What Senator John Glenn Said

[ZECH]

The Iraq war was not illegal. Saddam violated the original cease fire agreement, and then numerous UN declarations, so many times it almost impossable to keep count. Just because the Politicized UN is incapable of enforcing world peace and backing up its lawfull orders doesnt mean we are doing anything illegal by doing so. The first time Saddam violated the cease fire agree ment we had lawfull authority to go in and put his head on a spike. I think the last count was he violated 19 UN resolutions. What a joke!

Instead we sat around for ten years while Saddam fucked with the inspectors, played a shell game with his WMD assets, shot at allied warplanes policeing the no-fly zone, and thumbed his nose at the International cummunity. He bought off the pimps at the United Nations with sweetheart oil deals and other cash cows. The International media was easy. All he had to do was let them be themsleves.

My only regret was we werent ruthless enough. Anybody suspected of terrorism should get one trial in front of a military tribunal and if found guilty hung by the neck the next day. Fuck world opinion!

Best post of the thread!

 

[kbm8795]

I'm sure you do.

OK, let's try a different tact. Since the question "Name one unbiased major new source" seems to confuse you, let's try this:

Are any of these news sources unbiased?

• FOX News
• New York Times
• BBC
• Al Jazeera

First, you have arrogantly assigned yourself the arbiter of what is a "major news source." You just can't differentiate between your own inherent bias and how information is processed. . .and that means the confusion is your own.

Inability to accept personal responsibility is a hallmark of the Right.

 

[Eggs]

Inability to accept personal responsibility is a hallmark of the Right.

No, its a hallmark of humanity. And thats right

 

[DOMS]

First, you have arrogantly assigned yourself the arbiter of what is a "major news source." You just can't differentiate between your own inherent bias and how information is processed. . .and that means the confusion is your own.

Inability to accept personal responsibility is a hallmark of the Right.

And yet again you refuse to answer a simple question.

You've also gone back to hiding behind Right and Left. You are assuming that I'm saying that the media is left bias when I've done nothing of the sort. Right, Left, or financial, it's all biased.

As for the Right not taking responsibility, try to remember that it's generally the left-leaning people who want the social programs to take care of all their ills.

 

[brogers]

Inability to accept personal responsibility is a hallmark of the Right.

Actually it's a hallmark of the left, hence why they support so much government welfare. People can't accept responsibility for their decisions in life, but have no fear, because Uncle Sam will give you handouts.

 

[GFR]

Actually it's a hallmark of the left, hence why they support so much government welfare. People can't accept responsibility for their decisions in life, but have no fear, because Uncle Sam will give you handouts.

I agree with you Corporate welfare in this country is out of hand and disgusting, they have grown usto not taking responsibility for their actions......costing the tax payers billions every year.....this welfare needs to stop!

 

[kbm8795]

And yet again you refuse to answer a simple question.

You've also gone back to hiding behind Right and Left. You are assuming that I'm saying that the media is left bias when I've done nothing of the sort. Right, Left, or financial, it's all biased.

As for the Right not taking responsibility, try to remember that it's generally the left-leaning people who want the social programs to take care of all their ills.

Actually you made the assumptions about bias without taking your own inherent political bias into consideration as the gauge. Since you, as an audience member, process everything through your own pronounced bias, you have no other way to consider the profession except as a reflection of your own structure.

The shrill accusations of bias have been particularly framed by the Right as a means to devalue and discredit the ability of the media to serve as a watchdog for the public. Attempting to simplify the reasons doesn't address the issue at all, but it serves as an excuse to promote the legitimacy of non-professionals like Rush and Hannity.

There is a lot more to personal responsibility than being pro or against social programs.

 

[kbm8795]

Actually it's a hallmark of the left, hence why they support so much government welfare. People can't accept responsibility for their decisions in life, but have no fear, because Uncle Sam will give you handouts.

We hear so much about this on the Right, and very little about the system of social welfare/cronyism that has become the corrupt hallmark of our nation's government and economy. When we base a system increasingly on "who you know" rather than "what you know" it is at least as damaging a form of social welfare since both consumers and taxpayers end up paying for the nepotism of those in power. Corporate America is full of cronyism. . .the promotion because the boss thinks you are hot. . .the appointment to an executive position because you are a cousin of the V.P....the inside recommendation for a promotion while 30 others take a test for the job and the appointee already knows they'll get the position anyway.

