When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by George Bush.

Powell answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return'.

You could have heard a pin drop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers, included in which both French and American, were taking part. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?' A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We
have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

You could have heard a pin drop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S. , English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries. Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained - 'whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?' Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'

You could have heard a pin drop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...

A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on a tour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane. At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. 'You have been to France before, monsieur?' the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. 'Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.' The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it.' 'Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!' The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. 'Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in '44 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find any damn Frenchmen to show it to.'

You could have heard a pin drop

I like the story Herb, though I DO have to ask how ANY of this relates to Bush-bashing.

Does this make us less of Americans because we bash Bush?

The first two stories directly relate to ham-fisted Bush-bashing.

The other two simply show European arrogance, even though we saved their bacon twice.

In their defense, the French have recently turned over a new leaf. Let's hope it lasts a while.

Herb

June 2003 Bush: "God Told Me to Invade Iraq"

You could have heard a pin drop.

Well the French indeed elect a conservative in Sarkozy, but he's not doing so hot amongst the French people in the popularity department right now ... keep in mind that this is a country that has tried to mandate it to where you CAN'T work more than 40 hours in a week. Their mindset is a bit different than ours.

"The US does not torture."

You could have heard a pin drop.

Bush describes the War on Terror as a "Crusade".

You could have heard a pin drop.

Is it really "bashing" to point out the facts?

"I don't like waterboarding, and I hope we never use it again. I have respect for those who believe it should be banned in all circumstances. But I do not weep that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed spent somewhere between .03 and .06 seconds feeling like he was drowning for every person he allegedly helped murder on 9/11.

Then again, I think it would be horrific if we used that logic to justify waterboarding. It's not a technique that should be used for punishment. Nor do I think that evidence obtained from forced confessions should be used in trial. Those are paving stones on the road to a torture state.

But, given the circumstances at the time, I think the decision to waterboard these three men was right and certainly defensible."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/five_minutes_well_spent.html

Let's be real. A French conservative is basically a slightly right leaning Democrat.

When IS waterboarding right and defensible?

And given the other atrocities that have happened as far as prisoner torture and tactics used to extract intelligence under the Bush adminstration, how can you have ANY faith in what Bush says on the topic?


What is that I hearing? Oh yeah, a pin drop.

Did you ever think that the word "atocities" would ever be used to describe actions of the US in your lifetime?

How sad.
Remember Reagan's "Shining City Upon A Hill"?

The difference is, Reagan built up the military and used it as a deterrent against not only the Soviets, but anyone who had ill notions against us. He also used that possible threat in his back pocket in diplomacy, achieving some of the most important peace treaties this country has ever had.

Bush built up the military and conducted an illegal and unjust invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. The next act of diplomacy he practices will be the first.

Bush sure could have learned a bit from Reagan's example of the United State "being a shiny city upon a hill."

Fine.

You guys go ahead and give the terrorists a pass.

Apparently this Sheikh Mohammed guy who masterminded 9/11, refused to talk for a few months....until waterboarded. We immediately got invaluable intel...within minutes..and in case you hand-wringing, lily-livered lefties are concerned about the vicious animal responsible for the deaths of 3,000 innocent humans, he's doing just fine, I hear.

Herb

So somehow that makes the practice right?

So somehow this justifies the atrocities (there's that word again, Amus) at Abu Ghirab? At Guantanamo? How about the wiretapping and listening without a warrant? Or getting rid of Habeus Corpus? Or .. or ... sheesh, are ALL of these OK? Does Bush get a free pass on these too?

When is enough, enough?

The end justifies the means?

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? ... That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Feb. 28, 2008

You could of heard a pin drop.

Herb, you cannot equate WWI or WWII with Iraq. To do so demeans the men and women who gave their lives to save the "world."
The men and women dying in Iraq are only saving Bush money on his oil investments.

How effective can something like waterboarding be against a people willing to commit 9-11 or suicide bombings? I'm not saying they are immune to torture, but they go into this ready and willing to die, often in horrendous ways - they seem not to fear death, and often welcome it.

Herb: Abortion is a very effective means of birth control - but you would agree it is wrong. Why does the ends justify the means with torture, but not with abortion?

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein

"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure." ~Abraham Lincoln

"Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries." –Secretary of State Colin Powell, testifying about Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities before the United Nations Security Council, Feb. 5, 2003.

