"War on Iraq soap-boxing"

[syntax252]

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

 

For you, perhaps, we are quite comfortable with it.

 

 

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?

 

I think you are confused about a link to AQ, and a link to 9/11. It is well known that Saddam had links to AQ, but it is not clear that he had a link to 9/11. Clear?

 

 

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.

 

Oh, I don't think we will be distroying vities at random, just because someone connected to AQ happened to be there, but if the government of that country is assisting AQ, then we will ask them to cease and desist. If they refuse, well, who knows?

 

And, oh yes, I do think American lives are more important that other people's lives. Don't you have similar thoughts about British lives?

 

 

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.

 

Well whatever way it went, we didn't do it that way.

 

 

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.

 

That is not true. George Tenet never admitted that they hyped any evidence, as a matter of fact, he said just the opposite.

 

 

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

 

The 9/11 report is the most comprehensive investigation ever conducted about acts of that date. Again, have you read the 9/11 report?

 

 

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

 

What "evidence?"

 

 

 

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.

 

Ohhhhhhh, that's different!

[syntax252]

Curb the off-topic racist jokes.

 

Are Jews a race? I thought being Jewish was a religion.

 

Besides, Jews are allowed to make jokes about Jews.

 

 

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

 

How so?

 

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.

 

Like you have been doing?

 

Most of the propositions that I have viewed here do not warrant more that a one line response. (no offense)

[Aardvark]

Well, where do[/b'] you live?

That's none of your business.

 

Incidently, whether it offends you or not is not a matter of great concern to me....

I'd already inferred that.

 

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.

 

In what way does pointing out that Americans have funded terrorism make as much sense as attacking Saudi Arabia?

 

I am pointing out that the terrorism from Ireland is international terrorism, not an 'internal law enforcement matter'. I am also pointing out American hyprocrisy, supporting terrorism then turning around and condemning it as the worst thing ever, justifying all sorts of brutal responds.

 

I note that you have still failed to answer my question.

 

How would you feel if i was to send money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set off another bomb in Oklahoma?

 

Maybe if i phrase it differently, how about if i sent money to Aryan Nation to firebomb a few synagoges?

[Sayonara]

For you, perhaps, we[/b'] are quite comfortable with it.

On what grounds do you presume the authority and expertise to speak for the entire United States?

 

 

I think you are confused about a link to AQ, and a link to 9/11. It is well known that Saddam had links to AQ, but it is not clear that he had a link to 9/11. Clear?

No, I am not confused. You have bad information, and have still not shown (and, let's be honest, are not likely to) how a tenuous link between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein justifies a special case invasion of a sovereign nation, and continuing occupation ex post facto which involves killing the people who want us to leave.

 

 

Oh, I don't think we will be distroying vities at random, just because someone connected to AQ happened to be there,

Have you heard of Basra? How about Fallujah? Baghdad maybe?

 

 

but if the government of that country is assisting AQ, then we will ask them to cease and desist. If they refuse, well, who knows?

Stating a provision of the question is not the same as answering the question.

 

 

And, oh yes, I do think American lives are more important that other people's lives. Don't you have similar thoughts about British lives?

Personally, no; I have no reason to believe that a person who lives in Iraq is worth less than a person who lives in Britain, and I lack the trumped-up sense of national pride that is required for me to assume it.

 

Unlike you I do not presume to speak for the entire population, but if the 70% "no" peak of the national poll on war in Iraq is anything to go by, then the answer to your question entire is "no".

 

 

Well whatever way it went, we didn't do it that way.

Evidently. Do you not think that's a shame, given the number of deaths involved?

 

 

That is not true. George Tenet never admitted that they hyped any evidence, as a matter of fact, he said just the opposite.

And he can say what he likes. It won't change matters.

 

 

The 9/11 report is the most comprehensive investigation ever conducted about acts of that date. Again, have you read the 9/11 report?

Let's pretend for a moment that the contents of a report based on subjective evidence and flawed intelligence can be submitted as a rebuttal, and you tell me exactly which part of the report provides a response to reply #91, and why.

 

 

What "evidence?"

The fact that there are a great many people who are as (or more) intelligent as Mr Blair.

 

 

Ohhhhhhh, that's different!

The degeneration of your counterpoints into derogatory or off-hand comments is making it difficult to take you seriously as a debate participant.

 

 

Are Jews a race? I thought being Jewish was a religion.

Look up "race".

 

 

Besides, Jews are allowed to make jokes about Jews.

Not in this thread.

 

 

How so?

Because you claim to be able to do that which you told Phi_for_All he (and others) could not.

 

 

Like you have been doing?

You will notice that I tend to only quote the part I am replying to. I am not implying that you do not do the same; indeed you have done so several times in this thread.

What you will not see me doing is quoting a half-million word post and replying with one line. It's just good manners.

 

 

Most of the propositions that I have viewed here do not warrant more that a one line response. (no offense)

I see the flippancy is back. If they do not warrant more than a one line response, and you wish to remain a participant in the debate, surely that then triggers a requirement for a reply that explains the problems with the proposition.

[syntax252]

 

In what way does pointing out that Americans have funded terrorism make as much sense as attacking Saudi Arabia?

 

I am pointing out that the terrorism from Ireland is international terrorism' date=' not an 'internal law enforcement matter'. I am also pointing out American hyprocrisy, supporting terrorism then turning around and condemning it as the worst thing ever, justifying all sorts of brutal responds.

 

I note that you have still failed to answer my question.

 

How would you feel if i was to send money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set off another bomb in Oklahoma?

 

Maybe if i phrase it differently, how about if i sent money to Aryan Nation to firebomb a few synagoges?[/quote']

 

I thought I answered that. OK if I didn't here is your answer. I don't care if individual Brits send money to America to the likes of Tim McVeigh. Now, on the other hand, if the British government sent funds to his ilk, that would be different.

 

Now do you see the connection between what I said about 9/11 and the Saudis?

 

As far as your problem in Ireland is concerned, I doubt that we would be terribly concerned if you handled the situation as you saw fit. You guys have not, however, shown much stomach for the nitty gritty, now have you lad?

[Sayonara]

You guys have not, however, shown much stomach for the nitty gritty, now have[/b'] you lad?

Pffft. Say hello to British history some time.

 

Stop replying to this thread. You are clearly not going to make any coherent case, and to be quite honest we all have better things to do than respond to snide put-downs from someone who (assuming factual profile information, which I am seriously beginning to doubt) ought to know better.

[syntax252]

Pffft. Say hello to British history some time.

 

Stop replying to this thread. You are clearly not going to make any coherent case' date=' and to be quite honest we all have better things to do than respond to snide put-downs from someone who (assuming factual profile information, which I am seriously beginning to doubt) ought to know better.[/quote']

 

So, is this your response to a simple debate.

 

Cut and run?

 

I should have known that you brits who stayed in England would not be up to a good fight. If you had and balls, your ancestors would have come to America like mine did.

[syntax252]

Let's pretend for a moment that the contents of a report based on subjective evidence and flawed intelligence can be submitted as a rebuttal' date=' and you tell me exactly which part of the report provides a response to reply #91, and why.[/quote']

 

You will find it here.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20041130/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf

[Sayonara]

So' date=' is this your response to a simple debate.

Cut and run?

I should have known that you brits who stayed in England would not be up to a good fight. If you had and balls, your ancestors would have come to America like mine did. [/quote']

This is no longer a debate. This is you getting your jollies by being obtuse, and I am ending it here.

 

Continue to post on the matter in this thread, as opposed to one of the various other threads in which we discuss the merits and justification of the Iraq invasion, and you will have your ability to post in the poliics forum removed.

[syntax252]

This is no longer a debate. This is you getting your jollies by being obtuse' date=' and I am ending it here.

