Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Ted Kennedy's Speech: Treason or disagreement?
Topic Started: Apr 6 2004, 11:18 AM (2,093 Views)
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Dwayne,
In how many ways do I have to spell out my point before you finally understand (not necessarily agree with) what it is...?

I'm not interested in the media mentions of Salman Pak or Google references. I'm asking why Bush and his administration haven't been emphasizing it when it would obviously be in their best interest to do so especially in a very close election year.

If you don't want to discuss THIS point, then please just say so. I refuse to keep repeating myself while you go off on all you evasive tangents.

Edit:
Quote:
 
The fact is, the White House has mentioned Salman Pak on multiple occasions, but I'd suspect that it's not mentioned more often only because the Bush Administration considers the proof prima facie, and quite frankly they have way more important things to do than hand hold you through a tour of the evidence.

"Multiple occasions"? Such as...
"Way more important things"? So you don't think he considers getting re-elected very important...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
Dwayne,
In how many ways do I have to spell out my point before you finally understand (not necessarily agree with) what it is...?

I'm not interested in the media mentions of Salman Pak or Google references.  I'm asking why Bush and his administration haven't been emphasizing it when it would obviously be in their best interest to do so especially in a very close election year.

If you don't want to discuss THIS point, then please just say so.  I refuse to keep repeating myself while you go off on all you evasive tangents.

Your point is not a point at all - it is the 'evasive tangent' - it is a strawman argument. It's irrelevent how often Bush mentions one piece of evidence over another.

Quote:
 
Edit:
Quote:
 
The fact is, the White House has mentioned Salman Pak on multiple occasions, but I'd suspect that it's not mentioned more often only because the Bush Administration considers the proof prima facie, and quite frankly they have way more important things to do than hand hold you through a tour of the evidence.

"Multiple occasions"? Such as...
"Way more important things"? So you don't think he considers getting re-elected very important...

Actually, no - I happen to know he considers fighting the war is more important.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Bush associated himself with the dossier published by the British Government. In that document the Prime Minister said;

"I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped".

"His military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".


The report concluded that "Iraq has usable chemical and biological weapons capability" but no-one in Government likes to be reminded of that suprisingly.

My point is that we were quite clearly supposed to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security.

The dossier is avaliable at:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Poli.../24/dossier.pdf
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ds9074
Apr 9 2004, 01:57 PM
Bush associated himself with the dossier published by the British Government. In that document the Prime Minister said;

"I am in no doubt that the threat is serious and current, that he has made progress on WMD, and that he has to be stopped".

"His military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".


The report concluded that "Iraq has usable chemical and biological weapons capability" but no-one in Government likes to be reminded of that suprisingly.

My point is that we were quite clearly supposed to believe that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security.

The dossier is avaliable at:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Poli.../24/dossier.pdf

It appears you don't understand the meaning of the word imminent.

Imminent implies that something is about to occur, not 'could occur'.

The "45 minute" claim does not speak to the imminence of an attack, but to weapons capabilities.

Oh, btw, the "45 minute" claim, was a legitimate claim. The fact is, the Iraqi Army could fire off artillery within 45 minutes of the order given and Iraq had a lot of CW artillery shells, so the only thing necessary to make that claim a reality was the CW to place in the shells.

When the full story is uncovered and told, you're going to find the CW was there the whole time.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
SERIOUS:

Grave in quality or manner
Of considerable size or scope; substantial
Being of such import as to cause anxiety

CURRENT:

Belonging to the present time
Being in progress now

So Blair was saying that their was a grave and substantial threat to us then at that time. So yes I stand corrected the threat wasnt imminent, it was present according to Blair. The British Prime Minister was "in no doubt".

Also the idea was to link the 45 minutes and the idea that missiles could hit Greece, Turkey, Cyrus and Israel in people minds. That was how it was reported and there was never any correction or clarification of that until after the war. In fact from the memos and diaries released that is exactly how number 10 wanted it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
I disagree with your (Dwayne) assertion that the 9/11 is asking why Bush didn't act pre-emptively. I think it's more of a question of "Why didn't we have a united policy on terrorism?".
As for any Al Queida/Sadaam ties, let's examine some quotes:
"He's a bad Muslim...He took Kuwait for his own self-agrandizement." 1997, Osama bi Laden in CNN interview.
"there is no evidence that Husien was involved with Speptember 11" September, 2003 George Bush

According to the State Department's most recent publication of "Patterns of Global Terrorism", Sadaam had no ties toto any "Al Qieda type organizations".
However, it does point to some support of terrorist organizations by Sadaam. All of them were "Marxist" or "socialist" in ideology and their "main focus" has been "dissident Iraqi activity overseas".

