Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest George Burdell

Why Iraq?

Recommended Posts

Guest George Burdell

While I think I can safely say that we all have tremendous respect for Sgt. Karolasz and the others who have made the ultimate sacrifice I also believe there is a wide range of opinion as to Why Iraq?

Some of the reasons I would question it are:

1) There has been some anecdotal evidence from Presidential daily briefings prior to 9/11 that the decision had already been made to dethrone Saddam, if true then claiming the war as retalaliation for 9/11 is not.

2) Bum that he may be there is little/no credible evidence that either Saddam or the soverign nation of Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. That is correct, like it or not Iraq is a sovereign and we attacked it due to the actions of a group, NOT a nation.

3) The majority (15/19) of attackers were Saudi as is Osama Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia is far removed from a democracy, has one of the most oppressive, Islamic regimes in the world yet members of the Saudi royal family are still welcome guests at the White House, Why?

4) Al Qaeda, the planner of 9/11, is composed of many cells scattered throughout many countries. By the logic of attacking Iraq because some terrorists MAY have been from there we would have the following scenario: If an Al Qaeda cell comes from Canada and perpetrates an attack on the US then should we go to war with Canada? I think not, attack the problem and its cause, not its environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Studies and Observations

You're incorrect on some of your basic points Mr Burdell.

#1 At NO TIME was the Iraq incursion as a "Retaliation" for 9/11. At NO TIME did the current Administration make ANY direct connection between Iraq/Saddam Hussein, and the 9-11 Hijackers. In Fact, in the speaches I saw, the President went out of his way to point out that there was no direct link, or any evidence of operational involvement by Iraq. The so-called conection has been hinted at in the media, but never used as any position by the govronment. The Response to the 9/11 attacks was our entry into Afghanistan, where Al Qaueda was being sheltered and harbored by the Taliban Govt of that Country, and whom we are still fighting on their home ground.

The war in Iraq was a result of Saddam Hussein's refusal to abide by UNR 1441, which directed him to submit to open inspections by UNSCOM teams to determine if he had in facr, destroyed his WMD programs and capabilities. IF you look back, you will see a large number of people in the US govornment, on both sides of the aisle making speaches to the effect that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and that the believed that he had the capability to produce, and utilize Weapons of Mass Destruction (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear), which he had demonstrated his willingness to use in the past (Against the Iranians, and against the Kurds in his own country). Even the 9/11 report stated that there WAS a connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq, just no Direct OPEARTIONAL connection to the 9/11 attacks. Was the Intelligence wrong?? To a cerain extent yes it was, and i have my own theory as to why.

Saddam Hussein was a Devote' of Iosif Stalin, Stalin was one of his heros, and he patterned his life, as well as his ruling style on Iosif Vissaronovich's. Anyone who could be a threat was Killed, along with their family. Any overly competent or intitiative military officer was killed..he was a threat, anyone who brought bad news..or tried to point out reality was executed as being "Defeatist". So you have his scintists operating in this atmosphere, of COURSE they are going to send in glowing reports of their progress..giving Hussein the confidence (or overconfidence?) to stand up and thumb his nose at the UN and the US military, because of course, his Weapons Programs are in place and he will Ahniallate the American fools as they cross the border....In the end, none of it was there, and our Military rolled him up again..it took a litle longer this time, but our hands werent tied as much as they were in 1991.

Yes, you are correct in stating that Saudi Arabia is not an example of a Democracy, and Yes the majority of the 9-11 attackers came from there, as well as Osama Bin Laden..However, you FAIL to mention that Al Quaeda, as well as it's leaders are subject to execution if they are caught by the Saudi Govt..In fact the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia is dealing with Al Quaeda on a regular basis..as one of their targets.

Your example of Canada is insipid, and pedantic at best, The Canadian Government does not knowingly harbor and shelter known terrorists, so therefore there would be no NEED to attack Canada, in fact, as has been shown in the past with cross-border incidents, The RCMP and other Canadian LE agencies would be the first to step up and assist the US in the Investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
While I think I can safely say that we all have tremendous respect for Sgt. Karolasz and the others who have made the ultimate sacrifice I also believe there is a wide range of opinion as to Why Iraq?