 

Continue to post on the matter in this thread, as opposed to one of the various other threads in which we discuss the merits and justification of the Iraq invasion, and you will have your ability to post in the poliics forum removed.[/quote']

 

Well. OKkkkkkkky, but I was just responding to what others posed to me, and again, it was mostly you who were leading the charge.

 

One might wonder why you would find it "off topic" to respond to your queries that were also "off topic," but I 'spose they do things differently in England--what?

[Sayonara]

Well. OKkkkkkkky, but I was just responding to what others posed to me, and again, it was[/b'] mostly you who were leading the charge.

Which I was happy to do (for the reasons already stated much further up) while the debate remained civil and realistic.

 

One might wonder why you would find it "off topic" to respond to your queries that were also "off topic," but I 'spose they do things differently in England--what?

I have already said the posts will be moved eventually - it's just a matter of finding a suitable new home for them, and then sifting through this thread to find a sequence that can be removed, maintain sense, and leave sense behind in its absence.

[TimeTraveler]

I should have known that you brits who stayed in England would not be up to a good fight. If you had and balls, your ancestors would have come to America like mine did.

 

/sarcasm on - Yeah yeah, you brits should have seen it when we got to America, there was this great new land, unfortanantly it was full of these savages that were less than human just like the Iraqi's, so we slaughtered them, unarmed women and children even, then we gave small little areas to the survivors to live on so they were out of the way. Then we made a great country! Yay! /sarcasm off

 

Many of us hope for an idealistic future, one without war, one with cooperation and advancement in space of the whole world, one without hunger problems, one where everyone on the planet has the opportunity for a decent education, one where everyone has access to proper healthcare, one where nuclear weapons do not exist, ect. We are not attempting to handle situations properly to achieve these goals.

 

We cannot bomb the world to peace, only pieces.

 

Link to info on the Bush doctrine- http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15845/pub_detail.asp

[-Demosthenes-]

Why can't we take a tyrant out of a government?

Saddam is a tyranical leader who abused his power.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020325fa_FACT1

This is about Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, they are Iraq citizens.

The bombardment began shortly before eleven. The Iraqi Army, positioned on the main road from the nearby town of Sayid Sadiq, fired artillery shells into Halabja, and the Air Force began dropping what is thought to have been napalm on the town, especially the northern area...."At the end of the bombing, the sound changed," she said. "It wasn't so loud. It was like pieces of metal just dropping without exploding....noticed a series of odd smells carried into the house by the wind. "At first, it smelled bad, like garbage," she said. "And then it was a good smell, like sweet apples. Then like eggs." Before she went downstairs, she happened to check on a caged partridge that her father kept in the house. "The bird was dying," she said. "It was on its side." She looked out the window. "It was very quiet, but the animals were dying. The sheep and goats were dying." Nasreen ran to the cellar. "I told everybody there was something wrong. There was something wrong with the air."...Chemical weapons had been dropped on Halabja by the Iraqi Air Force, which understood that any underground shelter would become a gas chamber..."We wanted to wash the faces of the children who were vomiting. The children were crying for water. There was powder on the ground, white. We couldn't decide whether to drink the water or not

What was wrong with taking him out of power?

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/iraq/#Recent

There many other problems of this tryranical government under Saddam.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0703/

http://hrw.org/press/2003/04/iraq040403.htm

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.htm

Its not like Iraqis don't want us there.

http://www.crisisweb.org/home/index.cfm?id=1825&l=1

A significant number of those Iraqis interviewed, with surprising candour, expressed their view that, if such a change required an American-led attack, they would support it.

[Phi for All]

This is about Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, they are Iraq citizens.

And I found some links that stated it was Iranian ordinance that gassed the Kurds in Halabja. Other theories state that it was Sadaam, who was pissed that the Kurds had given shelter to Iranian soldiers. He was actually gassing the Iranians but didn't care if the Kurds got in the way because he considered them traitors to Iraq for helping the enemy. Tell me Bush wouldn't justify doing the same thing if he had evidence that Utah was harboring Osama bin Laden.