So why attack Iraq? Because they had WMD programs? Are we planning to attack North Korea? No. How about Iran? No. How about Israel? No. How about Pakistan? No.

We attacked Afghanistan because that's were the Al Quieda guys were. How many Iraqis were in the 9/11 terrorists? None.

Iraq? A war based on a lie.

PS How do you like that research?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Quote:
 
I disagree with your (Dwayne) assertion that the 9/11 is asking why Bush didn't act pre-emptively. I think it's more of a question of "Why didn't we have a united policy on terrorism?".

It appears you're uninformed. The argument going on in the 9-11 commission is one of pre-emptive action and why action was not taken sooner.

As for a "united policy on terrorism" - whatever that means - if I read you correctly, the charter for the CIA prevented there from being a "united" policy.

Quote:
 
As for any Al Queida/Sadaam ties, let's examine some quotes:
"He's a bad Muslim...He took Kuwait for his own self-agrandizement." 1997, Osama bi Laden in CNN interview.
"there is no evidence that Husien was involved with Speptember 11" September, 2003 George Bush


Oh boy, let's play dueling quotes.

Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
23 February 1998
if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

What you don't understand is this - the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Quote:
 
According to the State Department's most recent publication of "Patterns of Global Terrorism", Sadaam had no ties toto any "Al Qieda type organizations".
However, it does point to some support of terrorist organizations by Sadaam. All of them were "Marxist" or "socialist" in ideology and their "main focus" has been "dissident Iraqi activity overseas".

Liar

Quote:
 
So why attack Iraq? Because they had WMD programs? Are we planning to attack North Korea? No. How about Iran? No. How about Israel? No. How about Pakistan? No.

When is the last time that North Korea, Iran, Israel or Pakistan invaded a neighbor and gassed them?

Where are the UNSC resolutions against North Korea, Iran, Israel or Pakistan for using NBC weapons?

Quote:
 
We attacked Afghanistan because that's were the Al Quieda guys were. How many Iraqis were in the 9/11 terrorists? None.

It's a non-sequitur to suggest that the War on Terror is only against al Qaeda.

Quote:
 
Iraq? A war based on a lie.

Yours is a lie based on a war.

Quote:
 
PS How do you like that research?

Fairly pathetic.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
24thcenstfan
Apr 9 2004, 12:17 PM
No, Bush never specifically said, “Iraq is an imminent threat.” But he sure as heck implied it every time he used specific key words and phrases in conjunction with each other. Everything about his speeches led me to the conclusion that Saddam was an imminent threat to not only his neighbors but the US. Bush now reminds me of a politician who tries to scare the hell out of the elderly by saying that their Social Security is about to run out on them…so ELECT ME and I will fix your problems.

Bush cleverly used 9/11, terrorism, the “what ifs” if terrorists were able to use a WMD (supplied by Saddam) here in the States, to play on our fears and to create a sense of urgency concerning the removal of Saddam. Saddam was a grave threat, he threatened world peace, blah blah blah.

So no, “Iraq is an imminent threat” was never said as far as I can find, but the message, the implication, was interlaced in speech after speech.

******
"The danger to America from the Iraqi regime is grave and growing. The regime is guilty of beginning two wars. It has a horrible history of striking without warning. In defiance of pledges to the United Nations, Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. Saddam Hussein has used these weapons of death against innocent Iraqi people, and we have every reason to believe he will use them again.

Iraq has longstanding ties to terrorist groups, which are capable of and willing to deliver weapons of mass death. And Iraq is ruled by perhaps the world's most brutal dictator who has already committed genocide with chemical weapons, ordered the torture of children, and instituted the systematic rape of the wives and daughters of his political opponents.

We cannot leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man. This dictator must be disarmed. And all the United Nations resolutions against his brutality and support for terrorism must be enforced.

American security, the safety of our friends, and the values of our country lead us to confront this gathering threat."

Which is it Mr. President? Is it grave or a gathering threat? A lot of double-talk here. No doubt why some of us believe there was an imminent threat and others don’t.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021005.html


“Confronting Iraq is an urgent matter of national security.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0/20021012.html
**
"President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio
8:02 P.M. EDT

"Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat."

"The threat comes from Iraq."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html


"The chemical attack on Halabja -- just one of 40 targeted at Iraq's own people -- provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the entire world. He is among history's cruelest dictators, and he is arming himself with the world's most terrible weapons.
And we must recognize that some threats are so grave -- and their potential consequences so terrible -- that they must be removed, even if it requires military force."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...3/20030315.html


"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people. "
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030316-3.html


"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep.

