[SPECIAL NOTE: Please ignore debate! This forum has been very good at exposing exactly what the title of the thread implies. Why ruin good information and meaningful opinion in order to propagate a petty debate--PLEASE DON'T DEBATE!]
Yes, some GOPwingers will come on board and protest the content on this thread--BUT I FIRMLY RECOMMEND NOT DEBATING WITH THEM. Let their message stand alone. I'm sure the value of information posted here will be more than enough to overwhelm their position. Besides, there already exist sufficient SI forums for debating.
Let this board show THE lying record of the Bush Administration (or Blair's), and examples of misery and malfeasance heaped on Americans--the rest of the world.
We tragically hear officially of death and casualty counts of the US, but never officially of the innocent Iraqis who've been killed and maimed, directly or indirectly, as a result of the US action. For perspective on this, please visit:
Message 19781362
And there's no reason not to believe that the US-British Iraq policy could, if not already, create more havoc and instability in the wider Middle East region. Is this dangerous?
Are rightwing radicals now in the White House? They are--and people today are sadly dying because of them! It's time for a new Administration in Washington!!!
Message 19782898
Please spread the word!
BLAIR: (51% want him out):
news.independent.co.uk
BUSH: (48% approve; 45% disapprove; 7% don't know)
pollingreport.com
moveon.org
CLAIM VS. FACT -- RUSSET-BUSH INTERVIEW:
Message 19783518
BUSH-APPOINTED COMMISSION TO STUDY INTELLIGENCE:
Message 19794213
TOP TWO FEATURE FINDS:
1) The Death Count:
10,000 Iraqi Civilians Dead
Posted by Lakshmi on February 10, 2004 @ 10:52AM
The war and the subsequent occupation have now resulted in the deaths of a staggering 10,000 Iraqi civilians. The group of academics who run Iraq Body Count.org base their estimate on media reports since both the coalition forces and the Iraqi Governing Council forbid counting of civilian casualties. More importantly, the website makes clear just how disproportionate the U.S. response to 9/11 has been:
"So far, in the 'war on terror' initiated since 9/11, the USA and its allies have been responsible for over 13,000 civilian deaths, not only the 10,000 in Iraq, but also 3,000-plus civilian deaths in Afghanistan, another death toll that continues to rise long after the world's attention has moved on. "Elsewhere in the world over the same period, paramilitary forces hostile to the USA have killed 408 civilians in 18 attacks worldwide. Adding the official 9/11 death toll (2,976 on 29 October 2003) brings the total to just under 3,500."
alternet.org
Message 19790926
2) Bush-Cheney Policy Implications:
Practicing Nuclear War
by Charley Reese
About the middle of this month, Russia will stage the largest strategic nuclear maneuvers since 1982. These maneuvers will involve the test-firing of intercontinental ballistic missiles, both from land and sea; the test-firing of cruise missiles from strategic bombers; and even the launch of a military satellite.
Publicly, according to the Moscow Times, Russian generals say this is part of preparing for the war on terrorism. Obviously, however, you don't need strategic nuclear weapons to fight terrorists. No, what the Russians are doing is practicing all-out nuclear war against the United States. The Russian military probably believes a nuclear exchange with the United States is still a possibility, and therefore the military should train for it.
Now, why would they think nuclear war is still possible? They are realists. A realist disregards intentions and looks at capabilities. Intentions amount to intangible thought and therefore can change on a dime. Capabilities, however, involve hard, measurable objects like missiles, bombers, submarines and ships. It takes a great deal of time to change capabilities. Whatever our intentions, we have the capability of wiping Russia off the map. Whatever their intentions, the Russians have the capability of wiping us off the map.
I have long argued that with the end of the Cold War, the United States' relationship with Russia should be the paramount job of American diplomacy. Unfortunately, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have thought otherwise. About all we did after the fall of communism was to send some Wall Street sharks over to teach their sharks how to rape the Russian economy. Otherwise, we treated Russia as if it were a Third World country.
Dearly beloved, no country that can destroy the United States in 30 minutes is a Third World country. Keep in mind that more than half of our population lives in 75 metropolitan areas. Those are targets in military terms. The Russians could put 10 nuclear warheads on each of those targets and still have many, many hundreds of warheads left.
Being as how both countries have hundreds of nuclear missiles on a hair-trigger alert that once launched, on purpose or by accident, can't be called back, you would think the president of the United States would realize how important it is to be tight with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president and a very tough guy.
Alas, President Bush, obsessed with a petty tyrant who lacked the capability of causing us any harm, has just about put U.S.-Russian relations in the freezer. Bush has talked and acted recklessly, ditching the anti-ballistic missile treaty, announcing an end to the no-first-use-of-nukes policy and replacing it with a policy of pre-emptive war. He has demonstrated that he will ignore allies, world opinion, international law and the United Nations.
Can you blame the Russians for being cautious? After all, Mr. Bush said no one can allow the worst weapons in the world to be controlled by the worst leader in the world. Well, the shoe fits the cocky little guy from Texas. Worst weapons, worst leader or so it must seem to the Russians. It's no wonder that a large poll of Europeans found that the United States and Israel ranked right up there with North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.
I'm not suggesting that the nuclear maneuvers are a prelude to war, but they are a practical result of cold relations with the United States. President Bush's foreign policy has been characterized mainly by blunders, the largest of which was alienating world opinion, which had been solidly on our side after the Sept. 11 attack.
Domestic blunders can be easily repaired by the legislative branches, but foreign-policy blunders can sometimes have dire, even fatal, consequences. The president ought to be pursuing disarmament, but instead he has initiated a new arms race.
Message 19780262
PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN LIES:
Message 19789898
Message 19790111
TOP FINDS:
Message 19790888
Message 19771337
Message 19771081
Message 19769403
Message 19769945
Message 19769720
Message 19766250
Message 19747132
Message 19760660
Message 19753680
Message 19766608
Message 19766224
Message 19766080
Message 19748821
NOTEWORTHY:
newyorker.com
guardian.co.uk
theatlantic.com
alternet.org
alternet.org |
