Greg R.'s Comments
Page 1 of 75  first | prev | next 
Nov 12, 2009 | comments: 6
Greg R. Nov 12, 2009, 12:37pm EST
Forgot to include the link to the above story:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5AA0VP20091111
Nov 10, 2009 | comments: 4
in reply to a comment by Richard P.
Greg R. Nov 10, 2009, 10:05pm EST
They weren't wasting any lives before this. They did some reconstruction work in Iraq and provided fuel for forces going to Afghanistan.
Nov 7, 2009 | comments: 23
Greg R. Nov 9, 2009, 2:18pm EST
"The fact that you can place any blame on the people of Gaza is deplorable Greg."

Yes, of course, it is deplorable that I would want people who fire rockets at civilians in Israeli towns and who allow suicide bombers to cross into Israel to attack restaurants, buses, and theaters to be held accountable for their actions.

"Perhaps Hamas, though they are a duly and democratically elected government that was never even given a chance to negotiate at length."

Isn't funny how that whole terrorism thing makes people averse to negotiating with Hamas?

"It’s not OK that we went into Iraq, killled over 1 million innocent civilians...."

The UN estimates don't even come close to that number. They say a couple of hundred thousand. IraqBodyCount says 93,000 - 102,000. The Pentagon says 95,000.

Pat Tillman was murdered by our government? Okay, credibility's gone.
Nov 7, 2009 | comments: 23
in reply to a comment by John Rebel
Greg R. Nov 9, 2009, 12:49pm EST
The reality is that I understand all too well. I understand that there is plenty of blame that can be placed on the Israelis. I also, understand, however, that there is an even greater amount of blame that can be assigned to the Palestinians. No one's hands are clean, to be sure. An objective mind would recognize that a singular focus on Israel is simplistic, biased, inaccurate, and inappropriate in the quest for a solution.
Nov 7, 2009 | comments: 23
in reply to a comment by John Rebel
Greg R. Nov 9, 2009, 12:46pm EST
"Greg, that's all pure fantasy although I recognize that you truly believe it."

Are you disputing that attacks against Israel have been launched from Gaza since its inception? Somehow I doubt the folks on the receiving end of those rockets would agree with you. It's a simple cycle, really. Rockets are launched from Gaza. Israel occupies Gaza and the rockets stop (or at least decrease significantly). Israel leaves Gaza and the rockets return. Military necessity, John.

"When an individual is fully propagandized...."

That's pretty insulting. I'm a fairly well educated guy, but I somehow missed the fact that you were so much more enlightened than us common folk.

"A purely racist comment...."

It wasn't my comment.
Nov 7, 2009 | comments: 23
in reply to a comment by John Rebel
Greg R. Nov 8, 2009, 7:55pm EST
"However, Gaza has been under siege since its inception and land has been stolen quite consistently additionally."

Gaza has been under seige not because Israel wants Gaza, but because attacks on Israel have originated from Gaza since Gaza's inception. And land has not been stolen. It has been appropriated militarily as a means to stop attacks against Israel. The taking of land is in response to Palestinian actions.

"Greg, Israel never owned any land to trade."

To the victor go the spoils. If attacks from Gaza had not made seizure by the Israelis a necessity, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

"What would happen if Iran decided to give Iowa to the Shia?"

Iran doesn't have the ability to do more than give Iowa to the Shia through rhetoric. Given that, the hypothetical doesn't really matter.

"The very first democratically elected government in the Arab world is reviled and denigrated."

Perhaps that's because it practices terrorism.

Out of curiosity, what would you do with the people of Israel, given that you seem to want them gone from Palestine?
Nov 7, 2009 | comments: 23
in reply to a comment by John Rebel
Greg R. Nov 8, 2009, 4:41pm EST
"Greg, please try to imagine if three quarters of the people in your city could not find enough food and water to feed themselves or their children, where the overwhelming majority of them were unemployed, where nearly everyone lived on less than a dollar a day, and this is crucial, that all of this was the planned result of political decisions of a foreign government that has held you under military occupation for over four decades."

Have the people of my city been harboring terrorists who fire rockets at civilians? Have the people of my city committed torture and other atrocities against their fellow citizens because those fellow citizens belonged to a different political party?

