So none of Mitt Popeil's five healthy young Romney-bot sons served in the military?

[Proud2BAmurkin]

When I saw them all admitting it on 60 Minutes it was pukeworthy. Obviously one "value" Mitt Popeil instilled in them was the spirit of the chickenhawk.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Sacrifice is for the little people. When Daddy's a venture capitalist,

you don't need that stinkin' GI bill.

[johnfunk]

72. OT, but it must be asked:

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the more-than-passing resemblance between

Willard Mitt Romney
"When I hear Mitt Romney talk he sounds like a complete phony." – Josh Marshall
and

Church of the Subgenius Slack Messiah and Sex God
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
?

[Quantess]

81. Whatever the facial resemblance may be, the outlook is completely opposite.

But no, the resemblance is not that striking.

[whistle]

2. Right, Mormonism is not at all pacifist like say Quakers

<snip>
War and Peace

Troops marching through Salt Lake City to join the United States forces in the Spanish-American War (1898), two years after Utah statehood. Photographer: C.W. Carter.

by Robert S. Wood

LDS ideas about war and peace are complex. They synthesize a number of basic values. First are the ideals of finding peace in Christ (John 14:27), turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies (Matt. 5:39, 44), repeatedly forgiving one's enemies (D&C 64:10; 98:23-27, 39-43), and renouncing war and proclaiming peace (D&C 98:16). Next are the goals of establishing a perfect community of righteous, harmonious people (see Zion) and of welcoming the millennial reign of Jesus for a thousand years of peace. Third is a fundamental aversion to any use of force or violence that denies personal agency (D&C 121:41-44). Next is the recognition that war was the tactic Satan used in the premortal existence (see War in Heaven) and that he continues to reign with violence on this earth (Moses 6:15). Then there is acknowledgment that it is appropriate and sometimes required to take up arms in defense of one's family, religion, and freedom (Alma 43:45-47; 46:12). Next are the ethical and legal distinctions between deliberate murder and the killing of opposing soldiers in the line of combat duty. There is an obligation of all citizens to honor and obey the constitutional law of their land (see Civic Duties), together with the belief that all political leaders are accountable to God for their governmental administrations (D&C 134:1). And finally, there is the role of the United States of America as a nation of divine destiny with a mission to lead the way in establishing international peace and individual freedom on earth. Under the extreme pressures and agonies that may arise from differing circumstances, an individual must have personal faith, hope, charity, and revelation to implement all these principles in righteousness.

Countries may define their interests differently and hence make reliance on force more or less salient, with various political and ethical consequences. For example, a group may adopt a radical pacifist position, but its survival then depends on the attitudes of others. Thus, in the Book of Mormon, the survival of the converted Lamanites who vowed never to shed blood was vouchsafed by the Nephites and by their own sons, who were not bound by their oath of pacifism (Alma 27:24; 56:5-9).

War also has some legal status in international law: "War is a fact recognized, and with regard to many points regulated, but not established by International Law" (L. Oppenheim, International Law, London, 1952, p. 202). In the exercise of their sovereignty, states may limit the initiation or conduct of war, but the present political system of self-help grants the right to make war as one's safety, vital interests, or sense of justice may dictate. Over time peaceful conditions may emerge, but as long as separate independent entities exist, the likelihood of resort to armed conflict remains, and in any sovereign state wherein LDS citizens reside they are pledged to "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, etc., obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (A of F 12).

TEACHINGS OF THE BOOK OF MORMON AND THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS. The LDS response to the political realities of war is largely conditioned by the concept of the justification of defensive war provided in the Book of Mormon and in modern revelation. The main statements come from accounts of Moroni1 (a Nephite commander, c. 72-56 B.C.), from the prophet Mormon (final commander of the Nephite armies, c. A.D. 326-385), and from guidance given to the Church in 1833, when persecutions were mounting in Missouri (see D&C 98).

Captain Moroni raised a banner on which he laid out the principal Nephite war aims: the defense of "our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children" (Alma 46:12). Legitimate warfare is described here in defensive terms. Moroni established a forward defense perimeter, constructed protective fortifications for some cities, and deployed his main armies as mobile striking forces to retake captured towns. His purpose was "that they might live unto the Lord their God" (Alma 48:10), giving no support for war as an instrument to expand territorial or political control (Morm. 4:4-5). He taught the Nephites to defend themselves but "never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land" (Alma 48:14-15). They sought the guidance of prophets before going to battle (Alma 16:5; 43:23; 3 Ne. 3:19-20). Moroni "glor" in this position—"not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God" (Alma 48:16). Even in the conduct of war itself, indiscriminate slaughter, plunder, and reprisal were prohibited (see CWHN 8:328-79).

