"War on Iraq soap-boxing"

[Aardvark]

Terorism existed before 9/11, but 9/11 was the worst thing to date that had happened to us. Don't you think that that would require a President to take action beyond what had been taken before?

 

Sometimes i think that Americans don't think anything is truely real unless it is happening to them, anything else is put in the same catergory as the bangs and flashes of an Arnold Schwartzenegger film.

 

Britain has experienced years upon years of terrorist bombs and murders. And during that time what did America do? Make cute comparisons between the murderers and lepricons, send large sums of money to them through Noraid and invite there leaders to the White House.

 

Worse things have happened in the world than 9/11 and you haven't earnt any particular special sympathy when it comes to terrorism.

[syntax252]

=Sayonara³]You didn't lose 3,000 people though, did you? The World trade center was populated by workers from a range of nationalities. Regardless, that has nothing to do with Iraq.]

 

I think that it had lot to do with Iraq, since we declared war on terrorism and Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism.

 

 

Or maybe by "we" you mean the USA and her allies, in which case the figure had risen significantly beyond 3,000 a long time before your government decided to be more active.

 

Don't take this to mean that the world wasn't appalled by the attack. It's just a reminder that there was terrorism before that. Lots of it.

 

Of course there was terrorism before 9/11, but nothing on the scale of bringing down the WTC with people of all nationalities inside. Just because they were not all American nationality is no reason to ignore their loss.

 

 

What has that got to do with anything? Are you actually suggesting that people ought to roll over and die to keep someone in an administrative roll for a four year term?[/b]

 

Nooooooo, I am suggesting that when one accepts the job as president, he is expected to lead. Which, of course, is precisely what W did.

 

 

Primarily for your benefit. I could just as easily close or split the thread; it's all the same to me.

 

Whatever.....all I am doing is responding, mostly to you.

 

 

Anything. Seriously; any truly surgical operation, no matter how long it takes. I think, as a coalition, we've demonstrated quite well over the past year that the slash 'n' burn approach does not work.[/b]

 

I would be all for a hit squad taking out Saddam, but if it were that easy, we would have found him a lot sooner that we did--right?

 

 

Which one? The UK report that was written to justify the war and subsequently torn to shreds because it was full of demonstrable lies, or the USA report that was based on that and CIA intelligence that was shown to be incorrect?

 

Oh, so now that you can't point to the 9/11 report as a condemnation of the Bush administration, it is useless?

 

I'm going to have to split this thread, aren't I?

 

I don't care what you do.

[Aardvark]

I think that it had lot[/b'] to do with Iraq, since we declared war on terrorism and Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism.

 

Actually Iraq was not a know supporter of terrorism. For all his sins Saddam was never linked to 9/11 in any way at all.

[syntax252]

Sometimes i think that Americans don't think anything is truely real unless it is happening to them' date=' anything else is put in the same catergory as the bangs and flashes of an Arnold Schwartzenegger film.

 

Britain has experienced years upon years of terrorist bombs and murders. And during that time what did America do? Make cute comparisons between the murderers and lepricons, send large sums of money to them through Noraid and invite there leaders to the White House.

 

Worse things have happened in the world than 9/11 and you haven't earnt any particular special sympathy when it comes to terrorism.[/quote']

 

Well, you know, Ireland was/is one of Britain's little outpost's, is it not? How much sympathy did we get here during our race riots of the 30s and even the 90s after the Rodney King affair?

 

What I am getting at is that it was basically an internal affair. What is the difference between an Irishman and an Englishman anyway?

[Aardvark]

Well' date=' you know, Ireland [b']was/is[/b] one of Britain's little outpost's, is it not? How much sympathy did we get here during our race riots of the 30s and even the 90s after the Rodney King affair?

 

What I am getting at is that it was basically an internal affair. What is the difference between an Irishman and an Englishman anyway?

 

Putting rolleyes in your posts doesn't make you look big or clever.

 

Britain never sent large sums of money and moral support to the rioters in American. And to compare those riots to terrorism makes me seriously doubt your judgement.

 

In what way are IRA bombs in my city an 'internal' affair any more than terrorism in New York? And why would being an 'internal' affair make it less important? If that was 'basically an internal affair' then why were Americans sending millions of dollars to the IRA? How would you feel if i was to give money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set of another bomb in Oklahoma? Seriously, how would you feel about that?