Some of the reasons I would question it are:

1)  There has been some anecdotal evidence from Presidential daily briefings prior to 9/11 that the decision had already been made to dethrone Saddam,  if true then claiming the war as retalaliation for 9/11 is not.

2)  Bum that he may be there is little/no credible evidence that either Saddam or the soverign nation of Iraq was directly involved in 9/11.  That is correct, like it or not Iraq is a sovereign and we attacked it due to the actions of a group, NOT a nation.

3)  The majority (15/19) of attackers were Saudi as is Osama Bin Laden,  Saudi Arabia is far removed from a democracy, has one of the most oppressive, Islamic regimes in the world yet members of the Saudi royal family are still welcome guests at the White House, Why?

4)  Al Qaeda, the planner of 9/11, is composed of many cells scattered throughout many countries.  By the logic of attacking Iraq because some terrorists MAY have been from there we would have the following scenario:  If an Al Qaeda cell comes from Canada and perpetrates an attack on the US then should we go to war with Canada?  I think not, attack the problem and its cause, not its environment.

1. There was never a claim that the Iraq invasion was in retaliation for 9/11.

2. Bum? Is that the best you can do? Is that the title that you would give a man that is responsible for killing millions of innocent civilians. He is guilty of crimes against humanity and you think he's just a bum.

3. Saudi Arabia may not live up to your standards of democracy, however they have been an ally of the US and terrorists within Saudi Arabia are subject to execution. The terrorists leave Saudi Arabia because it's form of Islam is not strict enough.

4. Your example assumes that Canada knowingly harbors and supports terrorists. I don't think they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Devil's Advocate

To those who would Saddam's failure to comply with a UN resolution as the reason for attacking Iraq I would ask:

Why are you willing to put so much trust in a resolution issued by a body that is apparently unwilling to back it with action?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast

>>You're incorrect on some of your basic points Mr Burdell.

#1 At NO TIME was the Iraq incursion as a "Retaliation" for 9/11. At NO TIME did the current Administration make ANY direct connection between Iraq/Saddam Hussein, and the 9-11 Hijackers. In Fact, in the speaches I saw, the President went out of his way to point out that there was no direct link, or any evidence of operational involvement by Iraq. The so-called conection has been hinted at in the media, but never used as any position by the govronment. The Response to the 9/11 attacks was our entry into Afghanistan, where Al Qaueda was being sheltered and harbored by the Taliban Govt of that Country, and whom we are still fighting on their home ground.<<

To most Americans, when you refer to 'Al-Qaeda' you are refering to the group the 9/11 hijackers belonged to. Therefore, if Iraq supported Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 it says to me that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 ... not much of a stretch.

So here is the line of bull that BushCo tried to sell.

Quotes:

Powell: “Al-Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it…The support that this detainee describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000.” [Powell remarks to UN, 2/5/03]

Bush: “Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” [2/6/03]

Bush: “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.” [2/8/03]

Bush: “Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” [10/7/02]

Cheney: “[saddam] also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.” [10/10/03]

Cheney: “[saddam] also had an established relationship with al Qaeda — providing training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs.” [10/17/03]

Cheney: “It’s clearly established in terms of training, provision of bomb-making experts, training of people with respect to chemical and biological warfare capabilities, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Iraq for training and so forth…” [CNBC’s “Kudlow & Kramer,” 6/4/04]

These statements were based on information that was already discredited:

NYT: Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions

By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

So BushCo knew in Feb 2002 that it might be BS but they didn't care because it made their case. Now we KNOW for sure it was BS and BushCo and its defenders want to blame everyone but themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest George Burdell
2. Bum? Is that the best you can do? Is that the title that you would give a man that is responsible for killing millions of innocent civilians.  He is guilty of crimes against humanity and you think he's just a bum.

Bum? Murderer? Tyrant? I think it very unimportant what he is called, he is the scum that he is regardless of the title hung on him. "killing nillions of innocent"? that sounds a little high but again I would think unimportant, a leader who would deliberately kill 1 or 10 or 1000 innoceents is just as guilty of crimes against humanity.

