mean I think it would be the best and most strategically sound thing to do in this case? Yes.
And my balls are quite present and intact, but I thank you for your interest.

So much for my self pledge to not get involved in a pissing contest with Meddik, c'est la vive.

[Krimzan]

Quote:
My god man, have some balls!

See, here, this is the fundamental problem with your point of view. From your point of view, might makes right. We are the biggest and baddest, and our ideas are the best and if we want to do something, and we can do something, than by golly we should do something. The issue is, the US is one country out of many. We have a very small portion of the worlds population. We are, however, very dependant on other nations to provide us with slave labor, raw materials and good beer. So we exist as part of the world, but want to act like we can do whatever we want. This system will only work for a while. The EU is now a formitable economic force and they have already used that to effect some of Bush's tarrifs and such.

More specifically, not only do we not exist outside of the world, the country where we are taking action does also not exist outside the world. To put it in simple terms, our actions effect many more just us and them. It effects the world at large, and if it effects the world at large, than the world at large should have some kind of say in it. For the most part, though, conservatives don't give a rats ass about anyone else or the world at large. Some where it does strike home would be your wallets. We are $500 billion in the hole for this year. Where does the money come from? Don't care? Well the dollar is rapidly losing ground in the European and Asian currency markets. That isn't good. Know why? Wow it's because we have a @#%$ huge debt, and we just keep digging. We're down (I think it's this, I read the article in passing) 18 million barrels of oil that we thought we'd have. Regular gas is getting close to $2 a gallon. Think the fact that we pissed off OPEC has anything to do with it? Our school systems suck, the "no child left behind" retoric was all a bunch of crap. So what we have is under-educated people entering the work force. They produce sub-standard quality work, require more training, and that all costs the company...more money. More money means higher costs for the consumer, because the employees don't want to get paid less...things keep costing more. Companies don't want to eat this cost. They can get stupid people to proudce sub-par quality goods and services for cheap...tada outsourcing.

So, to sum it up. We went to war with Iraq. It cost us a @#%$ of money. It's still costing us a @#%$ of money. Since we "got some balls" and went ourselves, nobody else is really helping pay for this at all. We don't have enough troops, and we (obviously) don't have enough money since we're $500 billion in the hole. Because of the way we went about things, the whole "getting balls", it's still viewed as a occupation instead of a liberation, and we have security issues out the ass. We can't keep UN officials there to help us, after we went back and begged for aid, because they keep getting blown up. We never found any al'Quaeda ties with Saddam (He and Osama never liked eachother anyway) and the world, in general, is no safer of a place than it was a year ago.

[EZ_Emmrys]

Hodurbear:

Yes, I have major problems with the use of that manufactured ad as news. I'm not sure whether to blame Bush or the lazy-stupid news-media outlets though.

I've heard that this type of thing is not new, that pres'es have been using this kind of thing for years.

On Fark in the comments about this article there was a lot of talk about it, and one guy works for the govt producing these things. He has been doing so for years now.

He said that the thing that the Bush campaign did that was stupid was that they used this "news" spot in its entirety, whereas general and intelligent practice has been that you use a snippet every now and again.

As to whether it's common practice to hire actors as news anchors for these things? I don't know. I think it reaks and I don't care who does it, Bush, Clinton, or the Pope.

I figure that the Bush admin knows that they are in trouble, and hence the early escalation of campaign propaganda. That kind of misleading "news" appears to me another desperate measure, but then I'm extremely biased against this administration. I truly believe that the historical record will not smile upon this administration. I'm not presenting that as fact, but as my opinion.

[Meddik]

Quote:If you want to get international support, you're just a panzy!

International support? No problem.

But predicating your support for action on near-unanimous universal approval? Well, like Is aid, have some Balls. Anythign you do is going to be disliked by somebody. If somethign needs to be done, Then it needs to be done, regardless of whether or not one or two countries bitch and moan about it.

Don't say "I'll support it, but only if the french do!"

Quote:Because of the way we went about things, the whole "getting balls", it's still viewed as a occupation instead of a liberation, and we have security issues out the ass.

Viewed as an occupation by some europeans perhaps, but by and large, the Iraqis directly involved view it as a liberation.

And how would UN involvement help wih security issues? Hell, one bomb, and they decide to cut and run.

Oh, and Regardless of direct Al-Qaeda ties, Iraq has numerous documented ties to many other Terorrist groups. This isn't a war against Al Qaeda, It is a war against all International terrorist groups, and the countries which support them.