<MORE>

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/doctrines/military/war_peace_eom.htm


<snip>
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER
A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence
A STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT
PREPARED FOR THE
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE
A NOTE TO THE READER
For more than thirty-five years the American Friends Service Committee has worked among those who suffer, recognizing no enemies, and seeking only to give expression to the love of God in service. Out of this experience, gained under all kinds of governments and amidst all kinds of people, has come some appreciation of the problems of peacemaking in the modern world. This has led the Committee to issue over the past five years a series of studies on possible ways to ease tension and move toward international peace. The series began in 1949 with the publication of The United States and the Soviet Union. It was continued in 1951 with Steps to Peace and in 1952 with Toward Security through Disarmament. This is the fourth of the series, while a fifth, dealing with the future of the United Nations, is now in preparation.

All of these reports have been prepared for the American Friends Service Committee by study groups convened especially for the purpose. They have been approved for publication by the Committee's Executive Board-not as official pronouncements, but in the interest of stimulating public discussion of the issues raised, and in the hope that such discussion will contribute to the formation of policies that will bring peace.

The other studies have been developed on the assumption that reliance on military power is so integral in the policy of every major nation, that the most practical approach to peacemaking is to suggest specific next steps to reduce tension and thereby move gradually away from the reliance on force. Many other individuals and organizations have made similar suggestions, so that discussion of such alternatives to present policy has been fairly widespread. A large area of agreement has indeed been reached, and many Americans both in and out of government concur on the kind of constructive measures needed.

Yet American policy has continued to develop in the opposite direction. This study attempts to discover why this should be so. It finds its answer not in the inadequacy of statesmanship or in the machinations of evil men, but in what seem to the drafters of this report to be the unsound premises upon which policy is based. Most Americans accept without question the assumption that winning the peace depends upon a simultaneous reliance upon military strength and long-range programs of a positive and constructive character. They accept also the assumption that totalitarian communism is the greatest evil that now threatens men and that this evil can be met only by violence, or at least by the threat of violence. We believe these assumptions cannot be sustained, and therefore that the policies based on them are built upon sand. We have here attempted to analyze our reasons, and without denying the value of proposals that might ease present tensions, to suggest another and less widely considered alternative built on a different assumption, namely, that military power in today's world is incompatible with freedom, incapable of providing security, and ineffective in dealing with evil.

<long snip to conclution>
We believe there is a way, and that it lies in the attempt to give practical demonstration to the effectiveness of love in human relations. We believe able men, pacifist and non-pacifist alike, have taken this initial insight, developed it, demonstrated it, and built understanding and support for it in field after field of human relations. In view of this, it is strange that almost no one has made a serious attempt to explore its implications in international affairs. There is now almost no place in our great universities, few lines in the budgets of our great foundations, and little space in scholarly journals, for thought and experimentation that begin with the unconditional rejection of organized mass violence and seek to think through the concrete problems of present international relations in new terms. It is time there was.

New conditions demand new responses. We have tried here to suggest a new response. We hope the reader will bring to it an open mind, and if in any way challenged, will join in a serious effort to explore farther the lines of thought we have suggested.
<MORE>

http://www.quaker.org/sttp.html

[kestrel91316]

61. There's that little matter, too of the doctrine of "blood atonement"

from the early days of the Mormons.........

My g-g-g-grandfather was sort of in charge of that part.......

[ATK]

3. why does it matter what his kids do or don't do? and I've never understood

the demand of service from the ADULT CHILDREN of people who support the war in iraq? I assume many, here, support the war in afghanistan and are presently serving there or, at least, have sent their children off to the war they support.


its a stupid freeper argument from the 90's...and its even more to stupid echo it now.

[Quantess]

4. This topic is really crucial to you, isn't it

Haven't you used all your 11 previous posts defending chickehawks? .....Just sayin'....
Seems a bit myopic to me.

[spoony]

8. Whoever he is, he raises a good point: why are his KIDS chickenhawks?

Do we even know what their position on the war is?

[ATK]

11. they may well be. no one has really shown they are. I just think its stupid

to call people chickenhawks because of what their dad thinks.

my dad had some ideas and thoughts I didn't agree with, I would hate to think I'd be held responsible for them

[Kingshakabobo]

28. They are working for and supporting their chickenhawk father....

.......in case you missed the 60 Minutes interview, Mitt says he regrets he wasn't drafted in Viet Nam and the kids say "they hope to make a sacrifice"........fucking bullshit. ChickenHawks. Period.

[spoony]

29. I did miss it

And if they support the war, that certainly makes the chickenhawk label stick. As a policy, however, I think it is silly to assume that the children of warhawks should be encouraged to unwillingly enter combat, either by their warhawk parents or by us.

[Kingshakabobo]

37. I'm not encouraging anything........

.......just calling them scurvy little chickenhawks that they are. Them and their "I regret not being drafted" father. These repubes sure have a lot of gaul....didn't Newt/PNAC Gingrich say the same thing about regretting not serving?