My concern is what effect our efforts will have in the US, how do we define victory in Iraq? Is it a victory if Saddam is deposed yet 5-10 years from now there is an Islamic, Anti-American government in place? How do you ensure that someone even more evil than Saddam may take his place? The situation has deteriorated into a civil/religious sect conflice and I very this administration has shot from the hip with no long term plan.

I am very leery of The US's seeming belief that we are entitled to involve ourselves in whatever governments we choose. Thirty + years later I'm still looking for a sensible explanation/justification of the US involvement in VietNam with no success. Or how do we justify the US backed overthrow of Allende, a FREELY elected president of an INDEPENDENT nation and our backing of the known tyrant Pinochet? It may be warm & fuzzy to espouse altruistic motives but probably not too comforting to those disappeared by Pinochet.

I think we often fall victim to the (mis)logic that "The enemy of our enemy is our friend" when very often he is also OUR enemy. Notice we weren't too anti-Saddam when he was at war with Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

if I were president and the leader of another country put out a hit on my father there would be a BIG HOLE where that country was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Bum?  Murderer? Tyrant?  I think it very unimportant what he is called, he is the scum that he is regardless of the title hung on him.  "killing nillions of innocent"?  that sounds a little high but again I would think unimportant, a leader who would deliberately kill 1 or 10 or 1000 innoceents is just as guilty of crimes against humanity.

My concern is what effect our efforts will have in the US, how do we define victory in Iraq?  Is it a victory if Saddam is deposed yet 5-10 years from now there is an Islamic, Anti-American government in place?  How do you ensure that someone even more evil than Saddam may take his place?  The situation has deteriorated into a civil/religious sect conflice and I very this administration has shot from the hip with no long term plan.

I am very leery of The US's seeming belief that we are entitled to involve ourselves in whatever governments we choose.  Thirty + years later I'm still looking for a sensible explanation/justification of the US involvement in VietNam with no success.  Or how do we justify the US backed overthrow of Allende, a FREELY elected president of an INDEPENDENT nation and our backing of the known tyrant Pinochet?  It may be warm & fuzzy to espouse altruistic motives but probably not too comforting to those disappeared by Pinochet.

I think we often fall victim to the (mis)logic that "The enemy of our enemy is our friend"  when very often he is also OUR enemy.  Notice we weren't too anti-Saddam when he was at war with Iran.

This problem is simple to solve. We'll promise to vote for John Forbes Kerry or Howard Dean if you and Radagast promise to move to Iraq or Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

>>You're incorrect on some of your basic points Mr Burdell.

#1 At NO TIME was the Iraq incursion as a "Retaliation" for 9/11. At NO TIME did the current Administration make ANY direct connection between Iraq/Saddam Hussein, and the 9-11 Hijackers. In Fact, in the speaches I saw, the President went out of his way to point out that there was no direct link, or any evidence of operational involvement by Iraq. The so-called conection has been hinted at in the media, but never used as any position by the govronment. The Response to the 9/11 attacks was our entry into Afghanistan, where Al Qaueda was being sheltered and harbored by the Taliban Govt of that Country, and whom we are still fighting on their home ground.<<

To most Americans, when you refer to 'Al-Qaeda' you are refering to the group the 9/11 hijackers belonged to. Therefore, if Iraq supported Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 it says to me that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 ... not much of a stretch.

So here is the line of bull that BushCo tried to sell.

Quotes:

Powell: “Al-Qaeda continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zarqawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it…The support that this detainee describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda associates beginning in December 2000.” [Powell remarks to UN, 2/5/03]

Bush: “Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” [2/6/03]

Bush: “Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.” [2/8/03]

Bush: “Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.” [10/7/02]

Cheney: “[saddam] also had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs.” [10/10/03]

Cheney: “[saddam] also had an established relationship with al Qaeda — providing training to al Qaeda members in areas of poisons, gases and conventional bombs.” [10/17/03]

Cheney: “It’s clearly established in terms of training, provision of bomb-making experts, training of people with respect to chemical and biological warfare capabilities, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Iraq for training and so forth…” [CNBC’s “Kudlow & Kramer,” 6/4/04]

These statements were based on information that was already discredited:

NYT: Report Warned Bush Team About Intelligence Suspicions

By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: November 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - A high Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.

