RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


I thought this speech by Senator Byrd was interesting(6 posts)

I thought this speech by Senator Byrd was interestingcarnageasada
Feb 14, 2003 6:45 AM
A friend sent it to me. Byrd has some good points but the problem is that Byrd, despite having the same last name as Larry Byrd, scores low on the character board.

He's made racist comments hasn't he? This is why I loathe politics. Someone stands up and says something you think is honorable and brave, but there's a good chance that the person is just saying it for ulterior motives. I fear that Byrd could care less about who gets killed over what, he just wants to make Bush look bad and gain more seats in the next election. I could be wrong. Anybody think Byrd is sincere? Even if he is insincere does it nullify what he's saying? Other comments?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm
Alpedhuez55
Feb 14, 2003 9:01 AM
Wow, he got through that without using the "N" word ;)

Well, I have been trying to find some comments Byrd made on Iraq during the Clinton Years:

"The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later," Sen. Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, said on Nov. 14, 1998.

Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the committee's senior
Democrat,argued that if U.S. friends and allies "can't send manpower, they can at least send money." He noted that chemical and biological weapons in Iraq pose a threat well beyond the immediate area, and urged that countries such as Japan and Saudi Arabia lend more assistance.

------------------------------------
I guess Force is only justified if it is a Democratic war.

I will say he did call for "Caution" in 1998 but is going much further than that now. It looks more anti-Republican than Anti-War now.

I will also say Byrd is consistant with his message over the last few months as opposed to the likes of Kerry & Leiberman who vote giving Bush the right to take action then are critical of Bush at every step after. THey are trying to have it both ways. THey want to say they supported the war since they are running for President, but they do not want to look likes Hawks to the Anti War crowd.

Mike Y.
I guess it's even worse than I first thought. nmcarnageasada
Feb 14, 2003 1:57 PM
Made me sad....Fredrico
Feb 14, 2003 1:12 PM
The guy talks alot of what alot of people all over the world are thinking. French and German leaders, Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, have had similar thoughts about the strange Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Back during the Vietnam war, which after 10 years, billions of dollars of the national treasure, 50 thousand lives sacrificed, millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians killed, the US lost. The hubris of our leaders accomplished nothing.

Back then, there was the popular analogy of the tar baby folk tale. Bush is now repeating this mistake: once you commit several hundred thousands troops to the task, you must save face by not backing down. You can't just turn around and go home.

The longer this buildup endures, the longer Hussein sits by and does nothing, the more stuck the US is in the position it must attack, for no other reason than to save face. That was the perversity of the Vietnam war. By 1969, we knew we weren't going to win it and should have gone home. Instead we bombed the shit out of North Vietnam, engineered a coup in Cambodia which led directly to the holocaust caused by Pol Pot, and sacrificed even more of our lives and resources to the failed cause. Will history repeat itself, or will those arrogant idiots purportedly looking out for us, come to their senses?
I agree with most of what you saycarnageasada
Feb 14, 2003 2:51 PM
And it is amazing how much history repeats itself. History repeats itself so much I think there ought to be a zesty word for it. Even this doctrine of pre-emptive war seems old. Not only is it similar to the crappy ideaology behind 'nam but isn't it some of the same stuff Hamilton adhered too when he invaded Canada in 1812? The same year the Brits retailiated and burned the White House to the ground?

I think one of the reasons it's so difficult to find the truth is that there are so many nasty, brutish political beasts like Byrd who'd sell us all to Saddam, Paul Mall and the KKK if it meant a little more power and ego.
Byrd is a porkbarreling craphead. But he's got a point. nmSintesi
Feb 15, 2003 9:05 AM