By the way, Israel tried trading land for peace in Gaza. Remember, Israel was told that if it left Gaza it would not be attacked from Gaza. How'd that work out for the Israelis? The rockets coming from Gaza would seem to indicate that the Palestinians did not live up to their end of the bargain.

How is it that you fail to mention once the continued attacks on Israel instigated by Palestinians?
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 30, 2009, 8:01pm EDT
A. I didn't say they were harbored in Afghanistan. I said their financing and plans came from Afghanistan.

B. Do you have a source? The reason I ask is that the 9/11 Commission found the following:

"To plan and conduct their attack, the 9/11 plotters spent somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000, the vast majority of which was provided by al Qaeda. Although the origin of the funds remains unknown, extensive investigation has revealed quite a bit about the financial transactions that supported the 9/11 plot. The hijackers and their financial facilitators used the anonymity provided by the huge international and domestic financial
system to move and store their money through a series of unremarkable transactions."

C. He fired on our pilots DAILY. Is shooting at someone not an attack? I suspect the person being shot at would disagree.

D. No, the US is not the UN. But it is a signatory to the UN convention and has obligations as a member of that body. Or are you advocating we renege on all our international commitments?

E. If our only interest in the region is oil, why aren't we in control of Iraq's oil? Why are we allowing the Iraqi government, which is largely dependent on us, to give the big contracts to China, France, The Netherlands, etc? The truth is that you don't understand geopolitics. If you did you would understand that Iraq is the center of gravity in a key region of the world that affects our national interests.

F. Bush had every right AND an authorization (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, otherwise known as Public Law 107-243). You can read it here.

G. That's because Obama is following Bush's Iran policy.

H. We do joint exercises with ALL of our allies. We've done them for 70 years, and not once has one of them led to a conflict. There is no reason for Iran to feel threatened by an exercise.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 30, 2009, 8:17am EDT
If you don't think Afghanistan, where the Taliban harbored the planners and financiers of the 9/11 attack, had something to do with 9/11, then you're delusional. Yes, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. But they received their plans and their money from inside Afghanistan.

Agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but there were plenty of other reasons for getting rid of Saddam: 12 years of defiance of international resolutions; mass murder of his own citizens; launched two wars of agression against neighboring states, and fired rockets into Israel; used chemical weapons on the Iranians and Kurds; financed Palestinian terrorists; and posed a threat to U.S. interests and allies in the Middle East.

Two parts of what I just listed are key here: first, his financing of Palestinian terrorists (add to that the fact that he harbored known terrorists, including Abu Nidal)--remember that after 9/11 President Bush announced a GLOBAL fight against terror--not just al Qaeda or the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack, but ALL terrorists no matter where they might be. When you look at it in that context, Saddam, a known supporter of terrorism, was a legitimate target.

Second is the threat to U.S. interests and allies in the region--U.S. pilots were shot at daily while enforcing the UN-mandated no fly zone. That's a threat to our personnel. Additionally, Saddam had already launched two wars against neighbors, one of which was a U.S. ally. He posed a risk to our forces and our interests in the region, and the president, as commander in chief, is obligated to protect those personnel and those interests, even if it takes military force to do so.

And your argument on Iran is a hypothetical. We have taken no action on Iran.

"Could use and Will use are different matters."

Can you read the minds of others? How could you possibly know what they will or will not do? You can't. Neither can the president. He has to make a judgement based on the capability a nation possesses, not a guess as to what a dictator might or might not do.

Given all of this, Bush had every right to commit U.S. military forces to both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 29, 2009, 1:48pm EDT
You're grasping at straws. The purpose is to fulfill the intent that the collective judgement of both the congress and the president will apply, but congress, understanding that there will be instances when the executive and legislative cannot collaborate, specifically states in section 3 that the president shall "in every possible instance..." consult with the congress first.

That is a recognition that he will not always be able to and will sometimes have to make the decision himself with a follow-up to the congress. You can't cherry pick the parts you like, George. You have to look at the whole document.

When you say there was no imminent danger, that is your personal opinion. The president is elected to make these decisions on our behalf, and if he believes there is an imminent danger, then he acts on our behalf.

There was certainly reason to believe there was an imminent danger after 9/11. Who knew when the next attack might come? We knew where it originated from, and took action to prevent the next one. In Iraq, U.S. policy since George H.W. Bush, including Clinton, has been that Iraq has posed a danger to the United States, with Clinton actually adopting the policy of regime change. He didn't act on that policy, but it was his policy nonetheless. And that brings us back to the intelligence.