Government is no better. Uncle Sam provides employment and a nice, cushy life to plenty of people with no better talent than working on the campaign of a successful candidate. A cushy job with multiple benefits to an unqualified, uncompetitive candidate seems like social welfare to me.

 

[Eggs]

We must have alot of right handed people in here... theres so much bias about it thats all everybody can talk about. Well, try and recognize the importance of left handers too.

 

[Decker]

the invasion of defenseless iraq? are you serious? this can't possisbly be a serious post. is it? you are talking about a country that was left with a standing military at the end of the gulf war. they had what? 30 divisions defending their borders when we invaded with 3. the country that used chemical weapons to kill 8 million of its ethinic citizens and fought neighboring iran to a stand still for 8 years in the 80's. the country that invaded and took over its smaller and weaker neighbor kuwait in the 90's. yep sounds defenseless to me. to even post with anything stating that iraq was defenseless and has had its rights trampled on by the US is an outrage. and borders on stupidity.

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early '90s w/ the US's tacit approval--Ambassador Glaspie told the Iraqi government (by order of Jim Baker) that prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the US was neutral toward that act of aggression. Only after the Saudis raised hell w/ Bush did the US step in.
Yes, the chemical weapons Britain supplied Iraq and of which we said nothing were very devastating.
Please explain to me how this Iraqi military juggernaut is a threat to the US--I mean when the US isn't carrying water for the house of Saud.

if you agree with the war in iraq or not is fine and i dont have any problem with those who disagree with my opionion. i love to read healthy and intelligent debates, but how can we have a post with the point of view showing iraq was a poor defenseless country that had done nothing wrong and didnt deserve the big, bad US coming in and trampling their rights is asinine. the fact is sadam hussien and his government were evil. now if you feel we should have continued using useless diplomatic solutions with them is another story, but please dont disgrace our soldiers by insinuating we are picking on a helpless country and forcing our will upon them. that simply is not the case

Useless diplomatic solutions? Where were the WMDs? And again, please explain how Iraq was a threat to the US.

 

[Decker]

Ok, I'll rephrase it. Maybe it doesn't guarantee it, but it has a darn better chance than anything they have to offer. If they get to be too many "of them" here, I guess its time for the militias to step up! When it comes to the survival of the USA, don't be fooled. We will do whatever it takes to stay on top. If that means taking over Iraq, Iran, Saudia Arabia or whoever, don't think it couldn't happen. We need to be like Australia. "We won't adapt to your ways. If you don't like our ways, go back!"

So this invasion is about survival? How?
And the rule of law means nothing? Might makes right? So we invade a country and they 'don't like our ways', what do we do? Annihilate them?

I'm not sure what kind of foreign policy you are advocating.

 

[Decker]

The Iraq war was not illegal. Saddam violated the original cease fire agreement, and then numerous UN declarations, so many times it almost impossable to keep count. Just because the Politicized UN is incapable of enforcing world peace and backing up its lawfull orders doesnt mean we are doing anything illegal by doing so. The first time Saddam violated the cease fire agree ment we had lawfull authority to go in and put his head on a spike. I think the last count was he violated 19 UN resolutions. What a joke!

Instead we sat around for ten years while Saddam fucked with the inspectors, played a shell game with his WMD assets, shot at allied warplanes policeing the no-fly zone, and thumbed his nose at the International cummunity. He bought off the pimps at the United Nations with sweetheart oil deals and other cash cows. The International media was easy. All he had to do was let them be themsleves.

My only regret was we werent ruthless enough. Anybody suspected of terrorism should get one trial in front of a military tribunal and if found guilty hung by the neck the next day. Fuck world opinion!

You are wrong, the invasion of Iraq is illegal. Reread the UN authorization for use of force.

 

[ALBOB]

Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early '90s w/ the US's tacit approval--Ambassador Glaspie told the Iraqi government (by order of Jim Baker) that prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the US was neutral toward that act of aggression. Only after the Saudis raised hell w/ Bush did the US step in.