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. We believe in the mission of the United Nations. One reason the U.N. was founded after the second world war was to confront aggressive dictators, actively and early, before they can attack the innocent and destroy the peace."
***

“The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
Our government is on heightened watch against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking further actions to protect our homeland.”

“The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030317-7.html



“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities"


“My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030319-17.html



"The Iraqi regime's violations of Security Council Resolutions are evident, they are dangerous to America and the world, and they continue to this hour. "

“One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...2/20030208.html

24, I think Adrian can fight his own battles. But still, you haven't disproven my assertion that Bush NEVER said imminent threat. I wish the Dems would concede that they were simply wrong on that and move on.

By the way, Ted Kennedy's words are now being used by Iraqi "clerics" to rouse their own rabble to fight against us. How soon before you agree that this loathsome man is, by his words "giving AID and comfort" to the enemy?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 10 2004, 10:39 AM
24, I think Adrian can fight his own battles. But still, you haven't disproven my assertion that Bush NEVER said imminent threat. I wish the Dems would concede that they were simply wrong on that and move on.

By the way, Ted Kennedy's words are now being used by Iraqi "clerics" to rouse their own rabble to fight against us. How soon before you agree that this loathsome man is, by his words "giving AID and comfort" to the enemy?

First, I am sure Adrian can fight his own battles. The reply you have in quotes was my own reply in response to yours and Dwayne’s assertion that Bush never specifically said the words "Iraq is an imminent threat.” To my knowledge I have always maintained that Bush never specifically said those words, but implied the message in speech after speech. I was simply showing you proof of this by providing quotes from various speeches leading up to the war.

Second, I can’t speak for all Democrats. However, as a person who votes Democrat I don't have to concede to anything. I have never asserted anything but an implied message by Bush (to my knowledge the specific phrase “Iraq is an imminent threat” was never used). However, just because the words, “Iraq is an imminent threat” were never used, it doesn’t mean that his speeches weren’t designed to give you that impression…which is almost the equivalent of saying the words.

Third, AB the charge of Treason is a serious matter. I am not going to say this man has been treasonous simply because you personally think he is, or because some whacko cleric in Iraq is taking Kennedy’s words and using them in a demented manner. At this point I still do not think Kennedy has committed a treasonous act. If he had, someone in authority (FBI perhaps) would have already started an investigation. Considering this is an election year, the world would probably know that an investigation was underway.

AB, I have come to respect your opinions on many issues. However, IMO, you are being overly influenced by your emotions in this matter (your visceral hatred for the man). I could be wrong in my assessment of Kennedy's words. If it turns out that I am wrong, then I will be more than happy to give you the credit for seeing what I couldn’t. However, at this point in time, I still do not think Kennedy’s speech was treasonous.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
The exchanges in here are quited heated at times.

Admiral,

If what you say is true (regarding Ted Kennedy and treason), do you think he will ever be charged with such an offense? What would it take? In other words, who would be the person(s) to bring such charges against him (or anyone else that committed such an offense)?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ANOVA
Vice Admiral
^^^

I think that both the Skipper and I have asserted that Kennedy's statement gives aid and comfort to the enemy. So the charge is already brought forth.

I suggest a letter writing campaign to members of both houses to demand that Kennedy either retract his statement or be censored for his statement. Disagreeing with foriegn policy is different from treason and sedition

ANOVA
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Admiralbill_gomec
Apr 8 2004, 10:40 AM
Ted Kennedy can not be charged under the UCMJ, because he is not a member of any military. He can (IMHO) be charged under the US Code. I underlined the juicy parts of 5 USC 7311, Subsection 8.

Specifically:

Sec. 8. (a) The investigations conducted pursuant to this order shall be designed to develop information as to whether the employment or retention in employment in the Federal service of the person being investigated is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.  Such information shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following:
      (1) Depending on the relation of the Government employment to the national security:
      (i) Any behavior, activities, or associations which tend to show that the individual is not reliable or trustworthy.
      (ii) Any deliberate misrepresentations, falsifications or omissions of material facts.      (iii) Any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct, habitual use of intoxicants to excess, drug addiction or sexual perversion.
      (iv) Any illness, including any mental condition, of a nature which in the opinion of competent medical authority may cause significant defect in the judgment or reliability of the employee, with due regard to the transient or continuing effect of the illness and the medical findings in such case.
      (v) Any facts which furnish reason to believe that the individual may be subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure which may cause him to act contrary to the best interests of the national security.
      (2) Commission of any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition, or attempts thereat or preparation therefor, or conspiring with, or aiding or abetting another to commit or attempt to commit any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, or sedition.
      (3) Establishing or continuing a sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, traitor, seditionist, anarchist, or revolutionist, or with any espionage or other secret agent or representative of a foreign nation, or any representative of a foreign nation whose interests may be inimical to the interests of the United States, or with any person who advocates the use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States or the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
      (4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the government of the United States, or of the alteration of the form of government of the United States by unconstitutional means.
      (5) Knowing membership with the specific intent of furthering the aims of, or adherence to and active participation in, any foreign or domestic organization, association, movement, group, or combination of persons (hereinafter referred to as organizations) which unlawfully advocates or practices the commission of acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State, or which seeks to overthrow the Government of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof by unlawful means.
      (6) Intentional unauthorized disclosure to any person of security information, or of other information disclosure of which is prohibited by law, or willful violation or disregard of security regulations.
      (7) Performing or attempting to perform his duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
      (8) Refusal by the individual, upon the ground of constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, to testify before a congressional committee regarding charges of his alleged disloyalty or other misconduct.
      (b) The investigation of persons entering or employed in the competitive service shall primarily be the responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management, except in cases in which the head of a department or agency assumes that responsibility pursuant to law or by agreement with the Office. The Office shall furnish a full investigative report to the department or agency concerned.
      © The investigation of persons (including consultants, however employed), entering employment of, or employed by, the Government other than in the competitive service shall primarily be the responsibility of the employing department or agency.  Departments and agencies without investigative facilities may use the investigative facilities of the Office of Personnel Management, and other departments and agencies may use such facilities under agreement with the Office.
      (d) There shall be referred promptly to the Federal Bureau of Investigation all investigations being conducted by any other agencies which develop information indicating that an individual may have been subjected to coercion, influence, or pressure to act contrary to the interests of the national security, or information relating to any of the matters described in subdivisions (2) through (8) of subsection (a) of this section.  In cases so referred to it, the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall make a full field investigation.

By the way, I underlined (4) because of calls by Senator Kennedy for "regime change.

If I were in Kennedy's camp, the first charge I would refute is the allegation regarding the use of the words "regime change". Now, granted, I have not reviewed the whole text of the Kennedy speech at Brookings. I don't know if it is even available. However, I would be surprised if it suggested "unconstitutional means". As near as I can tell, all he has advocated for exacting regime change has been to overthrow President Bush via the ballot box in November.

Next I would ask what intentional unauthorized disclosure to any person(s) of security information, etc.? Sen. Kennedy may annoy me politically, but he is likely not so stupid as to breach security in an unlawful manner that might get him sent to Leavenworth.

One might get him investigated based on Section 1i and 1ii, and possibly even 1iii (even though he is apparently clean and sober these days). After that, I doubt the investigation would go much further. Additionally, one might expect that as soon as he was exonerated he would initiate a campaign suggesting it was the beginnings of a return to McCarthyism. I go back to this really being a case rabid election campaigning. At best, I think the President could probaly bring a civil charge of slander against the Senator from Massachusetts, but treason and sedition are going to be very difficult to prove.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
ANOVA
Apr 10 2004, 04:21 PM
^^^

I think that both the Skipper and I have asserted that Kennedy's statement gives aid and comfort to the enemy. So the charge is already brought forth.

I suggest a letter writing campaign to members of both houses to demand that Kennedy either retract his statement or be censored for his statement. Disagreeing with foriegn policy is different from treason and sedition

ANOVA

I've already asked my readers to do just what you are encouraging.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Here's thelink for Bush's "there is no evidence that Husien was involved with Speptember 11" quote.

Dwayne, I love your "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" quote. Al Quieda hated Sadaam, are they our friends? Iran hated Sadaam, are they our freinds? Many members of the Saudi Royal family love Osama, is Saudi Arabia our enemy? (jury's out on that last one)
Your quote reminds me of Bush's "you're either with us or against us" quote. Does that mean we'll start bombing neutral Switzerland soon?
Any policy that can be boiled down to a catch phrase is dangerous.

Also, your "liar" link leads to an appendix with Colin Powell repeating the speech he gave to the UN. But in the body, under "State Sponsors of Terrorism" (you, know, the part written by non-politicians) all of the Iraqi links are Marxist organizations hunting Iraqi dissidents abroad (Not Lying Link).

Also you state that "It's a non-sequitur to suggest that the War on Terror is only against al Qaeda". Um... who else is it against?
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2002/html/19988.htm
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Adrian
Lieutenant Commander
Just a thought:
If Ted Kennedy can be tried for treson based on his speech, does that mean Impuse Engine, 24Cent, and I could be/should be tried as well?
I know I've written (and said) a lot of the same things thinking I was exercising freedom of speech. Or is it treason only when the enemy can hear you?
Wait, the internet is international, so I guess they can.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus