"Sleepwalking through History" Senate vs Iraq

[Vermillion]

I do not agree with all of it, but damn he makes some fine points...

* * * * * * *



Statement by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech

We Stand Passively Mute

Wednesday 12 February 2003

"To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day,as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.


Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

[Gayle29uk]

I wouldn't have used quite so much rhetoric (probably why I'm not a politician) and (as Vermillion pointed out) it's not 100% perfect but I whole heartedly agree with his sentiments.

[Lord Zor]

very well writtin by his speech writes and well put...as most of the population of America feels that way.

[BetrayerOfHope]

excellent speech people like that guy should be on the top of the goverment not nazis like bush

I truly respect the man who wears the strength of his convictions for all to see.

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by BetrayerOfHope
excellent speech people like that guy should be on the top of the goverment not nazis like bush

Hahahaha thats pretty clever, Nazi vs KKK.

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Treyjun
I truly respect the man who wears the strength of his convictions for all to see.

http://vikingphoenix.com/news/madmin...2/byrd-kkk.jpg

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Dibdevlin
http://vikingphoenix.com/news/madmin...2/byrd-kkk.jpg

Eh?

[Tactitus]

I think Senator Byrd has forgotten that the US Congress gave George Bush carte blanche on Iraq last fall. Having failed to speak up then, why would he expect them to speak up now?

Originally posted by Dibdevlin
http://vikingphoenix.com/news/madmin...2/byrd-kkk.jpg

He He

For those who are unsure that pic was a j/k

Sen Byrd is though one of the pork barrel kings of all time being that he is a billion dollor industry for his state :-)

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
Eh?

Oh you didn't know that the guy was a member of the Klu Klux Klan? I believe a leader of his West Virginia branch?

He wore the strength of his conviction for all to see while he wore a KKK white cloak and hood.

He wore the strength of his convictions when he wrote to the US Senate that "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Treyjun
He He

For those who are unsure that pic was a j/k

Sen Byrd is though one of the pork barrel kings of all time being that he is a billion dollor industry for his state :-)

Its not a joke per say.. Its a photoshop of what he would look like now with his old KKK uniform on.

[Gayle29uk]

Interesting article about Senator Byrd here on Political USA.

good speech and fully agree. but what do you expect from a land gouverned by an alcohol addicted and short-minded mr. "smoking guns" bush jr. he is wearing too big shoes for his feeble mind imo. but don´t mind, same idiots live here in europe also.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
Interesting article about Senator Byrd here on Political USA.

Best sig ever

Originally posted by Dibdevlin
Oh you didn't know that the guy was a member of the Klu Klux Klan? I believe a leader of his West Virginia branch?

He wore the strength of his conviction for all to see while he wore a KKK white cloak and hood.

He wore the strength of his convictions when he wrote to the US Senate that "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"

He is not hiding from his past. Prob stills holds some of the old beliefs he was raised with even though those beliefs have for the most part been discredited and rightly so.

I still respect him though.

[Dibdevlin]

Originally posted by Treyjun
He is not hiding from his past. Prob stills holds some of the old beliefs he was raised with even though those beliefs have for the most part been discredited and rightly so.

I still respect him though.

You respect a man who considers Black to be less than human?

[Phang]

Originally posted by Dibdevlin
You respect a man who considers Black to be less than human?

you damn well better not respect George Washington.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Dibdevlin
Its not a joke per say.. Its a photoshop of what he would look like now with his old KKK uniform on.

I'm not sure what that's got to do with Iraq.

If someone is wrong about X, does that mean they are necessarily wrong about Y?*

*Of course, the man being senator is undoubtedly an evil cnut.

[Phang]

I'll take this to DF3, just for the hell of it.

[W]

Only fools cares for what a man believes, when arguing what he's saying. (unless he's making his integrety an issue in what he's saying that is)

Argue the issue, not the man.