This is some very interesting info. I had no idea we gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait. Please site your source(s).

Please explain to me how this Iraqi military juggernaut is a threat to the US.

I'd like a crack at that. Iraq was a threat to the entire free world. Their actions threatened the stability of the region and therefore threatened to interrupt the flow of oil. There, I said it, it was, is and always will be about the oil. I've said that a few dozen times and will NEVER appologize for it. Without that oil the world economy takes a nose dive and we all suffer the consequences. We protected our interests (our economy) in the region.

Where were the WMDs?

Now THAT'S something I'd like to know. After Gulf #1 thousands of tons of WMD's were identified and documented. Then, after we finally got rid of Saddam and got some REAL inspectors in there they were all gone. Yes, where are the WMD's? Syria? (The best guess.) Iran? Sudan? Hell, they could be right here in the U.S. just waiting to be detonated. Too bad we're not allowed to interrogate those poor souls in Gitmo to find out.

 

[Decker]

And man is he an idiot, he asked for it HARDCORE.

If you actually believe that crap about Metzenbaum representing the Communist Party, please show a little proof.

"The Truth
This exchange did take place but not on the floor of the Senate, but the wording of Glenn's words if fairly accurate.
It was during the campaign debate in 1974 when Metzenbaum was running for reelection and Glenn was challenging him.
Glenn and Metzenbaum had also run against each other for the same seat four years earlier, a race that Metzenbaum had won.
A few days prior to the debate, Metzenbaum made a widely publicized statement that said that Glenn had never met a payroll (he didn't actually say that he'd never held a real job).
In other words, Glenn had been a military man not a businessman, like Metzenbaum, who had created a major newspaper and a nation-wide parking company.
Metzenbaum did not repeat that charge during the debate, but Glenn came prepared to respond to it and did it so powerfully that he also went on to win the election.

If Howard Metzenbaum represented the Communist party as an attorney during World War II, we have not found substantiaton for that."
Source:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/glenn-metzenbaum.htm

 

[Decker]

This is some very interesting info. I had no idea we gave Iraq permission to invade Kuwait. Please site your source(s)..

"Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.""
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie

I'd like a crack at that. Iraq was a threat to the entire free world. Their actions threatened the stability of the region and therefore threatened to interrupt the flow of oil. There, I said it, it was, is and always will be about the oil. I've said that a few dozen times and will NEVER appologize for it. Without that oil the world economy takes a nose dive and we all suffer the consequences. We protected our interests (our economy) in the region..

You are entitled to your opinion of the threat Iraq presented. There are ways to accomplish an end that are legal and those that are not...Bush chose the latter.

Now THAT'S something I'd like to know. After Gulf #1 thousands of tons of WMD's were identified and documented. Then, after we finally got rid of Saddam and got some REAL inspectors in there they were all gone. Yes, where are the WMD's? Syria? (The best guess.) Iran? Sudan? Hell, they could be right here in the U.S. just waiting to be detonated. Too bad we're not allowed to interrogate those poor souls in Gitmo to find out.

The best 'guess' is that Hussein destroyed the weapons. At least that was the ongoing scientific conclusion of those best to know, i.e., the weapons inspectors (they have the ability to discern whether WMDs are in an area and have been moved).

 

[Rich46yo]

My point was the UN made itself irrelevant with its greed, its selfish politics, its giving equal voice to tyrants, and its rabid anti-Americanism. Its nothing but a debating society where dictators have equal voice with democratically elected leaders!

And your wrong anyways. A breech of UNSCR 687 automatically authorized the use of force that was under the original UNCR 678. The UN loves to coin stuff in lawyer-ese so's they always have an "out" should things go south. You saw what the UN did for the Iraqi freedom fighters after it forced the US led coalition forces to stop short of Baghdad. It was the UN, and its little gaggle of shitbirds, that gave Saddam an extra 10 years to grind his people into dust.