[EZ_Emmrys]

So when are we invading Saudi Arabia?
And dammit Hodur, I tried! Edited by: Emmrys at: 3/24/04 11:59 am

[EZ_PandaJoe]

Quote:Don't say "I'll support it, but only if the french do!"

Which no one has said, except maybe in your imagination. Please try to pay attention to what people actually say. MARBH actually gave a good reason, you just ignored it to make an attempted snappy comeback.

And please get over your obsession with the French.

[Krimzan]

^ What he said.

[Darkefang]

Quote:Yes, I have major problems with the use of that manufactured ad as news. I'm not sure whether to blame Bush or the lazy-stupid news-media outlets though.
Its a problem with both, really. Bush's people obviously shouldn't be creating campaign ads in a false news-story format. And let's hope the news media finally wakes up and begins to worry about accuracy again. Too many journalists are getting information from one source nowadays and calling it a story. As consumers of news, we have to demand that accuracy is rewarded over speed in delivering the news.

Quote:On Fark in the comments about this article there was a lot of talk about it, and one guy works for the govt producing these things. He has been doing so for years now.
If this is true, then it needs to be outed now. People in general have enough trouble believing what their elected officials say, without issues like this further clouding our ability to make decisions. This is as good a time as any to find out what else we've been misled on, and by whom.

Quote:I figure that the Bush admin knows that they are in trouble, and hence the early escalation of campaign propaganda.
I'd be very surprised if Bush's numbers are showing him in trouble. Kerry's not a particular good candidate and has a lot of problems coming out of the gate. I suspect the Bush campaign has gotten a little too anxious, and is in danger of damaging Bush's chances on re-election if they continue their current behavior.

One thing I can tell you is that the fiscal conservative wing of the Republican party is not happy with Bush, but we see nothing from Kerry to sway us in that direction. However, many fiscal conservatives that argued for Bush four years ago are feeling fairly betrayed. Bush's economic and fiscal policies have meandered all over the place, and is definitely the weak spot in his presidency. If they are convinced that both candidates are equally bad from an economic standpoint, and that the election is a referendum on social policy and international relations, then we could very well see a split in the fiscal conservative vote in November. Whether that can be a significant factor remains to be seen.

[EZ_Emmrys]

True, I agree. As I said in another thread, I feel that Kerry must be very careful, because he's in great danger of losing the campaign via stupid stunts like he's pulled lately. (Mic left on, Foreign Leaders pulling for him, etc)

I do agree with him on many principles though. I do worry about his waffling, but I feel that he'd be a better president than Bush in almost every way. I'm not thrilled with him, but I just feel very strongly that Bush is bad for 'merica and the world.

[Marbh]

Well I do know that Security Council Resolution 82 that authorized force in the Korean conflict had French support, and that soldiers from France fought and died there. Any other kneejerk responses you want dealt with?

[EZ_MorrellVZ]

Quote:Its funny how opponents of the war with Iraq constantly harp on 1 single story of Saddam's tyrannical regime as being untrue, While ignoring the other umpteen thousand instances.

Well, considering that "1 single story" which you try to make sound so unimportant was really the one propaganda ploy that brought the US into Desert Shield/Storm, yeah, you're damn right I'm gonna harp on its flagrant dishonesty. You think the American people cared about some country halfway around the world? No, they cared about their failing economy thanks to Reagan/Bush action(or should I say inaction?). But once you bring about the story about babies dying complete with a girl crying at the stand in Congress, yeah, let's kill those pigs. There was no forest there, Meddik.

And besides which, if one claim is proven wrong, it's easier to believe that other claims may be misleading, inaccurate, hyperbolic, or all of the above.

Quote:Oh, and Regardless of direct Al-Qaeda ties, Iraq has numerous documented ties to many other Terorrist groups. This isn't a war against Al Qaeda, It is a war against all International terrorist groups, and the countries which support them.

So in this Great War on Terror, would you be happy with invasion or other antagonistic means employed on countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan? Or how about India, China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia? Maybe Honduras, Mexico, Cuba? All of those nations do or have supported terrorist organizations and actions. Should we invade all those nations?

When are we going to bomb Fox News for supporting international terrorist Oliver North? When do we bomb the White House for supporting the Northern Alliance (an organization that by definition of terrorism committed such acts?)

[Meddik]

Quote:Don't say "I'll support it, but only if the french do!"
....
Which no one has said, except maybe in your imagination

Are you at all familiar with the UN security council? Have any idea how it works?

Well, you see... There are these certain countries that have a Veto, who can singlehandledly block any resolution, for any reason or no reason at all.

If you think that US defense and foreign policy should be dependent on UN approval, then yes, you are are saying that you think we need to get a permission slip from Russia, China, the UK AND France before we take actions we feel neccesary to ensure our national security.

