SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cnyndwllr who wrote (206751)10/23/2006 7:02:43 PM
From: mistermj  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Its really despicable to use their grief for your own politics of hate.

But thats standard procedure with the loony moonbat left these days.

I take it as another sign that the elections will not go your way. It hasn't been wrong yet.

If you can't feel the pain of the victims, can't feel deeply embarrassed and can't feel deeply ashamed of your blindly aggressive and misplaced support then you, like Cheney, Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld ought to be the ones on the killing end of our soldiers rifles because, in reality, you're their deadly enemies.

And yes, I mean every word of that. Ed



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (206751)10/23/2006 10:45:37 PM
From: geode00  Respond to of 281500
 
I think the Ichys, and Cobalts, and Lindy Bills, and jlallens, and KLPs, and Keith Ferals and mjfdls of the thread should read the following scream of anguish from Kevin Tillman and then take a long look in the mirror and ask themselves what kind of person would deliberately lie their way into a war, lie their way into the continuance of a war and refuse to accept responsibility.

-------

They'd cut out their own eyes before they ever did that. The Republikan Fascist Minion has nothing but belief and loyalty to the head Fascist, in this case Bush. This undying love and fealty defines their entire way of thinking. Without it they are nothing.

It's amazing that Limbaugh will tell his listeners not to think for themselves because he will define for them how they should think about the day's events. They listen to him and he gets $20m+ a year for that claptrap. Republikans are just the ultimate pervy sheeple, the more you insult them and steal from them and make them less safe the more they love you.

If they ever had to justify their utter lack of morality and the consequences of their support for this immoral regime, they would burst into flames.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (206751)10/24/2006 4:11:26 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Is President Bush Betraying Young Americans Dying In Iraq? Do John Kerry's 1971 Words Apply Today? What Do You Think?

huffingtonpost.com



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (206751)10/30/2006 12:16:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Ultimate Accountability: The Conspiracy of Silence
____________________________________________________________

By Paul Abrams*

huffingtonpost.com

10.29.2006

The Economist recently analyzed the strategic options in Iraq and concluded that all the options were bad, but the least bad was for the US to stay-the-course. Well, that's just great--they are perfectly willing to see our sons and daughters and husbands and wives and mothers and fathers die or be dismembered, and for our treasury to be raided.

Not a word about, e.g., British troops who are leaving the south going to Baghdad instead of London. Not a word about funding. And, this from a Tory paper that extols free markets as virtuous because they hold people, and companies, accountable, and decries the excesses taken with "other peoples' money". (FYI/ They endorsed Bush in '00, and Kerry in '04, and were leading protagonists of invading Iraq).

If someone proposes that you sell everything and put it in a particular investment, one of the early due diligence questions is whether that person is also investing. If he is not, that raises huge red flags about the investment: is it really that good? will it be properly managed? will due care be taken to ensure its success and protect the investment? By the same token, is it not appropriate to ask: "why Mr Bush has not a single member of the Bush family--nephews, nieces, children--volunteered for Iraq? Both of Lyndon Johnson's sons-in-law went to Vietnam almost immediately after marrying an LBJ daughter; indeed, it would have been unthinkable in those days for them not to have gone. David Eisenhower, Julie Nixon's husband, went into the Navy to avoid direct combat, but spun it by saying, "my grandfather told me to go into the army if you are going to make it a career, but the navy if you are not". Bogus, of course, and the beginning of tolerating lack of accountability by the armchair warriors, but at least reporters challenged him and asked the question.

Let me assure you: this could be a very potent, and legitimate point. Example: Jeb Bush appeared at the Florida booth at the biotechnology meeting in San Franscisco in 2004. I stood across from him, and asked him, "are any of your children going to volunteer for Iraq?". He answered, "no, I don't believe they will. My sons are 26-28, and my daughter, she's in college". Then, he added, "but she might do it, she might do it". Most tellingly, while he spoke he turned red in the face, and when he finished he turned on heels and walked away.

William Kristol, one of the co-founders of Project for a New American Century, appeared at a Seattle program. "Host" Michael Medved asked Kristol about this "chickenhawk" question. Kristol said his youngest was in ROTC at Harvard (4 yrs away from potential deployment--want to take any bets on whether he deploys?), said nothing about his older children, and then said that he himself had been too young to volunteer for Vietnam. After the presentation, I went in the autograph line (did not buy his book) to ask Kristol when he was born: December, 1952 was his answer. The Vietnam war ended in 1975, meaning Kristol was 18 yrs old in 1971, and had 4 years he could have volunteered. Doing this highly complex math in my head, I asked him about it. Like Jeb, Kristol turned red in the face, and angrily shouted, "why should I, why should I?".

Anyone wants to venture a wild guess as to whether any of Joe Lieberman's children have volunteered for Iraq, or whether Joe volunteered for Vietnam? Chris Shays, a major Iraq War hawk, was a conscientious objector during Vietnam---one can only conclude that now that he is too old himself to volunteer that he is proving his courage as a surrogate warrior.

These people are VERY sensitive about this issue. But, no one asks. And, here's why: there is a conspiracy of silence about this matter among politicians of both parties and the media elite. No one other than the media elite gets direct access, and so the question goes unasked these days. I put in a full page ad in the LoneStar Iconoclast (Bush's hometown newspaper) during August, asking the media to ask him that question. They will not, because they depend upon these people for access, and, for that matter, they attend soirees with them. I also asked Charlie Rangel about raising the question on the House floor---his method is to propose a draft, even though that is besides the point. The LBJ sons-in-law, all of FDRs family, they all VOLUNTEERED.

The best control there is on investing other peoples' money, or other childrens' lives and limbs, is to ensure that those promoting those policies and managing them have a direct, personal stake in the outcome, not just saying one is accounting, but actually acting accountably. Now, that would be a revolution.

Forcing this question on Bush, on those who support the war in Congress, on young rightwing commentators, would surface the question of whether "staying-this-course" is acceptable as the best of bad options. As John Kerry said about Vietnam: "how do ask the last person to die for a mistake?". Until the proponents are themselves willing to volunteer or have their own flesh and blood at risk, the question of whether this is "worth it" cannot be honestly addressed.

Finally, this question can be raised to our allies in the region. If the US leaving would be a disaster for Saudi Arabia, how about the Saudis funding the war and contributing their own troops? What about the Jordanians and Egyptians? [Some of them might even know a little Arabic]. And, I don't mean a token contingent, I mean a real deployment, so the US truly stands down. If they do not act as if their lives depend upon it, why should we believe it does?
____________________________________________________

*Paul Abrams, M.D., J.D., is an entrepreneur who is currently a consultant in biotechnology, and chairs a bioremediation company. He was formerly President, CEO and Director of one publicly-traded, and another privately-held, biotechnology company, inventor on 12 US patents, co-editor of two scientific books and has published more than 35 peer-reviewed articles.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (206751)10/30/2006 3:21:27 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Depleted Uranium Death Toll among US War Veterans Tops 11,000
_________________________________________________________________

Nationwide Media Blackout Keeps U.S. Public Ignorant About This Important Story

by James P. Tucker Jr.
American Free Press
October 29, 2006

The death toll from the highly toxic weapons component known as depleted uranium (DU) has reached 11,000 soldiers and the growing scandal may be the reason behind Anthony Principi’s departure as secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department.

This view was expressed by Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter.

“The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given,” Bernklau said. “However, a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the U.S. military.”

The “malady [from DU] that thousands of our military have suffered and died from has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. . . . The terrible truth is now being revealed,” Bernklau said.

Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are now dead, he said. By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. More than a decade later, more than half (56 percent) who served in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of the last century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam.

“The VA secretary was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” Bernklau said. “He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, it is far too big to hide or to cover up.”

Terry Johnson, public affairs specialist at the VA, recently reported that veterans of both Persian Gulf wars now on disability total 518,739, Bernklau said.

“The long-term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence,” Bernklau said. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved in the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers [from the second war] as ‘spectacular’—and a matter of concern.’ ”