And yeah?? We gave Saddam permission to invade Kuwait.. . Sure we did! I think someone needs to read their history a little better. This is right up there with "we made Saddam". Our position was that Arabs settle disputes themselves. Saddam mis-read this as a neutral US position for his invasion. That wasnt the position of the American Govt. at all and we never should have had a woman ambassador in Iraq at all because the Arabs dont respect them.

Now take a good look at Saddams master plan before you comment if he was a threat to us at all. First off the guy was a master back-stabber. He invaded Iran when he perceived they were weak, but was unable to fight a modern war. He got pinned down and his Arab brothers came to his aid with money and arms. Even so he was forced to settle the Iran war, tho his dreams of empire continued

Meanwhile Saddam was developing nuclear weapons with Saudi financing, in collusion with Brazil who was developing an advanced MRBM , againwith Saudi money. The Israelis put a crimp in that plan with their attack on the French made reactor at Osirak. If not for that Saddam would probably have had the bomb by the Gulf war.

If Saddam had been allowed to keep Kuwait his next target would have been the Saudis,and, eventually the Gulf States. 5 or 6 years down the line the Iranians would have been in his sights again. By now he'd probably have nukes, and definitely would have an overwhelming chem/bio arsenal. Once he controlled the MidEast oil he would control the Western Democracies.

All in all it wasn't a bad plan. He did however underestimate the Americans and didn't understand modern war. In his head his forces actually had a chance in the Gulf War when we knew they were as good as dead once we had the forces in place. Even still he almost got away with it. I still remember the idiots Jesse and Teddy screaming "no blood for oil", and predicting 50,000 US casualties, "being great military minds themselves".

Can you imagine if a Democrat had been in office, or if Bush would have listened to some of the voices against the attack? Do any of you think Saddam was worried about UN sanctions after stealing the wealth of Kuwait? He had the oil and knew he could undermine the UN with oil and money as he later did anyways when he was far weaker.

"The legal ways"?.... Oh man, what a comedy the UN and Iraq has been. Even worse then fucking Somalia when the leader of the UN Boutros-Ghali flimm-flammed Klinton into actively hunting warlord Aideed, a personal enemy of Ghali. The same Klinton "another great military mind" who denied tanks and gunships to the Somalian contingent because it was Politically in-correct. The same Boutros-Ghali was wanted the UN to have its own standing army, "guess who that would be"?

God help us if we rely on the UN for our own security.............Uncle Rich...............

 

[DOMS]

"Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.""

I had no idea that saying something along the lines of "we have no opinion" is actually giving permission.

Also, wikipedia is not a valid source for heavily debated issues (not this quote is real) but it's a user modified site.

 

[maniclion]

Both Iraq war's were jokes when you talk about the "organized" Iraqi Army that those of you say Saddam could have used to "spread his empire". If we think those soldiers were real threats then we are in for some serious problems if we have to defend ourselves against some of the more advanced forces in this world.

And on another note if we have to beat and steal someone else for their oil, to feed our need or face a slump, then we have an addiction and we need to start making drastic changes. That's makes us no better than a crackwhore beating another crackwhore for some crack.

 

[DOMS]

Actually you made the assumptions about bias without taking your own inherent political bias into consideration as the gauge.

Blah, blah, blah.

Yes, I realize that everyone has the own point of reference (POR) and the none one's POR matches reality. You seem to be implying (but never stating) that since everyone has a bias then no one can say if any news source is biased. There's a nice bit of not taking responsibility. Hell, why do we even have the word 'bias' in the dictionary? I'll make a point to send a letter to Webster.

 

[kbm8795]

Yes, I realize that everyone has the own point of reference (POR) and the none one's POR matches reality. You seem to be implying (but never stating) that since everyone has a bias then no one can say if any news source is biased. There's a nice bit of not taking responsibility. Hell, why do we even have the word 'bias' in the dictionary? I'll make a point to send a letter to Webster.

No, what I have been saying is that your conceptual reference of bias is based on your own ideas of a profession that you seem to have limited knowledge about. . .generic reasons make good soundbites but they hardly reflect the professional reality. Again, this is how the Right has often tried to pass off talking head entertainers as news media when they generally have no ethical training beyond the development of manipulation skills.