[DefenseLawyer]

85. No Newt was more pragmatic

He said "Part of the question I had to ask myself was what difference I would have made" in serving in Vietnam. Of course even that can't top Tom Delay, who really really really wanted to go to Vietnam, but alas... "So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." Literally. No room at the inn. The entire military was all full. No vacancy. We'll call you if anything opens up.

[Quantess]

86. Who knows.

But the idea is, that he (Romney) does not encourage his own (very militarily eligible) kids to enlist. Why does that asshole have a voice over enlisted people whose lives are now in jeopardy?

[ATK]

10. it keeps coming up. its a stupid argument. if his kids were out

beating up gays or members of the nazi party, okay, I could see the outrage. but there are more people who've never served than have done so.
I suppose my brothers get service credits because I served or my mom does because my dad and I did.

should we limit the abortion debate to only those who've had abortions? its the same logic and its stupid no matter what topic it is applied to.

[Quantess]

83. First of all, why do you think this is national "news"?

Most people work a lot, and don't have time to pay attention to whatever Mitt Romney's kids are doing, or not doing. Not a lot of people give a shit. To be blunt.

Second, figure out what, exactly is pissing you off. Because I can tell right off, politics are not going to make you happy. Yes, I do realize my reply seems off topic, but I really do know what I'm talking about. I'm just cutting to the chase, so to speak.

[ATK]

14. who defended anyone? I'm just putting a thought out there.

perhaps we should start jailing people for the faults of their parents too.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ATK]

12. I paid attention during the 1992 campaign.

et

[spoony]

6. Yeah really, it's one thing to criticise him for it

but why should his children feel obliged to die in combat? Fuck that.

[Javaman]

7. it's called walking the walk. that's why. if this pig is so gung ho about the war

then he should send his own kids to "fight for our freedom" that he so resoundingly supports.

but he like most of the repukes in charge he knows the war is complete bullshit he doesn't dare admit it so he doesn't lose the mouth breather stupid ass repuke vote.

[spoony]

9. You would support him forcing his kids into the military, even against their will

because you dislike their dad?

[ATK]

13. it's like forcing your daughter to have an abortion because you never had one

but believe in the right to choose

[wtmusic]

20. put it this way:

He is a vocal war supporter but none of his military age sons are? Seems a bit incredible to me. Seems incredible that he hasn't encouraged them to join his cause. If they disagree, it seems likely they would make their opinion public.

Of course, they could disagree with Dad but choose to keep their opinion private. But from a probabilistic standpoint, it's highly likely that they're all garden-variety privileged Bible-quoting hypocrites who have no qualms about sending their American brothers to their deaths, while they cheer from the sidelines.

[spoony]

27. "it seems likely they would make their opinion public"

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would they trash their father's positions as he's running for president? Who cares what they think anyway? You think the children of primary candidates routinely hold press conferences to denounce their parents' ideology?

[wtmusic]

30. You mean why would they expose their father's hypocrisy?

You got a point there. At least I understand the motive better.

I care what they think, because he's their fricking Dad, they're supporting him, and he wants to run my country. I want to know if they're they hypocrites they appear to be, because that says a lot about their Dad. Don't act like a father/son relationship is the same as picking two people off the street.

[spoony]

31. And that is precisely why they wouldn't do it.

They aren't two people off the street. That's their father. Even if they had arguments every night over the war (which from posted evidence it appears they do not, so we are in hypothetical land here), I wouldn't expect them to undercut him.

But in this case, since the 60 Minutes excerpt was posted, it seems they are, sadly, chickenhawk apples from the chickenhawk tree.

[wtmusic]

32. I would not want to be in their position if they were against the war

stuck between their Dad and their country.

That said, the US comes first--too many lives at stake. Sorry Dad, but if you were a murderer I'd have to turn you in, too.

[ATK]

42. my dad was anti-gay, I didn't feel the need to run out and have sex with a man

to show I didn't agree with him

[Javaman]

43. True, but was your dad running for office and in the public eye everyday?

trying to gain votes based on a bizarre platform?

[ATK]

44. I don't see where it matters. The basis of the argument is the kids not serving

because their dad supports the war.

I have no idea what they think and quite frankly its no more relevant to me than what Bill clinton does in his private life while Hillary is running, nor was it relevant what Obama's father did or didn't do.

[Virginia Dare]

26. um no, it's actually NOTHING AT ALL like that....n/t

[ATK]

34. abosolutely is. the argument is you can't support something you've not done

you can't support a war if you've not fought in one, not currently serving or have children who are.

you apply that logic to abortion its just as ridiculous.

once again, I have no idea what his kids views are on the war. I just think that military service isn't for everyone, my brothers never served....I don't think less of them and I don't demand they pony up military service before they can express and opinion on a war.

if you served, be proud, if you didn't then you have to live with that choice. but if you're going to set a standard for people who have opinions contrary to your own, you'd better be prepared to live by that standard when the time comes.....its something gopers learned the hard way in 2004 after all they said about Clinton in 1992.