[syntax252]

Putting rolleyes in your posts doesn't make you look big or clever.

 

Britain never sent large sums of money and moral support to the rioters in American. And to compare those riots to terrorism makes me seriously doubt your judgement.

 

In what way are IRA bombs in my city an 'internal' affair any more than terrorism in New York? And why would being an 'internal' affair make it less important? If that was 'basically an internal affair' then why were Americans sending millions of dollars to the IRA? How would you feel if i was to give money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set of another bomb in Oklahoma? Seriously' date=' how would you feel about that?[/quote']

 

First, I use the emoticons to convey a certain feeling to the post. Have you even leaned back in your chair during a discussion and, looking toward the ceiling, heaved a great sigh?

 

That is what I mean. Not that I am larger or smaller than anyone else, just another way to get a thought accross.

 

Now, as to your terrorism in Ireland. I do not know all the particulars on that little lapse in law and order, but I understand that it goes something like one group of Irishmen killing other Irishmen?

 

Wouldn't that make it a matter of law enforcemant? Isn't law enforcement an internal affair?

[TimeTraveler]

I am saying that humans possess inescapable urges and instincts towards behaviour that can be bad. Xenophobia for instance seems to be an instinct which is pretty deeply hardwired in our natures' date=' it can be seem from the jungle inhabitants of Parguay to the people of the 24hr hour cities of Melbourne or London.

 

I am not saying that it is inescapable that we follow those urges, but it is inescapable that they exist. In order to find better ways to act it is necessary to fully acknowledge them, then we can better deal with them.

 

Sometimes people use human nature as an excuse for behaving badly (a weakness of some on the right) and conversely some people try to deny its existense. (a weakness of some on the left). I hope i have made clear to you that i think both of those approaches are flawed.[/quote']

 

Thanks for clearing that up, I see what your saying and completly agree with you.

 

I think that it had lot to do with Iraq, since we declared war on terrorism and Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism.

 

Iraq had no affiliation to any terrorist group. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

 

Nooooooo, I am suggesting that when one accepts the job as president, he is expected to lead. Which, of course, is precisely what W did.

 

This war was planned about 13 years ago, the whole senerio was planned 13 years ago, this has nothing to do with terrorism, saddam's regime, oil, or protection. I am going to say the following, out of love and respect for my country, because our mission is just; our way of carrying out that mission is not.

 

This war is about one nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all.

 

America has layed the foothold to control the world. There is nothing anyone can do about it EXCEPT the American people. There is no exit strategy for Iraq, we needed a reason to go into Iraq to lay the foundations for our military bases in order to have more military control over the world. America is not conquering the world, but it is forcfully controlling it. With four major bases that we now have in Iraq we are in a position to bring stability to the middle east in ways we could not before. With the help of our four major bases in Afganastan we can also be in position to have better access to the eastern parts of the world. We can now control and protect the oil pipeline.

 

The evidence is now becoming more and more clear. I could unfold the evidence out for you in a way that might allow you to actually see for yourself what I am talking about, but it would take me weeks. I do not have the time, nor is there enough room on this message board to outline it. The evidence is there, but you will have to research it yourself. I suggest a documentary recently released (and very hard to find in America) called Hijacking Catastrophe. the documentary is funded by Americans, the evidence is layed out by Americans, but the film was not made or aired in America.

 

This war is not about terrorism, this war is about an American military world police and control over the worlds resources and actions.

 

Now lets assume this is true, is it a bad thing? Well it really depends, the world does severly need a global policing system, but America alone in the control, I dunno. America is a great and compassionate country, our ultimate goals are freedom, survival, world peace, stability and progression. However we have ultimately changed ourselves just over the past few years and that scares me. The patriot act strips Americans of their privacy while it gives the governing body justifiable secrecy. This could be very bad. The thing that you have to remember here is since WWII, America has built the ultimate military machine, our military is so powerful that the entire world could amass their military and ours would nearly match it.

 

The next step in our evolutionary process is inevitable, A single world order. How we achieve that is a different story, we can develop a world order through patience, time, peace, compromise, relation, structure, cooperation and proper planning. Or we can do it through force and warfare.

 

I have a prediction that the unstability this plan has caused will be it's destruction and possibly the destruction of our great country. There is not a world power that can destroy America, but the unstability that this plan will cause will in turn cause America to deconstruct from within, unless we Americans stand up and do the right thing. We need to strip George W. Bush from presidancy, remove the administration from office, send them to trial for war crimes and we need to complete the mission in a peaceable way, without secrecy, and with the cooperation of the world.

[Phi for All]

Who have you been listening to? The people were terrorized under Sadaam. The US helped the people overthrow the tryranical government, and the situation continues to improve.

A tyrant who abuses the citizens of his country is not "terrorizing" them. Let's not confuse things by misusing this word. Sadaam was not a terrorist, hated terrorists, and held Iraq in an iron grip to avoid having terrorists ruin his stronghold.

 

Just because a Nation is powerful doesn't mean that they are nessicarily the agressor, or that anyone assumes that way.

A nation that invades the sovereign territory of another nation is the agressor, no matter how powerful. You obviously think because Sadaam killed the Kurds (who may or may not have been helping Iranian soldiers to overthrow him) that gives us the right to move in without UN sanctions. What about Sudan and Zimbabwe, North Korea, Turkey or Cuba? There are some major human rights violations going on in these countries. Why did we pick Iraq? 5000 Kurds over 70,000 Sudanese in Darfur with over 2 million people run out of their homes. Why Iraq?

First of all, conservative media? Since when did we have a concervative media? It's very liberal as I see it.

A favorite trick of megabusiness politics is to come up with something nasty to do and then immediately accuse your opponent of doing it. Your opponent seems guilty just by his denials, and you can always point back and say, "Hey, I accused him first!"

 

"Liberal media" is one of the most carefully thought-out soundbytes in the history of spin-doctoring. Since 95% of the media is owned by conservative mega-corporations, how did they get to be so liberal? Please continue to think.

[Sayonara]

I think that it had lot[/b'] to do with Iraq, since we declared war on terrorism and Iraq was a known supporter of terrorism.

What?

 

You (or rather "we") invaded - yes, invaded - Iraq after the attack on the WTC, which had nothing to do with them.

 

Beyond political tub-thumping, one cannot "declare war" on terrorism - it's an abstract concept. One declares wars on nation states.

Saying that we can attack anyone we like because we've declared war on terrorism, and we reckon the dirty feckers are terrorists, is the equivalent of me going to the mall with a hand-canon and blowing random people away because I think they had something to do with my car being keyed last Thursday.

 

 

Of course there was terrorism before 9/11, but nothing on the scale of bringing down the WTC with people of all nationalities inside. Just because they were not all American nationality is no reason to ignore their loss.

Nothing on the same scale if you artifically compress the time allowed, I think you mean.

By changing your scope to include non-Americans, you run the risk of undermining the consistency of your argument, since this originally began with an interjection on the value of American lives.

 

 

Nooooooo, I am suggesting that when one accepts the job as president, he is expected to lead. Which, of course, is precisely what W did.

And I'm saying "what has that got to do with anything?"

 

We were discussing the relative values of human lives, and how humanity needs to change; not who thinks ol' George is a jolly good fellow. He's not relevant.

 

 

Whatever.....all I am doing is responding, mostly to you.

...

I don't care what you do.

Well, it's Blike's thread and I'm too tired to sort through it, so let's just wait and see if he wants to split it.

 

 

I would be all for a hit squad taking out Saddam, but if it were that easy, we would have found him a lot sooner that we did--right?

Funny you should mention that, because he's not there any more. Yet somehow we are.

 

Perhaps if we'd actually tried to whack him, we may have succeeded. It would have saved plenty of time, effort, money, international rage, and above all, lives. On all sides.

 

 

Oh, so now that you can't point to the 9/11 report as a condemnation of the Bush administration, it is useless?

As I have indicated, I am not interested in bashing the Bush administration (or any other for that matter.)

You raised the issue of the 9/11 report as a flippant retort to a post about the political standing of Iraq, and I replied to ask which of the reports you were referring to. My interest lies in the fact that they were both shams, which leaves you with the unenviable task of showing otherwise, or re-replying to the post. Sorry

[Sayonara]

You obviously think because Sadaam killed the Kurds (who may or may not have been helping Iranian soldiers to overthrow him) that gives us the right to move in without UN sanctions.

Tut tut tut.

 

You forgot to say " some time later".

[syntax252]

Iraq had no affiliation to any terrorist group. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it.

 

It is in the 9/11 report. You can read about it here if you care to.

 

 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

 

This war was planned about 13 years ago, the whole senerio was planned 13 years ago, this has nothing to do with terrorism, saddam's regime, oil, or protection. I am going to say the following, out of love and respect for my country, because our mission is just our way of carrying out that mission is not.

 

This war is about one nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all.

 

America has layed the foothold to control the world. There is nothing anyone can do about it EXCEPT the American people. There is no exit strategy for Iraq, we needed a reason to go into Iraq to lay the foundations for our military bases in order to have more military control over the world. America is not conquering the world, but it is forcfully controlling it. With four major bases that we now have in Iraq we are in a position to bring stability to the middle east in ways we could not before. With the help of our four major bases in Afganastan we can also be in position to have better access to the eastern parts of the world. We can now control and protect the oil pipeline.

 

The evidence is now becoming more and more clear. I could unfold the evidence out for you in a way that might allow you to actually see for yourself what I am talking about, but it would take me weeks. I do not have the time, nor is there enough room on this message board to outline it. The evidence is there, but you will have to research it yourself. I suggest a documentary recently released (and very hard to find in America) called Hijacking Catastrophe. the documentary is funded by Americans, the evidence is layed out by Americans, but the film was not made or aired in America.

 

This war is not about terrorism, this war is about an American military world police and control over the worlds resources and actions.

 

Now lets assume this is true, is it a bad thing? Well it really depends, the world does severly need a global policing system, but America alone in the control, I dunno. America is a great and compassionate country, our ultimate goals are freedom, survival, world peace, stability and progression. However we have ultimately changed ourselves just over the past few years and that scares me. The patriot act strips Americans of their privacy while it gives the governing body justifiable secrecy. This could be very bad. The thing that you have to remember here is since WWII, America has built the ultimate military machine, our military is so powerful that the entire world could amass their military and ours would nearly match it.

 

The next step in our evolutionary process is inevitable, A single world order. How we achieve that is a different story, we can develop a world order through patience, time, peace, compromise, relation, structure, cooperation and proper planning. Or we can do it through force and warfare.

 

I have a prediction that the unstability this plan has caused will be it's destruction and possibly the destruction of our great country. There is not a world power that can destroy America, but the unstability that this plan will cause will in turn cause America to deconstruct from within, unless we Americans stand up and do the right thing. We need to strip George W. Bush from presidancy, remove the administration from office, send them to trial for war crimes and we need to complete the mission in a peaceable way, without secrecy, and with the cooperation of the world.

 

Do you normally indulge in drugs this early in the day?

[syntax252]

What?

 

You (or rather "we") invaded - yes' date=' [b']invaded[/b] - Iraq after the attack on the WTC, which had nothing to do with them.

 

Beyond political tub-thumping, one cannot "declare war" on terrorism - it's an abstract concept. One declares wars on nation states.

Saying that we can attack anyone we like because we've declared war on terrorism, and we reckon the dirty feckers are terrorists, is the equivalent of me going to the mall with a hand-canon and blowing random people away because I think they had something to do with my car being keyed last Thursday.

 

I think that what is meant by "declaring war on terror" is that we will hunt down terrorists wherever they are and distroy any nation that provids support for terrorists. That is why Saddam was no. 1 on the list of people to be deposed.

 

 

Nothing on the same scale if you artifically compress the time allowed, I think you mean.

By changing your scope to include non-Americans, you run the risk of undermining the consistency of your argument, since this originally began with an interjection on the value of American lives.

 

 

 

And I'm saying "what has that got to do with anything?"

 

We were discussing the relative values of human lives, and how humanity needs to change; not who thinks ol' George is a jolly good fellow. He's not relevant.

 

Since all lives lost on 9/11 are important and since it happened in America, I think it perfectly appropriate that the US take action--don't you?

 

 

 

 

Funny you should mention that, because he's not there any more. Yet somehow we are.

 

So, you think we should have packed our tents and split after we pulled him otta his little spider hole?

 

 

Perhaps if we'd actually tried to whack him, we may have succeeded. It would have saved plenty of time, effort, money, international rage, and above all, lives. On all sides.

 

I've not heard anyone who is in a position to know about those things, say that that was a viable option---have you?

 

 

As I have indicated, I am not interested in bashing the Bush administration (or any other for that matter.)

You raised the issue of the 9/11 report as a flippant retort to a post about the political standing of Iraq, and I replied to ask which of the reports you were referring to. My interest lies in the fact that they were both shams, which leaves you with the unenviable task of showing otherwise, or re-replying to the post. Sorry

 

Flippant?? Shams??

 

Please!! Do try to be serious, you are undermining your credibility as a thoughtful adult.

[john5746]

I think that what is meant by "declaring war on terror" is that we will hunt down terrorists wherever they are and distroy any nation that provids support for terrorists. That is why Saddam was no. 1 on the list of people to be deposed.

 

Was Iraq the number one supporter of terrorism? I thought there was something about WMD's getting in the hands of terrorists, then it became Saddam is a bad dictator who killed many people, now its to spread democracy all over the world.

[Sayonara]

I think that what is meant by "declaring war on terror" is that we will hunt down terrorists wherever they are and distroy any nation that provids support for terrorists. That is why Saddam was no. 1 on the list of people to be deposed.

I realise that, and it's exactly my point: calling something a war does not necessarily mean that it is a war. The phrase "war on terrorism" has been designed to ellicit a heightened affective response, and it's up to us to question the acts that are taking place in this conflict's less-than-valid name.

 

 

Since all lives lost on 9/11 are important and since it happened in America, I think it perfectly appropriate that the US take action--don't you?

I am not questioning the motive (well, apart from pointing out just over half of the 3,000 killed were actually US citizens), I am questioning this link to Iraq that only you seem to know about.

 

 

So, you think we should have packed our tents and split after we pulled him otta his little spider hole?

No. False dilemma.

 

 

I've not heard anyone who is in a position to know about those things, say that that was a viable option---have you?

And therefore there are no such options?

 

The people who have orchestrated this occupation are not in a position to:

i) Casually mention that they have tried to whack Saddam and been thwarted,

ii) Casually mention that they have planned to whack Saddam, and given up, or

iii) Casually mention that they have plans to whack Saddam (assuming a retrospective view, before the invasion).

 

 

Flippant?

Yes. It was a single throw-away line, replying to a post that deserved better than a suggestion that one look elsewhere for a response. A post that was in direct answer to your argument. Hence, flippant.

 

 

Shams?

Yes. The news was, and still is, 'quite a big thing'.

 

 

Please!! Do try to be serious, you are undermining your credibility as a thoughtful adult.

I really don't think I am.

[Aardvark]

First' date=' I use the emoticons to convey a certain feeling to the post. Have you even leaned back in your chair during a discussion and, looking toward the ceiling, heaved a great sigh?

 

That is what I mean. Not that I am larger or smaller than anyone else, just another way to get a thought accross.[/quote']

 

I'm certainly feeling the need to look at the ceiling and sigh right now.

 

Now' date=' as to your terrorism in Ireland. I do not know all the [b']particulars[/b] on that little lapse in law and order, but I understand that it goes something like one group of Irishmen killing other Irishmen?

 

Wouldn't that make it a matter of law enforcemant? Isn't law enforcement an internal affair?

 

Calling the terrorism from Ireland a 'little lapse of law and order' is offensive. However as you confess ignorance in this matter i will withhold rolleyes or angry faces and try and explain.

 

I am not Irish, i don't live in Ireland. And yet, nevertheless, IRA bombs have gone off in towns i have been living in. It is international terrorism (remember that?). Not an internal matter or a purely law enforcement matter. I hope that is simple enough for even you to understand.

 

I note that you didn't answer my question. How would you feel if i was to send money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set off another bomb in Oklahoma?

[TimeTraveler]

Do you normally indulge in drugs this early in the day?

 

Intelligent reply.

 

 

 

Are you familiar with the Wolfowitz doctrine? Ya know the one that was created in 1992 that layed out a plan of action you are seeing take place today? The one that depicted Iraq as being the first state needing to be eliminated in order for an American dominance over the world. The one asked for a defense budget expendature of up to 100 billion dollars, the one that was denied and shut down because it was considered radical, even by George Bush sr.? That doctrine has been revised and is very much in play today.

 

Are you familliar with Scott Ritter? The former U.S. chief weapons inspector to the U.N. who has said time and time again, there was never any intelligence given to the Bush adminastration that would give them any reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

 

There was no falsified intelligence, the intelligence was blatantly manipulated by the Bush administration.

 

Have you ever played the board game risk? The Bush administration is playing a game of risk with the whole world watching as we speak.

 

If you consider yourself American, You have to at least consider the possibility. I recommend you pull your head out ** **** ***, unglue your eyes from your cable T.V. and take a look at what is going on for yourself. Formulate your own opinions based on what you learn, not what you are being told on fox news.

 

Paul Wolfowitz deputy secretary of defense - http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html

The wolfowitz doctrine, now known as the Bush doctrine - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine

[Phi for All]

Well, would you consider terrorism to be a ligitimate act? Why should we play by different rules that the people who are killing our citizens? Because we like White hats?

Answering a question with a question is not good form. It makes us think you have no good answers and are being evasive, which I hope is not your intent.

 

It's clear you've been eating what the media has been feeding you, but your digestive process is producing the same old crap.

 

Next you'll accuse me of not supporting the troops because I don't support the war. I was raised to believe that questioning the intent of the leaders was the duty of the civilian, just as the soldier's duty is to follow the orders of those leaders.

 

You sound like someone who wants to win at all costs. You're hiding behind your patriotism with phrases like "American lives" and "war on terrorism" but the issue that has been brought up here is how much is too much? If someone else cheats does that make it OK for you to cheat? Since they are beheading people it makes it just for us to torture? All of the torture assumes we'll get answers we can use to save lives. If you torture a prisoner and he still tells you nothing, will you just shrug and say, "It was worth a try"?

 

Just like we said there's a chance Sadaam has WMDs, let's invade. Oh, well, he doesn't, but it was worth (billions of dollars) a (thousands of lives) try.

Do you normally indulge in drugs this early in the day?

Flippant, definitely.

 

Did you know the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Time Traveler refers to in his decidedly more informative post is worth $12,000,000,000,000 (yes, trillion) in oil and natural gas? I think this may be why we're in Baghdad instead of in Darfur.

[Aardvark]

FFS Iraq has bugger all to do with Afghanistan. Stop confusing the two regimes in your bigoted interpretation of the Iraq regime.

 

The very same laws are in force in Iraq that were there prior to the occupation. Women have had the right to vote in Iraq since the 1980' date=' which need I remind you is only 15 years after America allowed African Americans to vote. [/quote']

 

You're right about the stupidity of confusing Iraq with Afghanistan.

 

But you are unfair when you state that blacks only got the vote in the USA in 1965. Plenty of blacks were unlawfully denied their vote in the South until the 1960's but under the law they did have the vote and they successfully voted and stood in elections in many parts of America from 1865.

[syntax252]

Was Iraq the number one supporter of terrorism? I thought there was something about WMD's getting in the hands of terrorists, then it became Saddam is a bad dictator who killed many people, now its to spread democracy all over the world.

 

Actually Saddam was no.2. Afghanistan was no.1.

 

As to the WMDs, no one seems to know what he did with them, but we do know that he had them at the end of the gulf war and he was reluctant to reveal their disposition as required under resolutions passed by the UNSC.

 

After 9/11, those circumstances were just too dangerous for us to tolerate. Accordingly, he was made an offer he couldn't refuse, and he refused it.

[syntax252]

I realise that, and it's exactly my point: calling something a war does not necessarily mean that it is a war. The phrase "war on terrorism" has been designed to ellicit a heightened affective response, and it's up to us to question the acts that are taking place[/url'] in this conflict's less-than-valid name.

 

Well you can question it all you want, but the US will take out tyrants that pose a threat to the citizens of the us.

 

 

I am not questioning the motive (well, apart from pointing out just over half of the 3,000 killed were actually US citizens), I am questioning this link to Iraq that only you seem to know about.

 

Link to what? 9/11? Who said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11? Saddam was taken out because the climate in the world was too hot to allow a loose cannon like him to remain in control of a country like Iraq after 9/11. Whether Saddam had any connection to 9/11 or not, 9/11 certainly had a lot to do with Saddam--and his future.

 

 

No. False dilemma.

 

Well all right then!

 

 

And therefore there are no such options?

 

The people who have orchestrated this occupation are not in a position to:

i) Casually mention that they have tried to whack Saddam and been thwarted,

ii) Casually mention that they have planned to whack Saddam, and given up, or

iii) Casually mention that they have plans to whack Saddam (assuming a retrospective view, before the invasion).[//quote]

 

I think the decision was made to remove him from power militarily because we were not sure we could lay our hands on him if we tried to whack him. I am willing to accede to those people who are in a better position to make these judgements---you?

 

 

Yes. It was a single throw-away line, replying to a post that deserved better than a suggestion that one look elsewhere for a response. A post that was in direct answer to your argument. Hence, flippant.

 

Single line it was, but the dociment does point to connections between Iraq and AQ, does it not? So, what is wrong with asking if the person who said that there were not connections had read the report?

 

 

Yes. The news was, and still is, 'quite a big thing'.

 

Oh balls! The world seems to be full of people who go into denial whenever an investigation does not agree with their knee jerk response.

 

Tell me "old chap," is Tony Blair toe only one in England with any brains at all?

 

I really don't think I am.

 

You don't think that you are a thoughtful adult? Why am I not surprised?

[syntax252]

Answering a question with a question is not good form. It makes us think you have no good answers and are being evasive, which I hope is not your intent.

 

Question to a Jew: 'Why does a jew always answer a question with a question?' Answer: 'And who shouldn't a Jew answer a question with a question?'

 

It's clear you've been eating what the media has been feeding you, but your digestive process is producing the same old crap.

 

Next you'll accuse me of not supporting the troops because I don't support the war. I was raised to believe that questioning the intent of the leaders was the duty of the civilian, just as the soldier's duty is to follow the orders of those leaders.

 

You sound like someone who wants to win at all costs. You're hiding behind your patriotism with phrases like "American lives" and "war on terrorism" but the issue that has been brought up here is how much is too much? If someone else cheats does that make it OK for you to cheat? Since they are beheading people it makes it just for us to torture? All of the torture assumes we'll get answers we can use to save lives. If you torture a prisoner and he still tells you nothing, will you just shrug and say, "It was worth a try"?

 

Just like we said there's a chance Sadaam has WMDs, let's invade. Oh, well, he doesn't, but it was worth (billions of dollars) a (thousands of lives) try.

Flippant, definitely.

 

Did you know the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Time Traveler refers to in his decidedly more informative post is worth $12,000,000,000,000 (yes, trillion) in oil and natural gas? I think this may be why we're in Baghdad instead of in Darfur.

 

I am not accusing you of not supporting the war, I don't care whether you support the war or not. It natters not what you support, because you are not in any position to know whether it should be supported or not. That is what we elect our leadership for, and as far as I can tell from Michigan, our President did precisely what I would have done except I would have done it sooner.

 

Now, back to the torture--we cannot play by rules if we hope to win. It is just as simple as that. Granted, if we torture someone to death he won't be able to tell us anything so we probably should stop short of torture to death, but the objective, when interrogating terrorists should be to get information whatever it takes.

 

And don't think for a minuet that it will go harder on our soldiers if they are captured, because it won't. These SOBs will do anything they can to us regardless of what we do to them.

[syntax252]

Intelligent reply.

 

 

 

Are you familiar with the Wolfowitz doctrine? Ya know the one that was created in 1992 that layed out a plan of action you are seeing take place today? The one that depicted Iraq as being the first state needing to be eliminated in order for an American dominance over the world. The one asked for a defense budget expendature of up to 100 billion dollars' date=' the one that was denied and shut down because it was considered radical, even by George Bush sr.? That doctrine has been revised and is very much in play today.

 

Are you familliar with Scott Ritter? The former U.S. chief weapons inspector to the U.N. who has said time and time again, there was never any intelligence given to the Bush adminastration that would give them any reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

 

There was no falsified intelligence, the intelligence was blatantly manipulated by the Bush administration.

 

Have you ever played the board game risk? The Bush administration is playing a game of risk with the whole world watching as we speak.

 

If you consider yourself American, You have to at least consider the possibility. I recommend you pull your head out ** **** ***, unglue your eyes from your cable T.V. and take a look at what is going on for yourself. Formulate your own opinions based on what you learn, not what you are being told on fox news.

 

Paul Wolfowitz deputy secretary of defense - http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/wolfowitz.html

The wolfowitz doctrine, now known as the Bush doctrine - http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_doctrine[/quote']

 

Hey man, that sounds like some pretty good stuff you're smokin'.