[Dibdevlin]

Who is arguing about what he is saying, Treyjun said "I truly respect the man who wears the strength of his convictions for all to see. "

Given Sentaor Byrd's history as a Klansman I found his use of words hilarious and accurate beyond his understanding.

[Texan]

This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

How much more time should he get? Will 12 more years be enough? How many of those children will die in the next 12 years from lack of enough food and medicine?

The weapons inspectors could continue to find little dribbles of prohibited weapons and programs, and each time Hans Blix will say he needs more time. His job is to conduct weapons inspections. Why should he admit Iraq is in material breach of 1441? That would put him out of a job. He is a very important man right now. How important was he a year ago?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
How much more time should he get? Will 12 more years be enough? How many of those children will die in the next 12 years from lack of enough food and medicine?

The weapons inspectors could continue to find little dribbles of prohibited weapons and programs, and each time Hans Blix will say he needs more time. His job is to conduct weapons inspections. Why should he admit Iraq is in material breach of 1441? That would put him out of a job. He is a very important man right now. How important was he a year ago?

yes, MOST LIKELY blix said that the iraq is cooperating and that he has no evidence what so ever for any WMDs simply because he wants to keep his job

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
yes, MOST LIKELY blix said that the iraq is cooperating and that he has no evidence what so ever for any WMDs simply because he wants to keep his job

He already said he found 18 missiles designed to carry chemical weapons. Are you telling me that NOW he is saying he did not find those weapons?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
He already said he found 18 missiles designed to carry chemical weapons. Are you telling me that NOW he is saying he did not find those weapons?

the rockets are no problem if they dont contain things forbidden to iraq, are they ??
there are some chemical weapons the iraq said nothing about though, but he can say nothing about if these weapons still exist or not. if the us has qany evidence on them then they should ****in publish it or at least give it to those inspectors.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
Interesting article about Senator Byrd here on Political USA.

heh.

i laugh every time.

dems cry out "ashcroft hates homosexuals!!"

republicans make their standard reply: "no, he has an excellent record on racial issues"

and dems take the bait every time, and try to argue that his racial record is bad, missing the trickery. suckers that they are.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Texan
How much more time should he get? Will 12 more years be enough? How many of those children will die in the next 12 years from lack of enough food and medicine?

No offense, but I loathe this argument.

How much money do you care to put down on a table right now, that:
a) more children will die in a war with Iraq than would under these supposed sanctions in 5 years, and
b) that the life expectancy of children in Iraq will not exactly skyrocket once UN/US forces destroy the nation's infrastruture.


The 'children are dying' argument is misleading, eggagerated, and meant to pull on the heart rather than make any sense.

Children were dying in South Africa in 1980 under Aparteid. Care to explain how evil those sanctions were?

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
the rockets are no problem if they dont contain things forbidden to iraq, are they ??
there are some chemical weapons the iraq said nothing about though, but he can say nothing about if these weapons still exist or not. if the us has qany evidence on them then they should ****in publish it or at least give it to those inspectors.

Iraq is not allowed to have rockets (missiles) designed to carry chemical weapons according to the cease fire agreement. That is why Saddam said, Oops, we did not know those were there. The boxes were accidently mislabeled.

The United Nations HAS the evidence that the chemicals existed. They do not have evidence that the chemicals were destroyed.

[G_frog]

He's not allowed to have missiles capable of carrying chemical weapon warheads with a range exceeding 150km. According to US intelligence such missiles as they have, have flown up to 183km in Iraq's tests. He could hit kuwait with that.

Evidence that Iraq has developed a long range WMD capacity cuts both ways on the question of whether war is advisable.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Vermillion
No offense, but I loathe this argument.

How much money do you care to put down on a table right now, that:
a) more children will die in a war with Iraq than would under these supposed sanctions in 5 years, and
b) that the life expectancy of children in Iraq will not exactly skyrocket once UN/US forces destroy the nation's infrastruture.


The 'children are dying' argument is misleading, eggagerated, and meant to pull on the heart rather than make any sense.