[wtmusic]

36. This is the fallacious argument that soldiers are paid to die

Soldiers are paid to defend their country--and there's a big difference.

When people like Mitt send soldiers off to die in an unjust, illegal war that's not at all what they signed up for. If the Romneys consider the war a defense of America they should back up their opinions by enlisting and defending their country.

[ATK]

41. well, ONE, Mitt Romney didn't send anyone off to war and TWO

I'll relay what I was told in 1990, when I made a comment about enlisting for the School Money by a SFC Jerry Mitchell, my platoon SGT at the time who told me
-If I didn't know what the job of the military was, I was too stupid to go to college.
I signed up to do a job, I took an oath, so do the job.

and as far as the war being illegal I don't agree with you. There were 187 Americans who died in 1991, their lives are no less important than the men who died in the current conflict. They gave their lives for this country, right or wrong, they expelled Iraq from Kuwait and they secured a ceasefire that demanded action and that's where I'll stop..call me names if you wish but that's something I don't see too many people thinking about.

and if you consider the war in afghanistan a war for defense of this country or even if you think we need to find Bin Laden, you'd better be on your way to the recruiting station. don't set a standard for people that you're unwilling to live by.

[wtmusic]

53. dupe

[wtmusic]

54. The war's illegality is a fact

You're new here and I've dealt with too much ignorance on this subject to be patient anymore. I will point you in the right direction.

Read the UN Charter specifically the Preamble and Article 47, where it stipulates the US and any member nation must be under "armed attack" to use military force.

Then read Article IV of the Constitution in regards to how treaties are the "Supreme Law of the Land".

I do consider Afghanistan a war in defense of this country and I'd be there in a heartbeat, but I'm too old.

[ATK]

57. hey, I'm not challenging your opinon. I just disagree with you

and I do so because of the operation back in 1998. I thought poppy bush should have finished the job, I hoped Clinton would have been tougher and yes, I did support our invasion even though I cringe at how things have gone. I want our boys out but I don't want my kids to have to go back in another decade because of the mess we've created over there now.



In addition, I don't belive the UN Charter trumps acts of congress, regardless of treaties.

[wtmusic]

62. The UN Charter trumps any national

government, just as federal law trumps state. It's a matter of jurisdiction. The charter would be worthless if member states could opt in/out at their discretion.

We are learning that pre-emptive invasion is never justified, and we're learning it the hard way. The war was unwinnable before it started.

[ATK]

66. we'll have to disagree on that. Afterall, what will the UN do, issue a resolution on the matter?

lets not fool ourselves about the UN, okay.
saying pre-emptive invasion is never justified is like saying war never solved anything.


we're just going to have to disagree on this. I understand what you're saying, I just don't subscribe to the idea of something "never being justified" or that a war is "unwinnable before it was started"

[wtmusic]

67. Not true

There's a huge difference between a defensive war and a so-called 'pre-emptive' war.

I don't think you would argue, under any circumstances, that a child would have the right to go up and punch a schoolyard bully because he thought the bully "might" beat him up later. The scale is different; the principle is identical. Then there was the misconception that the US was only realizing the terms of UNSCR 1441, which authorized force against Saddam Hussein. But the resolution authorized the use of force under UN auspices alone, and the US had no right to enforce its terms any more than you have a right to enforce the terms of your neighbor's speeding ticket.

Without the rule of law applied to everyone evenly we're left with might-makes-right, vigilante-style justice, which is no justice at all. Back to the Stone Age.

The framers of the UN Charter (seven of which were Americans) gave an enormous amount of thought to the exact wording for when a war is justified, and when it is not. To their credit: had we lived by its terms, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in, with more than double the casualties of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together as a result. As Kofi Annan and virtually other truly independent leader stated early on, the war is illegal. Thus it was unwinnable from the start because it was fundamentally unjust. It might take 10 years, it might take 50, but just like Vietnam we will lose the Iraq war. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

[ATK]

70. actually, you have the concept wrong. A pre-emptive war is a first strike

now, walking up to a bully and punching him is not pre-emption its aggression. Having the bully in your face and punching him first is pre-emption, and it's legal in most states as self defense.