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003

"F**k Saddam, we're taking him out." –President Bush to three U.S. Senators in March 2002, a full year before the Iraq invasion

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." –President Bush, standing under a "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln aircraft carrier, May 2, 2003

"Military glory--that attractive rainbow, that rises in showers of blood--that serpent's eye, that charms to destroy..." ~Abraham Lincoln

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." ~Aesop

"Herb's quotes underscore that he himself is the truly ham-fisted bungler." ~Andy_brown

adj. 1. ham-fisted - lacking physical movement skills, especially with the hands; "a bumbling mechanic"; "a bungling performance"; "ham-handed governmental interference"

"Herb: Abortion is a very effective means of birth control - but you would agree it is wrong. Why does the ends justify the means with torture, but not with abortion?"

I was reading, laughing along the way, just waiting for that matter to enter the discussion.

Of course this whole thread comes down to, "See, we told you so. Taught you a lesson didn't we?"

Sorry, but the lesson has been learned already Herb. There is not going to be any long after the fact, "see, we were right" vindication on this one.

He sucks now, sucked then, will always suck.

"Why does the ends justify the means with torture, but not with abortion?"

You ask an erudite and excellent question, Edselehr. In fact, it's an outstandingly excellent question.

The answer is simple: The defense of innocent life.

Ergo, to wit:

Both those who abort unborn children and those who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have committed violent acts against the innocent.

Rather than 'the ends justifying the means,' it's about stopping harm to the innocent.

If you walked into a bank and saw a man pointing a gun at an unarmed woman teller and he started firing, the last thing you'd be concerned about is how a police officer or a concealed-carry permit holder might harm the gunman...except how quickly he can take out the bad guy, lest the evil-doer harm the innocent.

Herb

"The answer is simple: The defense of innocent life."

Meet Dilawar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(human_rights_victim)

Is it that simple?
what's your definition of innocent?

Sorry about the broken link...
Apparently the parenthases are messing it up.

"The answer is simple: The defense of innocent life."

No, your answer is not simple. It is simplistic.

Few who have been tortured have been tried, let alone convicted of anything. How do you know they are not 'innocent'?

Here's a more direct link to Dilawar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_%28human_rights_victim%29

"Few who have been tortured have been tried, let alone convicted of anything. How do you know they are not 'innocent'?"

Obviously, our country had some great intel to finger these guys. That evidence was correct. They did their job in nailing these terrorists and if they hadn't, the left would have been screaming.

Your question presupposes that we are dealing with a simple criminal act, not an act of outright war. That presupposition is false. In the war declared on our country with the atrocities of 9/11, it ceased being criminal and became war. Therefore, no enemy combatant who does not meet Geneva Convention status is permitted to hide behind that shield.

Let's be clear here.

Terrorists wear no uniform.
Terrorists murder non-combatants.
Terrorists rig bombs on children and women, sending them to their deaths.

If we wouldn't stand for such behaviour from Germany or Japan, why would we allow it from those who are terrorists?

FDR sent spies to their deaths, even though they were German soldiers. For us to squeeze those who murdered 3,000 to prevent it from happening again is most appropriate.

Herb

"Obviously, our counry had some great intel to finger these guys."

Did you even read the article?

"In February, an American military official disclosed that the Afghan guerrilla commander whose men had arrested Mr. Dilawar and his passengers had himself been detained. The commander, Jan Baz Khan, was suspected of attacking Camp Salerno himself and then turning over innocent "suspects" to the Americans in a ploy to win their trust, the military official said.

I think truth be known, innocent = unborn, white & Christian.

The people whom attacked us aren't in nor ever were in Iraq until George the Bumbler chose to invade.

Everything in Iraq is because of lousy intelligence and lying leaders.

Get the facts right Herb. Quit ignoring the big picture just to make your right winged points of the day. Quit drawing analogies to history that have no relevance.

The people whom attacked us aren't in nor ever were in Iraq until George the Bumbler chose to invade.

BINGO!


Herb said>>>>
The answer is simple: The defense of innocent life.

But yet it was OKAY with you and YOUR leader to kill INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN in Iraq and to this day still is?

You think just like DUHbya... bASSackwards

Nice leftist talking points, Trixter.

Herb

HUMAN talking points Herb.....

I have a question too;

If this is SO obviously NOT Empire Building, what exactly does Empire Building involve that hasn't been done with Iraq? Specifically. Don't bother citing things like " motives " because they are, at best, suspect. But deal with results attained as of today. What makes it SO different from genuine Empire Building?

Paul Bremer didn't put his booted foot on the head of a toppled Saddam statue, thrust a flagpole bearing the Stars and Stripes into the ground, and pronounce, "I claim this land for The United States in the name of George W. Bush the Compassionate!!"

Otherwise, pretty much the same.