Children were dying in South Africa in 1980 under Aparteid. Care to explain how evil those sanctions were?

I don't care too much for the "children are dying" argument either. I just hijacked it for my own purposes. People always worry so much about children dying in war. I like to toss it back to them about children dying under sanctions. The children are going to die. That is a fact. They will die from sanctions, war, or from the hands of their own leader using chemical agents.

Less children will die in a war with Iraq than would die under 280 years of sanctions. 280 years of sanctions would do more damage to the infrastructure than a few days or even months of war.

I've never studied South Africa. Did the sanctions end Apartheid? Was war an option to end Apartheid? Is war under any circumstances an option? Should the world always pursue the peaceful solution no matter what the cost?

[Knight Theamion]

excellent speech.

[Texan]

Originally posted by G_frog
He's not allowed to have conventional missiles with a range exceeding 150km. According to US intelligence such missiles as they have, have flown up to 183km in Iraq's tests. He could hit kuwait with that.

Evidence that Iraq has developed a long range WMD capacity cuts both ways on the question of whether war is advisable.

I might be wrong but I have corrected your statement above. He is not allowed to have any missiles that are capable of carrying WMD.

Who should put their lives at risk -- trained soldiers spread out in the desert or innocent women and children in large metropolitan areas? Of course, with almost 18,000 of missiles loaded with chemicals I guess Hussein could target both.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
Who should put their lives at risk -- conscript soldiers spread out in the desert or innocent women and children in large metropolitan areas? Of course, with almost 18,000 of missiles loaded with chemicals I guess Bush could target both.

Ooh, words are slippery things!

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
Ooh, words are slippery things!

Gayle,
As far as I know there are no conscript soldiers from the UK or USA preparing to attack Iraq. The United States has no conscripted soldiers. Does the UK have any deployed?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
Gayle,
As far as I know there are no conscript soldiers from the UK or USA preparing to attack Iraq. The United States has no conscripted soldiers. Does the UK have any deployed?

Our army is 100% professional, I was referring to the Iraqi army which mostly consists of conscripts.

[Kurashima]

Originally posted by Texan
Who should put their lives at risk -- trained soldiers spread out in the desert or innocent women and children in large metropolitan areas? Of course, with almost 18,000 of missiles loaded with chemicals I guess Hussein could target both.

If recent US fighting techniques are employed , you will take the fight straight to the Iraqis until you reach their cities. Upon reaching them , you will encircle , let nobody leave , and bomb the living **** out of the city , leaving nothing and nobody standing.

The US will then claim it was pinpoint bombing , and not a single civilian died.

Which we all know is utter bollocks.How many Serbian women and children did the US kill when they bombed the living **** out of Belgrade?

"Not a single one" ill bet you hear Colin Powell say
"An absoloute ****load" youll probably hear UN observers say.

Originally posted by Kurashima
If recent US fighting techniques are employed , you will take the fight straight to the Iraqis until you reach their cities. Upon reaching them , you will encircle , let nobody leave , and bomb the living **** out of the city , leaving nothing and nobody standing.

The US will then claim it was pinpoint bombing , and not a single civilian died.

Which we all know is utter bollocks.How many Serbian women and children did the US kill when they bombed the living **** out of Belgrade?

"Not a single one" ill bet you hear Colin Powell say
"An absoloute ****load" youll probably hear UN observers say.

If the Bush admin goes to war (an yes in the end it will be Bush choice alone) I fully expect the USA military to do what it can to limt fatalities.

When a USA commander with troops under his command has to make the choice between the lives of his soldiers an those of noncombatants in the mission. I fully expect that commander to safe guard the lives of his command. To do otherwise would expose that commander as unfit to lead. This is nothing new to all competant commands in the armys of the world.

[Kegluneq]

It's an excellent speech, regardless of the Senator's beliefs.

Reminds me a bit of Truman - also a KKK member (briefly), but spoke out more than any previous President for black civil rights, using extremely reasonable arguments he didn't enjoy using.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Kurashima
*snip*

what an utter load of ****. Sieging a city doesn't involve bombing them. It's far easier to set-up choke points and let people leave to controlled regions while you starve out loyalists.

[Kåre Willoch]

The speach is very good, and it points to what I see as most important in the debate on Iraq today. The question is if a pre-emptive attack is a policy that can be justified. The answer is a loud NO, and is obvious to most of the people of the world, just look at the demonstrations all over the world today.

The idea of going to war to prevent war is so hilarious. And it gets worse when friends of Bush compare Iraq to Hitler's Germany before ww2. The only small difference of course is that Germany had the best military machine in the world, and a dictator ready to use it.

Somehow I can't see any reason why Saadam Hussein should sign his own death warrent by attacking any of his neighbours. Or by funding terrorists for that sake. He might be evil, but he must have quite an instinct for survival, to have stayed on the throne for as long as he has...

[Texan]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
The speach is very good, and it points to what I see as most important in the debate on Iraq today. The question is if a pre-emptive attack is a policy that can be justified. The answer is a loud NO, and is obvious to most of the people of the world, just look at the demonstrations all over the world today.

The idea of going to war to prevent war is so hilarious. And it gets worse when friends of Bush compare Iraq to Hitler's Germany before ww2. The only small difference of course is that Germany had the best military machine in the world, and a dictator ready to use it.

Somehow I can't see any reason why Saadam Hussein should sign his own death warrent by attacking any of his neighbours. Or by funding terrorists for that sake. He might be evil, but he must have quite an instinct for survival, to have stayed on the throne for as long as he has...

Most of the people in the world were not at the demonstrations. Four million out of 5.2 billion people does not a majority make.

If pre-emptive strike bothers you, then just think of it as a continuation of a war in which the loser did not fulfill the agreements of the cease-fire treaty.

If you will recall, until recently Abu Nidal was a resident of Baghdad. Hussein has no problem with terrorists as long as they don't threaten him.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by W
Only fools cares for what a man believes, when arguing what he's saying. (unless he's making his integrety an issue in what he's saying that is)

Argue the issue, not the man.

Far be it from me to argue the toss, but if the issue involves men - individuals who alone have a large impact on events - then don't they become a big enough part of the issue to be worth arguing about with the issue?

But I take your point.

Originally posted by Kobalt
good speech and fully agree. but what do you expect from a land gouverned by an alcohol addicted and short-minded mr. "smoking guns" bush jr. he is wearing too big shoes for his feeble mind imo. but don´t mind, same idiots live here in europe also.

On a most incredibly minor point, Bush hasn't drunk anything for more than ten years (I think fifteen). He realised that he needed to quit drinking when he got higher up in political circles, and just stopped. Before that, though, he was indeed a heavy drinker.

And it is an excellent speech, with many good points in it. I would say this: In leading up to a large scale, physical attack on another nation, any words of caution are worth hearing. In this sense the senators speech, and the immense anti-war rallies held across the world, fulfil a useful purpose. However, I think we've gone too far to stop now. This war will happen. There's no two ways about it. Perhaps that's all there is worth saying.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by General Geiger
This war will happen. There's no two ways about it. Perhaps that's all there is worth saying.

I agree with the first part but not from with the second. This war will happen but those of us who oppose it still need to stand up and be counted.

[General Geiger]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
I agree with the first part but not from with the second. This war will happen but those of us who oppose it still need to stand up and be counted.

Note the qualifier "perhaps". I'm amenable to opinion alteration on this one, though I'm inclined to say that, now at least, there's no point in further opposition. The people of the world have said more than enough. If they were going to influence the government of the USA and Britain they'd have done so by now (it should be noted that Britain is sending a very large number of forces to the Gulf as well, and so are worth consideration along with the United States).

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by General Geiger
The people of the world have said more than enough. If they were going to influence the government of the USA and Britain they'd have done so by now

You utterly misunderstood my point