Now, with Iraq, you could argue 1441 didn't allow us to invade but then how does one explain the bombing of iraq in 1998? There was no UN authorization of that bombing. It was a mission carried out by the US and Britain. So, if we had no rights to enforce the terms of the ceasefire, where was the outrage then? idiots on the right were shrieking about wagging the dog....while democrats applauded the action. Clinton did the right thing then,did he not? I say this simply because I did support the reasoning for going in. Of course I've not been a saddam fan since Iraq hit the Stark back in 88 but 178 of my brother and sisters died to kick him out of kuwait and their lives meant something to me...just as the 3400 that have died to enforce the terms of Iraq's surrender. I grew up on military bases until I was 12, I served as did my father. and saying we lost in vietnam ignores actual history of that war.We didn't lose that war in vietnam, it was lost here in the US.


and quite frankly, the UN is a useless body...it's proven to be a farce with regard to Saddam, Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, Palestine...so if you think I want the US to defer to the UN for the security of this nation, you've GOT to be smoking something.

[wtmusic]

73. The war in Iraq was a classic case of aggression

much as the administration attempted to label it something else. And no, it's not legal--anywhere--to punch someone else in the face for being "in your face". This is a critical distinction, so let's get it straight right now.

The bombing of Iraq in 1998 and the no-fly zones were also illegal, and I for one was not applauding that action. It's painfully simple, when you come right down to it. You live by the law, you enforce it when you have to, regardless of what economic or other interests you have. If not, we as a civilization are lost.

You can call the UN a useless body if you like, but whose fault is that? Who is the most powerful nation in the world, with the most influence (at least at one time) in the world, and home to the headquarters of the UN? The US should not be deferring to the UN, the US should be working to make it what it was originally designed to be. We have only ourselves to blame. And wherever we lost Vietnam, we lost it. We didn't achieve our objectives, we slaughtered millions of people needlessly--it was a complete and utter disaster. The sooner we can face up to that fact, the better.

The area where we are probably most in agreement is Gulf War I. If Poppy Bush had put together a targeted raid to get Saddam then we would have a different Middle East now and likely a much more peaceful one.

[ATK]

74. you're clearly ignorant on the concept of self defense, with regard to the law.

I've been aquitted in 2 states for doing just that, so don't tell me about legality. the "stand your ground" laws that are cropping up nationwide are another example.
I see, so you believe enforcing the terms of the ceasefire as well as enforcing the UN resolution that established the no fly zone were illegal? on what grounds? I suppose the sanctions and demand for disarmament were also illegal?

it's they UN's fault its a useless body, just as the LON was useless in solving the worlds problems during its time. And quite frankly, we should have learned from that failure and stayed out of the UN, just as we did the LON.

as for the targeted raid, what did you think the first strike of the current war was? it's a lot easier to talk about a targeted raid than it is to do one. We should have gone to baghdad in 91....but, we need to keep in mind the lessons learned from teh Soviet Pull Out of afghanistan and make sure there is a stable country left behind, or else we'll be back in there in a decade to clean up the mess we left from the mess that was made

and I know my view on this war isn't popular here and you and I won't agree on it. I want it over I want our boys home. but I don't want to have their kids go back to fight it all over again

[wtmusic]

75. You must be joking

The "stand your ground" laws are in response to a "forcible felony" such as a home invasion, robbery, etc. How the hell does that relate to someone being "in your face"?

There was no UN resolution establishing no-fly zones. That was our little fabrication:

"While the enforcing powers had cited United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 as authorising the operations, the resolution contains no such authorisation. The Secretary-General of the UN at the time the resolution was passed, Boutros Boutros-Ghali called the no-fly zones "illegal" in a later interview with John Pilger"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

One more little bit of history trivia: the Soviets did not "pull-out" of Afghanistan, they got their asses kicked out of Afghanistan, the same way we will get our asses kicked out of Iraq. Funny how personally people take it when you invade their country. How would you feel if North Korea invaded the US? Hmm?

[ATK]

77. you'd better take a closer look at those laws, threat of BODILY INJURY

is the standard and they aren't exclusive to home invasions...and if you need the term "in your face" described to you, then I suggest you move along on the topic. you mentioned a bully....now if you don't know what a bully is or what a bully does, then you can't possibly understand what it takes to stand up for ones self.

I keep forgetting, the UN is actually FOR the wholesale slaughter of people by their government, that's why they stand on the sidelines in Darfur, abandoned Somalia and did nothing in Rwanda...so, it's no wonder the no fly zones were considered illegal.
I have to agree with Clinton on what he did there, I wish he had done more, just as I wish Bush 41 had done more.

Without US support, the soviets wouldn't. Our support of the insurgency and the supply of stingers halted the Soviet use of helicopters which, until that time, were wiping out the opposition. And I didn't realize that Afghanistan was the home of Arabs...maybe I missed that little tidbit when they were teaching history.

pretending that Iraq was just sitting there in the desert minding its own business is about as ignorant and intellectually dishonest as you can be on this subject. They were invaded for a reason, you may not agree with it but at least be honest about the fact that Saddam wasn't the good guy here. The 178 americans that died to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, deserved to have their sacrifice recognized and the terms of the ceasefire enforced.

I agree with Lieberman on the Iraq issue, obviously...which isn't popular here. So I would prefer to just agree to disagree and move on.