The document, an intelligence report from February 2002, said it was probable that the prisoner, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in making claims about Iraqi support for Al Qaeda's work with illicit weapons.

The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility. Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as "credible" evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons.

So BushCo knew in Feb 2002 that it might be BS but they didn't care because it made their case. Now we KNOW for sure it was BS and BushCo and its defenders want to blame everyone but themselves.

This problem is simple to solve. We'll promise to vote for John Forbes Kerry or Howard Dean if you and George Burdell promise to move to Iraq or Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest StudiesandObservations

[To most Americans, when you refer to 'Al-Qaeda' you are refering to the group the 9/11 hijackers belonged to. Therefore, if Iraq supported Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 it says to me that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 ... not much of a stretch.

So here is the line of bull that BushCo tried to sell.

To YOU it may say that the two are connected..but interestingly even though I happen to Support both the President, and the War in Iraq, not to mention having lost several good friends on 9/11, I also happened to Listen to what was being said, and I also happened as I said, to Notice that on several occasions, the fact that though they had reportedly supplied training, and support to Al Quaeda, they emphasized that Iraq was NOT materially involved in the 9-11 plot. I personally have enough faith in my countrymen to believe that they are and were capable of seeing that difference, even though You dont seem to have such trust and faint in the intelligence of your countrymen... Also, your Reference to "Bushco" shows me that you arent anything more than a Libbot..While Rad and I dont see eye to eye, at least he debates using something other than Bumper-sticker sloganism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest George Burdell
This problem is simple to solve.  We'll promise to vote for John Forbes Kerry or Howard Dean if you and Radagast promise to move to Iraq or Iran.

I suppose that's the most constructive, intelligent thing you have to offer? It's a shame people aren't open to reasonable discussion of serious issues which assuredly have more than one side, thet USED to be what America was about. I suppose this is YOUR updated version of "America, Love it or Leave it"

I think you need to do a little review and realize the United States would NEVER have come into existence without people questioning the actions and motives of a government. When that is no longer possible you will know for sure that all is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Devil's Advocate
if I were president and the leader of another country put out a hit on my father there would be a BIG HOLE where that country was.

So you endorse the idea of the President doing anything he chooses to conduct a PERSONAL vendetta? Unfortunately I think there may be more than a grain of truth in what you say. Interesting concept..........................and I always thought he was there to serve the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Radagast
This problem is simple to solve.  We'll promise to vote for John Forbes Kerry or Howard Dean if you and George Burdell promise to move to Iraq or Iran.

Hey! Your the one who wants to fight Iraq & Iran ... I'm sure Rummy can arrange that for you. They are running a bit short on folks who are willing to risk their lives for .... what was that again? ... anyway, I'll stay right here, thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Loki
Hey! Your the one who wants to fight Iraq & Iran ... I'm sure Rummy can arrange that for you. They are running a bit short on folks who are willing to risk their lives for .... what was that again? ... anyway, I'll stay right here, thank you

Right, we're supposed to try more UNDERSTANDING of the terrorists. Seems to be working brilliantly for the unfortunate French hostage.

You libs need to get over this, we did not pick this fight, and it really involves a small fraction of the Muslim population; however, there are some who want to destroy the entire Western Civilization. I, for one, will NEVER be okay with that.

Rad, how many divisions of soldiers were eliminated under Clinton?? You talk of a shortage, so I thought I would ask. It's always the same, let's parse language, "we needed more troops," but we "don't want to be occupiers." Sounds great, but its impossible to have it both ways.

Speaking of having it both ways, I will no longer debate anyone who says "Bush lied", until they can explain similar Democratic claims up to about 6 months ago. A 92 page report on the intelligence was available to the Senate, and 5 people read it, and no Kerry wasn't one of them. We can debate other issues, but until the double standard is quelled, this is MY final word on the subject. (Everyone else, carry on as you see fit.)

