Steve Schacher

quote:Someone clearly hasn't been reading every post hereSorry... It really was a minor footnote to my point, though. I don't think the USA wants to risk the political fallout (pun intended) from being the only country to use nukes twice in hostilities when conventional means are available. Besides, if we do use them, that will only embolden others to try to retaliate with nukes here (more than they're trying now).

I think the question of "necessary" use of nukes is the key. It would be very hard to imagine a situation today where the USA would find it necessary to use nukes, given how we showed the world how quickly our forces could take a country like Iraq. The use of nukes in WWII was deemed necessary because they saw a protracted fight resulting in the invasion of Japan, which would result in many more dead Americans (and Japanese) than the display of nuclear might would cause. That situation doesn't exist today. Unless we're going head-to-head with China or Russia in a war (in which case we have more important things at stake), the use of nukes would be impossible to defend other than for the sake of expediency, which wouldn't be a sufficient defense in many peoples mind.

One last point: the reason the liberal media bias is hard to see is that it is a bias of ommision, not commission. It is not in what they report, it is in what they choose not to report. It is interesting that they completely spiked the leaked Senate Democrat memo stories (Intelligence and Judiciary Committees) while playing up the Wilson/Plame CIA memo stories, then, when the critical mass of the Senate memos became too big to spike, the chose to focus on how the memos got leaked, not on the contents of the memos. That is how the media bias works, but you have to watch all the stories (from various media) in order to know which ones the elite media aren't telling you.

From the column: quote:"...Don't the Democrats deserve a few days in the sunshine, if you will?ÔÇØYou don't find it odd that a premier journalist is advocating that one political party be given unopposed news coverage during a key national event? When did we hear Woodruff ask a Democrat "...but doesn't President Bush deserve a few days in the sunshine for capturing Saddam Hussein?" Did you hear all the fuss about the Democrats planning to give their own State of the Union address prior to President Bush's? Why didn't anyone ask the Democrats if the timing was intended to steal Bush's "sunshine? "

From The Media Research Center: quote:CNNÔÇÖs Woodruff Frets About Bush Speech Overshadowing Democrats CNNÔÇÖs Judy Woodruff on Monday afternoon expressed exasperation that President Bush scheduled his State of the Union address for the day after the Iowa Caucuses in order to distract news coverage away from the Democratic presidential candidates. She complained to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist: ÔÇ£The rest of year and for the last three years the President has dominated the news. Don't the Democrats deserve a few days in the sunshine, if you will?ÔÇØ Not satisfied with FristÔÇÖs answer, she followed up three times. Woodruff pressed her agenda, MRC analyst Ken Shepherd noticed, during a January 19 Inside Politics segment with Frist who was in Iowa as part of a surrogate speaking effort to back Bush. Frist told Woodruff, who was also in Iowa: ÔÇ£I'm here today to say that the nightmare is going to be over shortly, to my Republican base. Right now, President Bush with his vision, with his commander-in-chief aura, has been at a real disadvantage here because of all the Democratic activity. So today, I'm meeting with Republicans all over the state, to energize that base, to begin that organization for the next ten months. And that's the sole purpose that we're here today.ÔÇØ Woodruff countered: ÔÇ£But, the rest of year and for the last three years the President has dominated the news. Don't the Democrats deserve a few days in the sunshine, if you will?ÔÇØ Frist replied: ÔÇ£You know, they do. But imagine right now of having to watch for the last several months, if you are a Republican, with those conservative principles, who admire President Bush, what you've had to suffer every day on the air. And that is, a Democrat saying that the President is not leading, or he's using the wrong principles to lead....ÔÇØ After quizzing Frist about the challenge of not knowing who BushÔÇÖs opponent will be, Woodruff returned to the timing of BushÔÇÖs address: ÔÇ£A Republican close to the White House quoted in the New York Times this morning is saying the State of the Union was timed to come after the night of the Iowa caucuses to take attention off of the Democrats. I mean, you are the one who's involved in setting the time of the President's State of the Union. What about that? Why do that?ÔÇØ Frist answered: ÔÇ£Well, I think it makes for sort of good talk and good conversation. The President's speech really isn't a political speech. It's political in the sense that he is commander-in-chief.ÔÇØ Undeterred, Woodruff demanded: ÔÇ£But I'm talking about the timing of it?ÔÇØ Frist: ÔÇ£No, I know. But the timing really doesn't matter. We always do it sometime between a couple of days ago and say five or six days from now. The specific timing, if it were a political speech, I think would make sense. You can say that's the strategy itself. But this is not a political speech. It's a policy speech. In fact, I think the President will go to great effort not to throw politics into this speech at all.ÔÇØ Woodruff came at him once more: ÔÇ£But again, it's a sign the Republicans worried the Democrats getting too much air time, is that what we're talking about here?ÔÇØ

I registered as a Republican as soon as I turned 18. The first candidate that I voted for was Ronald Reagan. A great initial read (in my opinion) is Common Sense, by Thomas Paine, Feb 1776. Also The Rights Of Man. The 18th century was great for expansion of political thought.

What has to be considered with this State Of The Union address is that we've already been subjected to at least a dozen Democrat debates with no less than nine candidates running. Throughout all of that, including calling Bush a gang-leader and worse than Hitler, Bush stayed silent. The State Of The Union address was his rebuttal. Because this is an election year, he reiterated his record against what all the Democrat candidates said they would have done, or would do in the future. Furthermore, it was interesting to see the media, such as Judy Woodruff, complain that Bush timed the State of the Union address to steal the thunder from the Democrats in Iowa! Give Me A Break!! The SOTU has been at this time (give or take a few days) forEVER! They're just mad that, as President, he has the bully pulpit available to him. If he put it off a week, they'd complain that he stole the thunder from New Hampshire. Actually, I bet the media wants Bush to treat the SOTU the way that Washington and Jefferson did, in writing. They want Bush contained like Hussein. They don't want him to use the trappings of office against them and the Democrats.

quote:that's my opinion and like it or not I am free to express it.I sense a tone of defensiveness in your style of writing (maybe it's just me). I just want to tell you that it isn't necessary here. If you read the prior topics in the archives, you will find many, many divergent opinions expressed and debated. Sometimes passions get high, but there is no need to start off with an expression of defiance.

Cell phone spam will quickly be ruled illegal, if not theft. The same principle as the original fax spam applies: they were stealing your paper to fax you unwanted ads, they are stealing your connect minutes to send you unwanted ads. It's not the same as land lines where you pay a fixed price for all telephone calls.

quote:well, guess what, it has always gotten a LOT of government contracts.Take one guess which company got many contracts in Bosnia?

quote:there exists a conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict of interest, then resign. You are aware that Cheney divested all his interest in Halliburton during the 2000 campaign when the press raised the issue of conflict of interest, right? Are you also aware that the press then tried to make an Enron-like claim against Cheney when they reported that he sold his stock just before the share price fell, even though they hounded him into selling it in the first place? Any money that Cheney still receives is in the form of deferred compensation as CEO, in other words, retirement pay.

Since we have a new player to the game, let's briefly review the rules of engagement. This site is dedicated to advancing the Battlecruiser franchise. That is the foremost reason why we are here. However, because of the high learning curve of the series, it attracts a fan base of highly intelligent people who look for depth in their gameplay. Those people also look for depth in their news, analysis, and debate. Therefore, this site has evolved into a debate club as well. The people here span the spectrum from high-school/college students, to professionals in all fields of endeavor and stages in life. Regarding debate, we cherish diversity of opinion, and we challenge lines of reasoning, facts or lack thereof, but not the people themselves. Links to authorative sites to support or debunk an opinion are always welcome. Debate can get heated at times, and sometimes a referee has to step in and send participants to neutral corners. We hope that this is an infrequent occurrence. At the end of the day, the rule of thumb is that we can agree to disagree and then still go out for a beer with each other. After all, it is the game that brings us here, and it is the game that will keep us here. The debates are a privelege, and that privelege can be revoked (read: banned from the site) if abused. So, once again, welcome to our world. Pull up a chair and stay awhile.

If the war was fought for oil, it was fought for France's Total, not America's Halliburton.

quote:But tonight, break out the bloodwine we celebrate!A toast to you and your House!

quote:They should have taken him out but the powers that be consider he's too valuable a source of information. ...and all the quotes along this line of reasoning.Jag is right. It isn't the information gained that is important here. The real message to the Arab world is that the United States is not interested in occupying countries. If we were to take Hussein out, or if we were to try Hussein, it would make the USA look like the world's policemen, which would futher ingratiate us to the world. By letting the Iraqi people try Hussein on their own terms, we show the world that we were serious about ending terrorism and sponsors of terrorism, but not out to control the world. By letting the Iraqi people judge Hussein, it builds credibility for the new Iraqi government and gives people a sense of faith that they can determine their own future. quote:Now either Jag or Kalshion will probably say this, "The UN? Who needs the UN? They are weak and all their power is derived from US military might anyway so we could just save them the trouble and do it ourselves!"Remember how the UN cut and ran after their building was attacked? quote:The fact that there are successful attacks invalidates the argument that the US troops can assure the protection of anyone in Iraq. ... The fact that there is a casualty rate underscores the fact that the US cannot protect everyone in Iraq. A 90% success rate denotes a 10% failure rate and people are still being killed over there. Picking off one or two soldiers at a time does not make a successful attack. How about the fact that their have been more American deaths in Oakland and Washington DC than their have been in Iraq? You have to put it in perspective. And as harsh as this may sound, I would rather have the insurgents pick off one or two soldiers in Iraq (who are trained and signed up for this duty) than to have them pick off 1,000 or 2,000 citizens in New York or Boston. And for the record, I was a firm believer that Hussein was killed in the first "Shock and Awe" attack.

No, I don't. I merely explained the background of why the Bin Laden family members were flown out of the USA, or did you forget that you asked that question, implying some kind of Bush-Bin Laden conspiracy. The Saudi ruling family have become isolated from their people. They allowed fanatic radicalism to breed inside their country, and were paying off the terrorists to leave them alone. They are only now starting to complain about terrorism because the War on Terror shut down the rest of the world as potential targets so Al Qaeda are left to attack where they can, like in Saudi Arabia, Baghdad, Turkey, etc. But like I said, the Bin Laden family was not involved with Osama's terrorism. They were sent away for their own protection. You wouldn't want to go after Ted Kaczynski's family because Kaczynski was the Unibomber, you wouldn't want to go after Timothy McVeigh's family because he blew up the Federal Bldg in Oklahoma, right?

The Bin Ladens, as far as I recall, were a respected family in Saudi Arabia in the construction business. Osama was a rich kid who drifted without direction until he went radical after the USA built bases in Saudi Arabia due to the Gulf War. The family was flown out of the USA at the personal request of Saudi King Fahd. "His majesty said it's not fair for those innocent people to be subjected to any harm," Saudi Prince Bandar said, appearing on CNN's Larry King Live programme.

quote:Where did YOU get that information? I'm sure you read it in one of those mainstream media sources (please correct me if I'm wrong) that is owned by AOL/Time Warner or Ted Turner or one of those conservative media giants. This is what we call BIASED INFORMATION.This one is from the London Telegraph. Does this link Saddam to 9/11? quote: document discovered by Iraq's interim government details a meeting between the man behind the September 11 attacks and Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, at his Baghdad training camp. Con Coughlin reports. For anyone attempting to find evidence to justify the war in Iraq, the discovery of a document that directly links Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks, with the Baghdad training camp of Abu Nidal, the infamous Palestinian terrorist, appears almost too good to be true. ... Written in the neat, precise hand of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and one of the few named in the US government's pack of cards of most-wanted Iraqis not to have been apprehended, the personal memo to Saddam is signed by Habbush in distinctive green ink. Headed simply "Intelligence Items", and dated July 1, 2001, it is addressed: "To the President of the Ba'ath Revolution Party and President of the Republic, may God protect you." The first paragraph states that "Mohammed Atta, an Egyptian national, came with Abu Ammer (an Arabic nom-de-guerre - his real identity is unknown) and we hosted him in Abu Nidal's house at al-Dora under our direct supervision. "We arranged a work programme for him for three days with a team dedicated to working with him . . . He displayed extraordinary effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy." ... The second item contains a report of how Iraqi intelligence, helped by "a small team from the al-Qaeda organisation", arranged for an (unspecified) shipment from Niger to reach Baghdad by way of Libya and Syria. Iraqi officials believe this is a reference to the controversial shipments of uranium ore Iraq acquired from Niger to aid Saddam in his efforts to develop an atom bomb, although there is no explicit reference in the document to this.That last bit is, I believe, a reference to the yellowcake "scandal" that the Democrats tried to smear Bush with. Do you remember the bit from Robert Novak about "outing" a CIA agent because they were mad at her husband reporting no Iraq-Niger connection with uranium sales? Keep watching. As the 2004 election draws closer and the Democrats, in their desperation, make wilder and wilder accusations, the White House and Downey Street will be releasing (leaking?) more and more tidbits like this to make the opposition look more and more shrill and incompetent to lead the country.

quote:However, this poses another interesting dilemma...I never said that just because the US war on Iraq was unjustified, it shouldn't have happened! I don't understand. If it wasn't justified, it shouldn't have happened. If it was justified, then it was justified. How CAN you endorse an unjustified war? quote:All those other countries (France, Germany, and yes, even Canada) had selfish reasons for keeping out of the war, but you have to admit that there was a certain degree of selfishness in the actions of the Bush administration as well. If you mean that Bush went to war because of personal reasons, such as retaliation for Iraqi attempts to assassinate his father, then we can debate whether that was a coincidental benefit or a major impetus. Otherwise, I don't see the selfishness of it. France, Germany, and Russia had lucrative contracts with Iraq that they stood to lose if Hussein went down. They also held large notes of Iraqi debt, whose repayment they stood to lose as well. So what if liberating millions of people, stopping the rape chambers and torture chambers gets in the way of a few billion in cash flow? For the USA, it wasn't about getting Iraqi oil. It was about stopping a destabilizing force in the region. It was about shutting off the cash spigot to other terrorist entities. It's the classic domino principle: take out Iraq and soon the other terrorist organs will atrophy. If there is a selfishness to it, it is to keep the fighting over there instead of over here. quote:Millions of people from all those European countries were opposed to the war. Do you think they gave a crap about oil? As I said before, the GOVERNMENTS had selfish reasons for staying out of the war, but the people of those countries had every reason to protest as citizens with real concerns about the state of the world. Well, that's what the Europeans do, the appease and protest military action. Do you remember during the 1980s when Reagan wanted to deploy the Pershing missiles thoughout Europe to deter the Soviet Union? Do you remember all the photos of people dressed as zombies and skeletons as if they were survivors of a nuclear holocaust? It's what they do. quote:I have not met one Canadian who SUPPORTED Saddam Hussein's regime. They all hate him, and want him gone just like everyone else in the world. But the United States is convinced that war is the only option (although they claim it was a last resort). It's not just the United States. Don't you remember the 17 or so UN resolutions that Hussein ignored? Do you remember resolution 1441 that declared the final ultimatum and the authorization of force?

quote:Where did YOU get that information? I'm sure you read it in one of those mainstream media sources (please correct me if I'm wrong) I will get to the substance of your last post later, but for now let me address this one point, since media bias seems to be a pet peeve of yours (as it is mine, too). I am an avid news junkie. I read most everything on the internet, since all world news outlets are linked there. I never watch mainstream broadcast TV news (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS). I will admit to watching FNC, but I essentially get my news from the internet in all its forms. If you expand the display range on the General Discussion forum here, you will notice political debates from many sides (going back to 1998) with a very varied set of news articles linked. You're new to this site, so let me tell you that the people who post here are not brainwashed by the spoonfed news by Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, and Tom Brokaw.

quote:because we all know the real reason is OIL!!....(or is it?) Being a an American studying in Canada, what do you think about this oil connection between France and Canada, documented in an earlier post of mine? It's cool to say that America went to war for oil for Bush's buddies and Cheney's Halliburton, but American government contracts don't work that way. But look at France and Canada's familial ties to Iraqi oil and maybe you might reconsider that statement.

quote:With all due respect, citing previous wars and conflicts and making vague connections to this modern conflict may make you sound smart...He thinks we sound smart...

See this post from February on my earlier take on the major wars since the founding of the Republic.

Yet another perspective on the wars pre- and post-League/UN: World War 1 was caused by the dying throes of the Hapsburg Empire, which ran from Austria eastward. Back then, Europe was a bunch of powerful monarchies, with the English Crown, the French Monarchy (then Napolean and his eastward march into Hapsburg territory), and the Russian Empire to the northeast of the Hapsburgs. The was that conflicts were resolved back then was to marry between monarchies. That all fell apart with World War 1. The other conflicts, such as the Boer War and the Boxer Rebellion, were the result of British and French colonialism in Africa and Asia. Even America's War of 1812 was a result of American involvement in a British-French conflict. What makes today's conflict different is that the United States is not the product of a monarchy, nor is it interested in colonial expansion (although some may debate this). It does have an interest in seeing dictatorships replaced with people-led republics, but those republics do not have to become American puppet nations, although I'm sure America wouldn't mind the open markets that result.

quote:Millions of people have lost their jobs under Bush's economic plan.I thought we were all educated by the media that the president does not affect the economy. This was the spin used to explain why Republicans won the mid-term elections when the opposition party traditionally wins mid-term elections. So, if the president does not affect the economy, then the lost jobs are a result of something else. Several factors are at play. The most recent factor being discussed by the media is that America has become more effecient, meaning that we are doing more with less. That means that the economy can grow with fewer jobs because effeciency and productivity is higher. Also, the economy keeps shifting. We are less of a manufacturing economy and more of a service economy, but even that is shifting. I recently debated some friends where I said that Republicans are offshoring work to India while Democrats are bringing in cheap labor from Mexico. Admittedly, that is a gross stereotyping, but it is good for a laugh.