[wtmusic]

78. Move on? I'm just getting comfortable

because I feel strongly that both what you and Joe Lieberman argue for is bullshit, and it's dangerous bullshit which is killing young men and women who have entrusted us with their lives.

As it turns out, Saddam was the good guy here. Your president, the one you pay with your taxes, is responsible for killing more Iraqis in 4 scant years than Saddam did in 40 -- and counting. That's quite an accomplishment, and something every American (who isn't vainly trying to manipulate history to appease their conscience) should be ashamed of. This good guy/bad guy thing turns out to be very, very subjective without the world government which you so actively disdain, but in terms of sheer human suffering your president is a war criminal of the first order. Saddam could take lessons.

And all that, for a war that never had to be. Saddam had no WMDs and never threatened us, period. Don't tell me Iraqi Freedom is related in any way to Desert Storm, and don't even think of bringing up 9/11 or al Quaeda on me, because I will waste your argument in a NY minute. You were lied to and you bought it, and the only thing worse is to continue to buy it out of foolish pride.

[ATK]

79. actually, you have it wrong...they are entrusted with YOUR life.

if you were entrusted with theirs, you'd be wearing the uniform, taking the oath to be a member of an organization that fights wars and provides for the common defense of the nation.

I suggest you go read the Kay Report and the Senate Intel Report on that claim. My president? you mean OUR, or are you not a citizen? if not, then this conversation is over.
I don't need to re-write history, I was sitting in Norfolk, scheduled to ship out in March of 1991, when the war ended. I've worn MOPP suits, I know it would take one hell of a conspiracy and one hell of a vindictive group of people, to put people in that gear, in 120 degree weather, just to sell a lie about WMDS they know don't exist.

and like I said, it wasn't about WMDS, it was about enforcing the the terms of surrender that 187 americans, that evidently don't count in your little world, died to secure.

and on a final note, I suggest you run out and buy George Tenet's book....you might want to rethink the last paragraph of your post.

[wtmusic]

80. It was not only about WMDs, it was ALL about WMDs.

We went to war to "disarm Saddam". Without that justification, without the "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" propaganda, it just plain wouldn't have happened, period. Sound familiar? (don't let that rewrite bug bite you). Amd though I won't patronize Tenet, I'll happily provide some apt quotes which might give you some perspective:

On the Predetermination of War

"All patriotic Iraqis should embrace this resolution <1441> as an opportunity for Iraq to avoid war and end its isolation...The United States prefers that Iraq meet its obligations voluntarily."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
November 8, 2002

"Even now, he could end his defiance and dramatically change directions...You see, the use of military force is this nation's last option, its last choice."
President Bush
Fort Hood Army Base
January 3, 2003

"The president is serious about consultation. The president is serious about diplomacy. He hopes it will work, and he wants to give it time to work."
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer
January 30, 2003

"...reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States..."
US-authored Security Council draft resolution
March 7, 2003

"The Vice President dropped by a Senate Republican policy lunch soon after his 10-day tour of the Middle East ...Before he spoke, he said no one should repeat what he said. Then he gave them some surprising news. The question was no longer if the U.S. would attack Iraq, he said. The only question was when."
Time Magazine
May 5, 2002

"'F___ Saddam. We're taking him out.' Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators. "
Time Magazine
March 31, 2003

On Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction and Evidence of Their Existence

"Iraq has aggressively pursued weapons of mass destruction, even while inspectors were inside the country."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
September 8, 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied."
President Bush
News conference
March 6, 2003

"The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised...Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq."
President Bush
Address on the Start of War
March 20, 2003

"I do not accept as fact the US and UK’s repeated assertions that Baghdad has used the time to rebuild its weapons of mass destruction."
UNSCOM chief weapons inspector Hans Blix
March 2002 (reported in London Financial Times)

"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."
Mohammed ElBaradei
Director-General International Atomic Energy Agency
Statement to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003

"It behooves me to admit that I find present allegations about Iraq's nuclear capability, as continuously advanced by the Americans and the British, to be ridiculous."
Imad Khadduri, PhD
Seneca College, Toronto
Former Nuclear Scientist, Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (1968-1998)
November 21, 2002

"Its capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections and is probably more limited now than it was at the time of the Gulf war."
Central Intelligence Agency Report, "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs"
October 2002

"Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be 'amazed' if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq. "
Neil Mackay
Edinburgh Sunday Herald
May 3, 2003

On Iraq's Attempted Procurement of Aluminum Tubes, and their Intended Purpose

"Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."
President Bush
Remarks to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

"All the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use."
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"Extensive field investigation and document analysis have failed to uncover any evidence that Iraq intended to use these 81mm tubes for any project other than the reverse engineering of rockets...even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminium tubes in question."
Mohammed ElBaradei
Director-General, International Atomic Energy Agency
March 7, 2003

"According to Albright government experts on nuclear technology who dissented from the Bush administration's view told him they were expected to remain silent."
Washington Post
September 19, 2002

On Iraq's Reported Attempt to Procure Uranium from Niger

"The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?
US State Department "Fact Sheet"
December 19, 2002

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
President Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic."
Mohammed ElBaradei
Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency
March 7, 2003

On Terrorist Connections with al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden

"The regime...has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"There are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network, according to an official British intelligence report."
BBC News
February 5, 2003

"Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants."
Secretary of State Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

"Most experts...dispute his possible role as Qaeda-Iraq link."
New York Times
February 10, 2003

"There is a really serious problem in intelligence. It’s virtually impossible to prove these kinds of conspiracies. . . . It is going to require a great deal more debate and reporting than simply accepting the U.S. statements without further review."
Anthony Cordesman
Former Director-Intelligence Assessment
US Department of Defense
Transcript of February 6, 2003 radio interview with Australian Broadcasting Corporation

On the Role of Oil

"American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil."
Ahmed Chalabi
Leader, Iraqi National Congress
(Reported by Washington Post Septembert 15, 2002)

"Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas; reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to."
Kenneth T. Derr
Chevron CEO
1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco

"It's pretty straightforward. France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance...we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them."
R. James Woolsey
Former Director
Central Intelligence Agency

"When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."
Larry Lindsey
White House Economic Advisor
September 2002

"All Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells."
President Bush
Address on the Start of War
March 20, 2003

"Economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil."
Paul Wolfowitz
Deputy Secretary of Defense
May 31, 2003




On the Legal Grounds for a "Preemptive Self-Defense"

"The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security."
President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

"Not only will the United States impose preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses, but the nation will also punish those who engage in terror and aggression and will work to impose a universal moral clarity between good and evil."
President Bush
West Point Commencement Address
June 2002

"Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
President Bush
Address on the Start of War
March 20, 2003

"...a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678."
UN Security Council Resolution 687
April 3, 1991

"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
United Nations Charter, Article 2, Section 4

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
United Nations Charter, Article 51

"The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all of its Members."
Ibid. Article 2, Section 1

"The United States has no right to invade another state because of speculative concerns about that state's possible future actions. The current international order does not support a special status for the United States or a singular right to exempt itself from the law."
Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense
The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism
August 2002

[ATK]

87. I suggest you read the IWR.

and I know all the talking points from both sides, there's no need to regurgitate something like a retarded freeper would.
There've been investigations and reports on the WMDs, Tenet's book addresses the question of Al Qeada in Iraq as does the 9/11 commission report. The Clinton Administration's indictment of Bin Laden in 1998 has some interesting information as does the NY Times and some of their reports from 98/99.

everyone likes their version of the story without taking the time to actually read things that give a more complete picture

[Mz Pip]

47. Maybe someone should

ask his kids if they support the war. If they don't then are they going to be campaigning for their Dad?

You are setting up a false choice. THere are many reasons to support a war and not be able to fight in it - being too old or sick are reasonable excuses. In this war we have many many young men and women who are on their 5th tour of duty, who have done above and beyond what they should be called to do because there isn't anyone to take their place. Well, I have a big problem with young people who support the war but don't want to be bothered with with messy details of serving. That's bullshit.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[ATK]

49. that might be a good start.

and I'm not setting up a false premise. The argument is, if you support the war either you or your children should be in the military.

I wish more people would volunteer, but its a choice. Even for Romney's kids. if they come out talking about how great the war is, then they should be questioned on it.
And young people support a lot of things they don't actually participate in, like Elections

[Mz Pip]

56. I also believe

that people who don't vote really don't have much of a justification to complain about the government. Voting is one of the most important ways we make ourselves heard.

What bothers me most about those who support the war is that so many of them find it quite easy to call those who don't treasonous or terrorist sympathizers. If this war is so important that those who do not support it are deemed traitors then it might be of value to differentiate yourself with actions and not just rhetoric. Because really, a just cuase needs more than just rhetoric.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[ATK]

58. yeah, well, again its stupid freepers setting themselves up again

they did it in 1992, came back to bite them in 2004. They did it with regard to bosnia, its come back to bite them in Iraq.

they want to set a standard of treason, what comes around goes around.

I just don't think anything is gained by repeating their idiocy

[Virginia Dare]

68. Well, let me ask you this...

Do you think Mittsy would be so "supportive" of the war if his sons were eligible for a draft? Do you think it's pretty likely that Mittsy's sons would suddenly be called for missions in other parts of the world?

This is all a pretty moot point without a draft, because we really don't know how far people are will to sacrifice.

P.S. I also think the war in Afghanistan is bullshit, and I don't support it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. Should Cate Edwards, Chelsea Clinton and Jackie Kucinich be serving in Afghanastan?

:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

16. I think military service is noble and the children of elected officials

should be encouraged--no, expected--to serve, just like the British Royal Family.

[wuushew]

71. There are many more noble professions

fireman, doctor or aid worker to name a few.

I am not denying that military service can occasionally be a noble endeavor but to anyone with a minor education in contemporary American history, the motivations and results of such actions have more often been in oppositions to these goals.

I guess what defines the Amerikan psyche is the successfully mechanisms which we collectively invent to pat ourselves on our backs and obscure self-evident cognitive dissonance.

[Javaman]

45. Anyone who voted to give moron* the power to have his war of folly

absolutely.

For far to long in this country the have mores have always voted for the things that least affect them and knowing full well that "their" children will never have to serve or suffer the consequences.

The wars of this nation have always been fought by the lower and middle class, the politicians and the rich depend on that.

[Forkboy]

76. YES

If you're not willing to have your child die then don't vote for war and expect others to the the dying for them.

[leftchick]

17. I don't support any fucking war

assuming makes an ass out of .....

[ATK]

19. well then, you're excluded

df

[mitchtv]

21. They could shut all criticism down quicky by denouncing

an illegal war of agression. They are now, like it or not, public persons.

[wtmusic]

24. x-actly

but by appearing on Dad's website they are appearing to endorse him, and thus his cause.

Let's get it all out in the open, shall we?

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Perhaps they don't spend much time on DU

[Virginia Dare]

22. I guess nothing unless that kid..

"grows up" to be President some day himself...did you pay attention to the 2000 election as well?

[Richard Steele]

18. Busy fighting the "culture war" at home. Frat house rec rooms covered with maps fulla pins.

KnowhutImean?

[dogday]

23. That sounds about right... Chicken Hawks yell war, but

never participate in it.... True as True can be.....

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Is John Edwards a Chickenhawk too?

:shrug:

[dogday]

35. I just received an email from John Edward's campaign

about ending the war....

He might not of served in it, he did vote for the IWR, he has recanted that vote, and is calling for an end to the war... I don't describe that as "Chicken Hawk"... Why do you?

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. What about the war in Afghanastan?

He is still in favor of that one? If so, when does his daughter ship out? ;)

Of course he is not a Chicken Hawk for not forcing his adult daughter to fight in a war which he supports. But the idea that this should apply to other candidates is just as silly.

[dogday]

40. We are talking about Iraq war, but

I support the war in Afghanistan, provided I am being told that is the truth of the war...

Do you know something about that war that makes it illegal or wrong?

[ATK]

51. well, you'd best get to the enlistment office so you can go find out

live by the standards you set for others

[dogday]

60. My Son served in Iraq last year

Came home in November.... I would say I live by the standards... I want to end the Iraq war.. I am not sure about Afghanistan, I thought it was about 9-11, not Iraq though....


Is that enough for you?

[ATK]

63. who was he with? I had a couple people I know came home around the same time

just curious.

and I'd say your son is doing it. how long's he been in?

[ATK]

64. who was he with? I had a couple people I know came home around the same time

just curious.

and I'd say your son is doing it. how long's he been in?

[dogday]

65. Out of South Carolina

111th Signal Battalion their second tour, his first....

[ATK]

50. you say it so much better than I do. I've probably offended many here

but I agree with you 100%

[Bluebear]

52. By the way, who is your candidate for '08?

[ATK]

59. its MAY 2007. and right now, none of them have set themselves

apart from each other.
I would like to see Gore run, I would like to see Wes Clark run but most of all, I want to know how they are different from each other.

in short, I don't pay attention until the REAL debates begin

[Bluebear]

48. Is Edwards making excuse after excuse like Romney is?

My draft number wasn't high enough? I was in college! I had to go serve the Mormon church on a mission!

How can you even compare Edwards as a chickenhawk in this example?

[geardaddy]

25. "Set it annnnd forget it!" n/t

[Ilsa]

46. NONE of them have served yet? I can remember when military

service was supposed to be almost as important as doing the missionary thing. I guess not if your daddy and granddaddy are worth $hundreds of millions$.

[BrotherBuzz]

55. I served with a Mormon that did a twofer...

He was doing his mission work in the service because he couldn't afford the conventional mission route.

[ComerPerro]

69. the RW "rock" band "The Right Brothers" has a song that describes this perfectly

lyrics are something retarded like "I never served in the military or sacrificed anything for my country, but I thank those who do".

Its completely asanine, and I think its insulting.

[Erika]

82. The Mormon religion sees duty to church

far superior to duty to country.

[TexasLawyer]

84. some of the Romney boys, and their lovely mother

The boys will be inheriting a LOT of money someday (Daddy's worth $250 million) so they need to stay alive, with limbs intact, in order to pursue their other priorities.

You can't "live the life" with your skin burned off, or with your eye balls missing.