 

Remember, gas like the type that was used in Halabja is meant to flush out an enemy. If you leave the area, you don't die. If you stay, you die. If Sadaam had wanted to kill everybody, normal explosive munitions would have done the job. The purpose of gas is to make entrenched forces leave cover and run. Then your forces can shoot the ones who pose a threat, like those carrying weapons.

 

I'm not trying to defend Sadaam. But I try not to listen only to sound bytes like "tyrant", which automatically pass judgement, then go on to be jury and executioner as well.

 

From the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war in question: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm

[Sayonara]

Why can't we take a tyrant out of a government?

Who said we shouldn't?

 

Personally, I hope very much the USA and UK go after Mugabe next. Although maybe this time we won't make such a mess.

[-Demosthenes-]

And I found some links that stated it was Iranian ordinance that gassed the Kurds in Halabja. Other theories state that it was Sadaam' date=' who was pissed that the Kurds had given shelter to Iranian soldiers. He was actually gassing the Iranians but didn't care if the Kurds got in the way because he considered them traitors to Iraq for helping the enemy. Tell me Bush wouldn't justify doing the same thing if he had evidence that Utah was harboring Osama bin Laden.

 

Remember, gas like the type that was used in Halabja is meant to flush out an enemy. If you leave the area, you don't die. If you stay, you die. If Sadaam had wanted to kill everybody, normal explosive munitions would have done the job. The purpose of gas is to make entrenched forces leave cover and run. Then your forces can shoot the ones who pose a threat, like those carrying weapons.

 

I'm not trying to defend Sadaam. But I try not to listen only to sound bytes like "tyrant", which automatically pass judgement, then go on to be jury and executioner as well.

 

From the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war in question: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm

He gassed his own people becuase they were Kurds.

[Sayonara]

He gassed his own people becuase they were Kurds.

Nobody is really exactly sure what happened and why, except for Demosthenes and Saddam. What are the chances of that?

[Phi for All]

Nobody[/u'] is really exactly sure what happened and why, except for Demosthenes and Saddam.

You took the words right out of my mouth. But then that's why they pay Sayo the big bucks.

 

Come to think of it, I've never seen a photo of Demosthenes and Saddam together, nor ever heard of them attending the same party. Coincidence?

[Sayonara]

To the Basramobile!

[-Demosthenes-]

Nevertheless, there are many other examples of tyranical activities in Iraq.

[budullewraagh]

do enlighten us

[Aardvark]

Personally, I hope very much the USA and UK go after Mugabe next. Although maybe this time we won't make such a mess.

 

 

I'd love that. Why do you think some bloody tyrants attract all the attention, while others can murder and torture all they want and not get noticed?

 

I know oil always gets a mention, but i think it is more banal than that. The Wests foriegn policy seems to be driven by what sells newspapers. If there were journalists and reporters in Zimbabwe printing front page articles then the politicians would probably be acting right now. If something isn't on the front pages, no one notices, no one cares.

 

If it's not news it it isn't happening.

[TimeTraveler]

I'd love that. Why do you think some bloody tyrants attract all the attention, while others can murder and torture all they want and not get noticed?

 

It's all about their location in the world, it's just that our government designs its plans to put all the media attention on the locations that they want to hit for the benefits of its overall goals.

[syntax252]

/sarcasm on - Yeah yeah' date=' you brits should have seen it when we got to America, there was this great new land, unfortanantly it was full of these savages that were less than human just like the Iraqi's, so we slaughtered them, unarmed women and children even, then we gave small little areas to the survivors to live on so they were out of the way. Then we made a great country! Yay! /sarcasm off

 

[/quote']

 

Well have you signed over your home to the sioux nation yet?

 

I mean since you think that the Indians get screwed, wouldn't that be the honest thing to do?

[-Demosthenes-]

do enlighten us

Read my post before you start posting.

From Post #63

There many other problems of this tryranical government under Saddam.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq0703/

http://hrw.org/press/2003/04/iraq040403.htm

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.htm