Quote:So in this Great War on Terror, would you be happy with invasion or other antagonistic means employed on countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Oman, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Pakistan? Or how about India, China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia? Maybe Honduras, Mexico, Cuba? All of those nations do or have supported terrorist organizations and actions. Should we invade all those nations?

Military Action is not the onle means of handling things. In some cases, such as Iraq, it may come to that, but in other situations, Diplomatic action, economic action, or espionage may be enough to change things. And knowing that Military action is not out of the question makes these other means mroe likely to succeed. Sure as hell worked in Libya, and its gotten a lot of support from other nations as well.

[Marbh]

If you'll turn your attention here:

www.globalpolicy.org/secu...tosubj.htm

You'll see that the veto is used a lot more by the US of late than anyone else. 79 or so vetoes (hard to count in tables) with 23 of these with UK or France, and 56 solo vetoes. Before then it was the USSR that used it the most. Considering the subject of a lot of the US vetoes, it's probably helped causes you adhere to a lot more than hindred them Meddik. 37 of the Vetoes dealth with Israel/Palestine issues, with the next most popular subjects being Sout Africa and Nicaragua. In the South Africa realm we, UK, and France all helped prop us S. Africa by blocking the resolutions to censure them.

France has used it's veto 12 times since 1976. Of those 11 or the 12 were also vetoed by the US and UK. Before then it voted to veto 5 times, 2 times with UK and US, 1 time in 1956 with UK regarding Israel/Palestine and Egypt, 1 time in 1947 regarding Indonesia, and 1 time in 1946 with Russia reggarding Franco Spain.

And while foreign policy may have problems getting full SC approval, self defense is allowed under Article 51.

[Meddik]

How a veto has been used and by who in the past is rather irrelevant in this scenario. (Where someone thinks Taking out NK is a good idea)

If you think the benefits to national security for taking out NK are worth the risks, and you have the ability to do so, then why should you let a veto by anyone stop you?

But Of course, I'm not surprised that most of the vetos have been about Israeli Issues. The UN has long been known as a place that never fails to criticize Israel at any possible opportunity, even if they have to overlook the fact that half of the thugocracies in the UN do things much worse on a daily basis. You let these countries vote on it, they'd probably collectively decide to outlaw Israel outright. No surprise there.

[Marbh]

Then why doesn't the UK veto it as often as we do?

Your main point seemed to be that one of the other Big 5 would veto us if we deciced on a action, and I showed you that barring cold war US/USSR fun that was not likely. Mind you if we end up in a similar situation with China it could again. And I didn't say we should never overrule the UN if they don't agree with us, but we should try to go through them first. For someone opposed to gay marriage, you sure like trying to insert things in my mouth.

[Meddik]

Quote:Your main point seemed to be that one of the other Big 5 would veto us if we deciced on a action, and I showed you that barring cold war US/USSR fun that was not likely.

Am I the ONLY one that remembers all the UN bickering just prior to the Gulf War?

Quote:PARIS (Reuters) - French President Jacques Chirac said Monday France would use its U.N. Security Council veto to block a resolution authorizing war against Iraq.

"Whatever happens, France will vote 'no'," Chirac said on LCI television in his first televised interview on the Iraq crisis.

Effectively, that IS a Veto.

We decided on an course of action important to our national security. One of other veto powers thought their veto could stop us from performing that action.

Not likely? Its barely been a year since the same damn scenario just happened.

[Marbh]

No the threat of the scenario happened. There is a lot that goes on behind closed doors that you and I don't get privy too. Threats are often made and not acted on, or used to garner concessions. The vote was never made, so the veto was never made. And since the whole crux of that vote was the argument about violations of WMD and the inspections, I guess they were right and we were wrong on that resolution eh? Maybe Dubya should have tried a different tact in selling the war.
And how was our national security at threat by Iraq? Kuwaits maybe, Saudis, Irans, any of the other near or close neighbors, but not ours. Unless you still are riding around with Cheney on the AlQueda-Iraq link fantasy trip.
Plain and simple, if we had wanted to be safer, all this Iraq effort and money should have been directed at finding Osama, finding Ayman al-Zawahri, and bringing them to justice. Then we could go after other terrorist organizations and heads of them and bring them in too. And if they resisted arrest and got shot, so be it, they chose their path. Saddam should have been left contained and to wither on the vine, maybe with more pressure on Jordan and Syria to cut their oil smuggling ties or face sanctions themselves. Even greater covert support for the Kurds or Shiites, although I wouldn't have been to trusting after the post Gulf War fiasco.