What isn't taking responsibility is accepting that bias may originate in the mind of the target audience, and true to Republican principles, the bias of the audience dictates the product. The push of the Reagan Administration was to eliminate safeguards to protecting the quality of the product in favor of audience demand, so the concept of reducing the image of "truth" or factual reporting in the media has long been a conservative goal. Instead, the Right wanted an inherent bias established in their own image and idea of what bias is, an accomplishment that is reflected in the amazingly high number of editorialized remarks and elimination of key facts that is a hallmark of Fox News. To assume that this is no different in the other media outlets is a means of propagating an excuse for lower standards of professional conduct.

It also leads to such unprecedented productions as White House payoffs to certain columnists or television stations to run endorsements of Administration policies without attribution to the government source. The excuse again is. . .if every "major" news source is biased anyway, then what is wrong with veiled government propaganda?

There are several layers in which any given story has to be examined to attempt to identify an inherent bias.

And yes, send a letter to Webster. The word "bias" as used in generic public terms doesn't necessarily translate in the same manner within a professional industry.

 

[DOMS]

... and true to Republican principles...

You talk about other's bias, but you have your own that borders on a mental dysfunction.

You've never answered a question and simply try to reword what you've said before like some leftist mantra or mental regurgitation.

You're not worth talking to.

 

[Big Smoothy]

This remind of that "nothing but a waste of time" thread.

 

[kbm8795]

You talk about other's bias, but you have your own that borders on a mental dysfunction.

You've never answered a question and simply try to reword what you've said before like some leftist mantra or mental regurgitation.

You're not worth talking to.

Well, if your knowledge of mental dysfunctions is as extensive as your knowledge about my profession, that is merely another remark with little credibility. This isn't middle school. . .get over the deflective insults.

If you can't deal with an answer, don't ask a question. I don't work for Fox News.

 

[Arnold]

All I have to say is: VOTE FOR PEDRO!

 

[DOMS]

If you can't deal with an answer, don't ask a question. I don't work for Fox News.

Answer? What answer?! All you've done is say that everything is subjective so "biased" is a non-word (talk about deflection). Unless of course the person happens to be a Republican, in which case the media bias only exists because they're Republican and media portrays something different from their point of view, which one would have to believe is left-leaning portrait, but wouldn't that then be considered bias if the media is in such a state (generally against one particular group)?

In post after post you've talked about the evil of the Republicans, stating that crap such as "conservatives who whine about the 'liberal' media." That the bias in the media has roots in a particular political group, where I've only stated that all media is biased, regardless of where the bias lies. Personally I believe (probably a non-word to you) that there are major media outlets the favor the Right, the Left, and the Almighty Buck. You believe that it only exists in the minds of Republicans. The funny thing is that you try to portray the media has not having bias to protect what, in your skewed world-view, is a Republican attack on the "liberal media."

Post after post of attacks on Republicans...let me guess: your posts are without bias too.

 

[Rich46yo]

Both Iraq war's were jokes when you talk about the "organized" Iraqi Army that those of you say Saddam could have used to "spread his empire". If we think those soldiers were real threats then we are in for some serious problems if we have to defend ourselves against some of the more advanced forces in this world.

And on another note if we have to beat and steal someone else for their oil, to feed our need or face a slump, then we have an addiction and we need to start making drastic changes. That's makes us no better than a crackwhore beating another crackwhore for some crack.

You don't think they were threats? You forget we never faced most of Saddam's elite units. You also forget Saddam at the time had a huge chem/bio arsenal. Even more important, we made Saddam fight our kind of war. In Gulf-1 we forced them to hunker down and get pounded by our air forces. Actually he made himself do it by not continuing into Saudi Arabia. If he had done that we would have had a far bigger problem. It was typical Arab military stupidity, advance a few miles with your armored formations and then dig ditches and hunker down on the defense.

I think his plan was reachable. Saddam's biggest liability was he was to impatient. And like all Arab armies the Iraqi army discouraged innovative thinkers, and was mostly made up of incompetent blood relatives of whatever dictator is in charge. But had he developed nukes before acting? Had he used combined arms efficiently? Had he continued into the gulf states and Saudi, denying the west a staging base? It was all to reachable for him to set himself up as the worlds oil king. And you forget he once had the protective shell of Soviet sponsorship during a cold war.

By the time of the last Iraq war his army was a shell of pre-Gulf levels. His air force and little navy was non-exsistant. His men demoralized and frightened of American military power. His regime isolated, except for the assholes at the UN he bought off, and France, Germany, and Russia, whom he owed lotsa money to. Still it was more a question of "when" we got to Baghdad instead of "if".

If we had done it in '91 instead of '03 the mideast would be a vastly better place right now. We would have had the boots for an occupation and millions of Iraqis wouldn't have had to suffer another 11 years of Saddam's rule.

We can thank the cocksucking United Nations for that brilliant move.......................Uncle Rich

 

[ALBOB]

The best 'guess' is that Hussein destroyed the weapons. At least that was the ongoing scientific conclusion of those best to know, i.e., the weapons inspectors (they have the ability to discern whether WMDs are in an area and have been moved).

This doesn't hold water. By U.N. mandate he was SUPPOSED to destroy his weapons. Yet, instead of destroying them, he spent years and millions of dollars hiding them from the inspectors. If he were going to destroy them he would have just done so in full view of the U.N. inspectors and gotten them off his back. Dismantled, repackaged and hidden away? Maybe. But, destroyed? I don't think so.

Now, onto the term "illegal" that keeps getting thrown around in reference to the war. In order for something to be illegal, it has to have broken a law. What exact law did we break in ousting Saddam? The U.N.? No, we actually followed the U.N. resolutions that stated Saddam would be removed if he didn't comply with the U.N. weapons inspector's orders. He didn't, we booted him. So, what's illegal?

 

[Rich46yo]

Funny but no-one used the term "illegal" when Klinton spent about 40,000,000 bucks destroying the Sudanese aspirin factory, which occurred as if by magic a few days after he testified about an "inappropriate relationship" with the cocksucker Lewinsky. Funny timing that............Uncle Rich.....................

 

[Dale Mabry]

You don't think they were threats? You forget we never faced most of Saddam's elite units.

Puhlease, a member of Saddam's most elite unit makes a cherry squishee for me every day and wears a smock.

 

[kbm8795]

Answer? What answer?! All you've done is say that everything is subjective so "biased" is a non-word (talk about deflection).

Um...not exactly. Is it always customary for your mind to reach as far to the extreme as possible?

Unless of course the person happens to be a Republican, in which case the media bias only exists because they're Republican and media portrays something different from their point of view, which one would have to believe is left-leaning portrait, but wouldn't that then be considered bias if the media is in such a state (generally against one particular group)?

One doesn't "have" to believe that at all. The assumption that it is inherently "against" one particular group is more myth than professional reality. Republicans have railed against what they consider media "bias" for decades - and now we have seen their idea of "unbiased." The fallacy is the assumption that anything not reported along the Party line is somehow "left-leaning." The claim that bias is anything outside nonconforming to the Party line is a manufactured definition that assumes professional standards are supposed to reflect political ideology. That turns into a self-definition when the Right creates media news based on this understanding of bias as natural.


In post after post you've talked about the evil of the Republicans, stating that crap such as "conservatives who whine about the 'liberal' media."

Right - they've never done that at all.

That the bias in the media has roots in a particular political group, where I've only stated that all media is biased, regardless of where the bias lies. Personally I believe (probably a non-word to you) that there are major media outlets the favor the Right, the Left, and the Almighty Buck.

That is an ideal of political extremists, not a professional standard.

You believe that it only exists in the minds of Republicans. The funny thing is that you try to portray the media has not having bias to protect what, in your skewed world-view, is a Republican attack on the "liberal media."

No, what I believe is that the audience has to examine its own bias before projecting it into the media. And there are certain tools of analysis which provide indicators of an inherent bias based on consistency and a fairly complex set of standards of integrity that apply to gathering and reporting news.

Post after post of attacks on Republicans...let me guess: your posts are without bias too.

You do have difficulty accepting the 40 years of attacks by the Republican Party on the credibility of media. . .and the movement by the Right to deregulate both media ownership and establish non-professionals as untrained journalists.