After 9/11, the President, elected by the people, stated that 9/11 showed that we cannot wait for the danger to come to us. We must stop it before it gets here. His CIA director, allied intelligence agencies and Arab governments neighboring Iraq all told him that Saddam had WMD and could use them against U.S. interests and U.S. military personnel in the region. That is an imminent danger. Not necessarily to the homeland, but to U.S. personnel, U.S. interests, and U.S. allies.

President Bush had every right under the war powers act and under the constitution to initiate military action against both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Or, maybe, you would have preferred for him to wait for us to get hit again?
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 29, 2009, 6:38am EDT
You're missing the separation, George. Number 1 is declaring war or enacting an authorization. Number 2 is the sixty day period. Two separate items. I understand meshing them together fits your viewpoint, but that doesn't change the fact that they are separate items in the law.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 28, 2009, 3:12pm EDT
I have read it. It seems you're only paying attention to the part that fits your position. The key portion is bolded here:

"Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

Did you get that: OR HAS ENACTED A SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION. Not a declaration of war, but an "okay Mr. President, you can keep the troops there." And that's exactly what they've done in every instance since World War II.

All it takes is a simple resolution authorizing the use of force, and that is consistently the route congress chooses to take.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 28, 2009, 12:04pm EDT
I didn't say that it did. I said it gives him the power to commit U.S. military forces when he deems it necessary. Hell, consultation with congress isn't even required by the act. It's preferred, but not required. You don't need a declaration of war to commit troops. Would it be nice? Maybe. But definitely not necessary.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 28, 2009, 7:57am EDT
But they're not illegal. Congress has granted the president as commander in chief the power to commit U.S. forces abroad (War Powers Act of 1973--which has not been deemed unconstitutional by the courts and is U.S. law) and Congress controls the power of the purse. Therefore the president as commander in chief can commit forces and the congress can fund them. No declaration of war required.

You can read the War Powers Act here.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 28, 2009, 7:53am EDT
You didn't? Then who's using your Gather account to post this comment:

Col. George W. Oct 26, 2009, 1:25pm EDT

They all relied on OUR CIA for their conclusions and Bush instructed them on how to word their reports. That could be proven in court if there were enough intestinal fortitude in Congress and the law to procede.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 27, 2009, 9:14pm EDT
There doesn't have to be a declaration of war for the president to commit U.S. forces anywhere in the world, nor does there have to be a declaration of war for the congress to fund those troops. That's why we haven't had a declared war since World War II. We've had wars, they just haven't been officially declared.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 27, 2009, 9:12pm EDT
You're the one who brought up courts of law when you said yesterday, "That could be proven in court...."

So, because Gather is not a court of law you accept hearsay as definitive proof? Accusation with evidence in support is okay? What if folks on Gather were making accusations about you, with no evidence to support what they were saying? That would be okay with you because Gather is not a court of law?
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 27, 2009, 4:30pm EDT
Okay, I'll add "...or at least so I hear."

So if you acknowledge it as hearsay, why even mention it? Hearsay doesn't stand up in court. You're speculating with no evidence to support the claim, whether that claim is made by you or others.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 27, 2009, 7:28am EDT
So if you are provided with information from an organization charged with collecting and analyzing that particular information, and then you pass it on to someone else, does that make you a liar? Or does it make you the recipient of faulty information?

"In this case evidence indicates Bush ordered the lie...."

What evidence, George? Produce the documents. I'm sure Reid and Pelosi would be very interested in them. Hearsay is not evidence.
Oct 24, 2009 | comments: 49
in reply to a comment by Col. George W.
Greg R. Oct 26, 2009, 9:18pm EDT
"That could be proven in court if there were enough intestinal fortitude in Congress and the law to procede."

Is it against the law for them to rely on the CIA for intelligence information? I don't think so.

As for Bush instructing them on how to word their reports, I'm not sure that's against the law either since he is the executive and any reports issued ultimately reflect the position of his administration.

But for the sake of argument, let's say he did tell them what to write. Perhaps that could be proven in court IF THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE. That's the key thing missing from all of this "he lied" crap. Nobody has produced anything more than speculation.
Page 1 of 75  first | prev | next 
 
Greg R.
Washington, DC
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16811, "Oz"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.