[Sayonara]

Well you can question it all you want, but the US will[/b'] take out tyrants that pose a threat to the citizens of the us.

That doesn't address the issues raised; it only serves to press home the fact that issues exist.

 

 

Link to what? 9/11? Who said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11?

You directly inferred it yourself. You even fall back on that inference further down in the very post I'm replying to now.

 

If it was not your intention to infer such a link, what possible relevance does it have?

 

 

Saddam was taken out because the climate in the world was too hot to allow a loose cannon like him to remain in control of a country like Iraq after 9/11. Whether Saddam had any connection to 9/11 or not, 9/11 certainly had a lot to do with Saddam--and his future.

I refer you back to the 'my car being keyed' scenario, and then back to my comment And I'm saying "what has that got to do with anything?".

 

If your premise is that the USA will react to terrorism by killing terrorists, and the mechanism of this involves destroying cities and wiping out thousands of people, regardless of their affiliations or world political views (if they even have any of either), then we have segued somehow back towards the original topic - because this is clearly a statement that you see one USA life as being worth more than one non-USA life.

 

If you care to expand on the reasoning behind that, with particular reference to the treatment of prisoners, then we will be back on topic completely.

 

 

 

I think the decision was made to remove him from power militarily because we were not sure we could lay our hands on him if we tried to whack him. I am willing to accede to those people who are in a better position to make these judgements---you?

I was quite clearly saying that they are not in a position to make those judgements. They may be able to plan such contingencies, but they are not able to put them into practice. Therefore any motive for doing or not doing such a thing is a moot point.

 

 

Single line it was, but the dociment does point to connections between Iraq and AQ, does it not? So, what is wrong with asking if the person who said that there were not connections had read the report?

Because the evidence for those links was provided by the CIA, and they basically made it up (mostly unintentionally, in their defence). The CIA admitted it, and several officers and directors resigned.

 

 

Oh balls! The world seems to be full of people who go into denial whenever an investigation does not agree with their knee jerk response.

What? Opposing a baseless view that has been derived from bad information is not "being in denial".

 

 

Tell me "old chap," is Tony Blair toe only one in England with any brains at all?

I am not qualified to say, however the evidence certainly suggests that it's a big fat "no" to that one.

 

 

 

You don't think that you are a thoughtful adult? Why am I not surprised?

Perhaps you are incapable of recognising cogent analytical processes; which would be your short-coming, and not mine.

 

Regardless, you know perfectly well I was refuting your idiotic claim that I was undermining my credibility.

[Sayonara]

Question to a Jew: 'Why does a jew always answer a question with a question?' Answer: 'And who shouldn't a Jew answer a question with a question?'

Curb the off-topic racist jokes.

 

 

I am not accusing you of not supporting the war, I don't care whether you support the war or not. It natters not what you support, because you are not in any position to know whether it should be supported or not. That is what we elect our leadership for, and as far as I can tell from Michigan, our President did precisely what I would have done except I would have done it sooner.

Then either you are a biological anomaly, or your above proposal of intelligence classes is woefully self-contradictory.

 

 

Hey man, that sounds like some pretty good stuff you're smokin'

If you have nothing constructive to post, then don't.

 

Also, if you are just going to post a one-liner in response to a post that's more than about 5 lines, replace the body of the quoted post with "reply #x", where x is the reply number shown at the top-right of the post you are quoting. It means lower bandwidth consumption and less scrolling for all involved - aces.

[syntax252]

Calling the terrorism from Ireland a 'little lapse of law and order' is offensive. However as you confess ignorance in this matter i will withhold rolleyes or angry faces and try and explain.

 

I am not Irish' date=' i don't live in Ireland. And yet, nevertheless, IRA bombs have gone off in towns i have been living in. It is international terrorism (remember that?). Not an internal matter or a purely law enforcement matter. I hope that is simple enough for even you to understand.

 

I note that you didn't answer my question. How would you feel if i was to send money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set off another bomb in Oklahoma?[/quote']

 

Well, where do you live? Incidently, whether it offends you or not is not a matter of great concern to me....

 

The Americans that have sent money to the IRA are not part of the American government, so what are you talking about? This makes as much sense as saying that we should attack Saudi Arabia because the 9/11 hi-jackers were Saudis.