And whoever quoted the NYT, given their troubles with making up stories, not the most credible source; unless of course they are reaffirming what you already believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Studies and Observations
Hey! Your the one who wants to fight Iraq & Iran ... I'm sure Rummy can arrange that for you. They are running a bit short on folks who are willing to risk their lives for .... what was that again? ... anyway, I'll stay right here, thank you

Unfortunately Rad I'm too old, they turned me down when i tired to volunteer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Hey! Your the one who wants to fight Iraq & Iran ... I'm sure Rummy can arrange that for you. They are running a bit short on folks who are willing to risk their lives for .... what was that again? ... anyway, I'll stay right here, thank you

I'm sure you do want to stay here. Saddam would have a field day with you and George.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I suppose that's the most constructive, intelligent thing you have to offer?  It's a shame people aren't open to reasonable discussion of serious issues which assuredly have more than one side, thet USED to be what America was about.  I suppose this is YOUR updated version of "America, Love it or Leave it"

I think you need to do a little review and realize the United States would NEVER have come into existence without people questioning the actions and motives of a government.  When that is no longer possible you will know for sure that all is lost.

As for the reason for Vietnam, how about a large portion of the Vietnamese population didn't want to live under communist rule. Seeing the fact that 99% of the country is still living in pre-historic times maybe they were right. The reason we lost, and lost so many soldiers, was because of people like you wanting the war fought with our hands tied.

As far as Iraq goes, the last I heard, all of the soldiers that are there are volunteered for military duty. They volunteered to go anywhere this country told them to go and do anything this country told them to do. It seems that they are doing this without complaining and most importantly they believe in their mission. The Senate and Congress voted in favor of this war based on the intelligence, if they chose to read it, that was available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I suppose that's the most constructive, intelligent thing you have to offer?  It's a shame people aren't open to reasonable discussion of serious issues which assuredly have more than one side, thet USED to be what America was about.  I suppose this is YOUR updated version of "America, Love it or Leave it"

I think you need to do a little review and realize the United States would NEVER have come into existence without people questioning the actions and motives of a government.  When that is no longer possible you will know for sure that all is lost.

Your not reasonable. You look at a bad situation that the US is trying to clean up and that the soldiers are overwhelmingly behind and you point your finger at the US and say what about some militant group in Topeka. Or what if there was a terrorist cell in Canada would it be OK to attack them.

By the way, what exactly do you think the motives of the US Government are towards Iraq? Do you think we are there just so our soldiers can get killed and wounded? Are we there for oil, or sand, or a military exercise, or to feed some politicians ego? If we're not there to surpress and maybe eliminate terrorism, and stabalize the region somewhat, what great scheme do you think the government is up to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest George Burdell
As for the reason for Vietnam, how about a large portion of the Vietnamese population didn't want to live under communist rule.  Seeing the fact that 99% of the country is still living in pre-historic times maybe they were right.  The reason we lost, and lost so many soldiers, was because of people like you wanting the war fought with our hands tied.

You offer no facts, only opinion. How do you know the wants of "a large portion of the Vietnamese people"? Seems a large portion didn't want to live under French rule? Are you aware that there was an agreement in the mid '50s the US agreed to honor and then conveniently forgfot when elections didn't go the preferred way?

Since you are so quick to use the "people like like you" I will say people like YOU are very quick to just assume the US always correct and honorable. Was it a great thing to back the overthrow of a FREELY elected President in Chile? Has the US always honored its agreements with native Americans? People like YOU wre quick yo wave the flag and chant freedom but YOUR version of freedom allows no room for other than YOUR side of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest George Burdell
By the way, what exactly do you think the motives of the US Government are towards Iraq? Do you think we are there just so our soldiers can get killed and wounded? Are we there for oil, or sand, or a military exercise, or to feed some politicians ego?  If we're not there to surpress and maybe eliminate terrorism, and stabalize the region somewhat, what great scheme do you think the government is up to?

I'm sure the ultimate motive is to stop terrorism but I also think there are some underlying elements of oil and ego also. We abosolutely must stop world terror, I just quetion the choice of method, pictires and sound bites of a toppled statue of Saddam may be great ego boosting PR but do not promote stability when we create an atmosphere of civil war. Terror cells are known to exist in a large number of countries and I question the ability to target them when so many resources are focused not on terrorism but reshaping one country. Deposing Saddam was the easy part, there seems to have been precious little long range thought given to the next steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest George Burdell
As far as Iraq goes, the last I heard, all of the soldiers that are there are volunteered for military duty.  They volunteered to go anywhere this country told them to go and do anything this country told them to do.  It seems that they are doing this without complaining and most importantly they believe in their mission.  The Senate and Congress voted in favor of this war based on the intelligence, if they chose to read it, that was available.

I would like to know the FACTUAL basis for your statement "they believe in their mission"? Volunteer? Absolutely! Wonderful young men and women? NO argument from me. Patriots, heroes, more than anything good soldiers doing as they were trained? 100% CORRECT! But unless YOU have personally interviewed many or have knowledge of interviews conducted openly and without these people having a fear of retribution you have no right to state their beliefs and some statement by a goverment spin doctor will not suffice.

I will give you FACTS!

It is a FACT that some men and women will lie, cheat, and still to better themselves.

It is a FACT the government is composed of men and women.

If you would lose your Polyanna belief that all inside the beltway is good and pure you would realize it is a FACT there are men and women in government who will lie, cheat, and steal.

There is nothing wrong in questioning these people, the wrong is when they have no honest answers.

I see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld among others get testy when they are questioned, my OPINION is that it is because they have no answers. "Stay the course" is not a plan, it is a hollow sound bite. And please don't waste your time trying to cloak their reluctance to speak in the need for secrecy, certainly tactical matters must be guarded but just as certainly they could speak of long term plans, if they had any beyond "Stay the course".

I find it telling that Colin Powell, the man who had the most personal knowledge of what war truly is and occupied the highest post in this adminstration of anyone with that knowledge resigned according to most reports because he was routinely iqnored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest George Burdell
As for the reason for Vietnam, how about a large portion of the Vietnamese population didn't want to live under communist rule.  Seeing the fact that 99% of the country is still living in pre-historic times maybe they were right.  The reason we lost, and lost so many soldiers, was because of people like you wanting the war fought with our hands tied.

Not only do I take extreme umbrage at your statement that "lost so many soldiers, was because of people like you" I defy you to prove any of your statement factially or logically. You state "As for the reason for Vietnam, how about a large portion of the Vietnamese population didn't want to live under communist rule. Seeing the fact that 99% of the country is still living in pre-historic times ", well if 99% of the population was living in pre-historic times, and it would be more factual if you said pre-historic conditions, they really wouldn't have any idea what type of rule they were living under so your statement has no logic. And I seriously doubt the majority of the population was ever polled concerning their governmental preference, you are only attempting to project your own preferences onto others.

I tried to read Robert MacNamara's book not too far into it he basically admitted the admistration really didn't know much about VietNam yet they went ahead anyway, I didn't feel it necessary to read any further. Blaming people like me for the loss of so many soldiers is not only highly insulting but extremely mis-guided.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't put it forward as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I would like to know the FACTUAL basis for your statement "they believe in their mission"? Volunteer?  Absolutely!  Wonderful young men and women?  NO argument from me.  Patriots, heroes, more than anything good soldiers doing as they were trained?  100% CORRECT!  But unless YOU have personally interviewed many or have knowledge of interviews conducted openly and without these people having a fear of retribution you have no right to state their beliefs and some statement by a goverment spin doctor will not suffice.

I will give you FACTS!

It is a FACT that some men and women will lie, cheat, and still to better themselves.

It is a FACT the government is composed of men and women.

If you would lose your Polyanna belief that all inside the beltway is good and pure you would realize it is a FACT there are men and women in government who will lie, cheat, and steal.

There is nothing wrong in questioning these people, the wrong is when they have no honest answers.

I see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld among others get testy when they are questioned, my OPINION is that it is because they have no answers.  "Stay the course" is not a plan, it is a hollow sound bite.  And please don't waste your time trying to cloak their reluctance to speak in the need for secrecy, certainly tactical matters must be guarded but just as certainly they could speak of long term plans, if they had any beyond "Stay the course".

I find it telling that Colin Powell, the man who had the most personal knowledge of what war truly is and occupied the highest post in this adminstration of anyone with that knowledge resigned according to most reports because he was routinely iqnored.

Stop talking about facts. Everything you spout is pure opinion. I doubt that a war in Iraq is going to "better" Bush or anyone in his administration. Why would he set himself up for the constant negative criticism?

I seen soldiers interviewed and read their statements in the papers and what they say is the vast majority are comfortable with their mission. Have you personally interviewed any? If you have are they against the war?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Not only do I take extreme umbrage at your statement that "lost so many soldiers, was because of people like you" I defy you to prove any of your statement factially or logically.  You state "As for the reason for Vietnam, how about a large portion of the Vietnamese population didn't want to live under communist rule.  Seeing the fact that 99% of the country is still living in pre-historic times ", well if 99% of the population was living in pre-historic times, and it would be more factual if you said pre-historic conditions, they really wouldn't have any idea what type of rule they were living under so your statement has no logic.  And I seriously doubt the majority of the population was ever polled concerning their governmental preference, you are only attempting to project your own preferences onto others.

I tried to read Robert MacNamara's book not too far into it he basically admitted the admistration really didn't know much about VietNam yet they went ahead anyway, I didn't feel it necessary to read any further.  Blaming people like me for the loss of so many soldiers is not only highly insulting but extremely mis-guided.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't put it forward as fact.

Do you think the people of Vietnam, and Laos and Cambodia for that matter, were better off before the war? Why don't you interview them? Oh wait you can't, because millions of them were killed by their governments.

Do you think, just because those people don't know anything about the modern world, that they don't have dreams of a better life.

President Kennedy, who everyone still feels was on of the greatest Presidents in US History, was behind the war and felt that there were benefits to being in Southeast Asia. The facts are that people like Johnson, Nixon, and MacNamara took over and, influenced by people like you, they lost the guts to finish the job. In other words they didn't "stay the course."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Miss Crabtree
Not only do I take extreme umbrage at your statement that "lost so many soldiers, was because of people like you" I defy you to prove any of your statement factially or logically.  You state "As for the reason for Vietnam, how about a large portion of the Vietnamese population didn't want to live under communist rule.  Seeing the fact that 99% of the country is still living in pre-historic times ", well if 99% of the population was living in pre-historic times, and it would be more factual if you said pre-historic conditions, they really wouldn't have any idea what type of rule they were living under so your statement has no logic.  And I seriously doubt the majority of the population was ever polled concerning their governmental preference, you are only attempting to project your own preferences onto others.

I tried to read Robert MacNamara's book not too far into it he basically admitted the admistration really didn't know much about VietNam yet they went ahead anyway, I didn't feel it necessary to read any further.  Blaming people like me for the loss of so many soldiers is not only highly insulting but extremely mis-guided.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but don't put it forward as fact.

A student of mystery, a student of legend-the forever student remains alive somewhere at Tech

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ike all enduring legends, the story of how George P. Burdell made his debut at Georgia Tech has remained a mystery. But a likely account was told by William Edgar "Ed" Smith, BS '30, to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Magazine in 1977.

Smith, an Augusta, Ga., businessman, claimed creation of Burdell in 1927, when he was filling out his enrollment papers. He decided to turn in duplicates on George P. Butler, his high school principal and a staunch University of Georgia alumnus. After writing in George P., Smith got cold feet and finished the entry with the last name Burdell, the maiden name of his best friend's mother.

Smith then added Burdell's name to the class rolls. He even took duplicate tests using Burdell's name, altering the handwriting just enough to disguise his writing and fool the professors into believing Burdell was indeed a student in their classes.

By 1930, George P. Burdell had taken enough tests to "earn" a bachelor's degree from the Institute-he later received his master's degreeand he became an official alumnus. At the same time, he has managed to maintain his student status.

During World War 11, George P. Burdell served in the armed forces on many fronts, his name appearing around the world. He was listed on the flight crew of a B-17 bomber, flying 12 missions over Europe with the 8th Air Force in England. However, when a Tech graduate became the new operations officer for the crew, he immediately recognized the name on the flight log, and Burdell's flying days were over.

When Georgia Tech computerized its class-registration process in 1969, Burdell signed up for every course-over 3,000 credit hours. And despite subsequent fail-safe procedures to prevent it, he did so again in 1975 and 1980.

The spirit of George P. Burdell remains alive. He continues to post letters to the editor, baffle insurance salesmen, and get paged at football games. He's also displayed a generous nature-his signature has appeared on numerous product rebate checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...