Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a terrorist threat to the US by lynchaj

Regardless. He still deserved a giant ass-whipping.

Adam

http://www.myspace.com/mksentinel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
Regardless. He still deserved a giant ass-whipping.

Good thing we gave him one, huh? All it took us to do it was:

- @2100 US Soldiers killed
- 15000+ US Soldiers wounded
- Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed
- Complete loss of US respect on the world stage
- Slashing of domestic programs for vets, the elderly, and children to pay for it
- Loss of the ability to stabilize Afghanistan (everyone welcome back the Taliban!)
- Creation of terrorist training grounds considered even by administration hawks to be worse than what the Russians made in Afghanistan

But, hey, we sure showed him, right?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 7:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
Regardless. He still deserved a giant ass-whipping.

Good thing we gave him one, huh? All it took us to do it was:

- @2100 US Soldiers killed
- 15000+ US Soldiers wounded
- Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed
- Complete loss of US respect on the world stage
- Slashing of domestic programs for vets, the elderly, and children to pay for it
- Loss of the ability to stabilize Afghanistan (everyone welcome back the Taliban!)
- Creation of terrorist training grounds considered even by administration hawks to be worse than what the Russians made in Afghanistan

But, hey, we sure showed him, right?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

First off, the death toll pales in comparison to recent major conflicts and most of the injury has been inflicted by insurgents who would otherwise be striking out at American citizens.

Second, How come folks never focus on the fact that this bastard gassed and executed thousands of his own people. How come the CNN viewers always seem to ignore the GOOD that has been done in the liberation of Iraq and that the evil that prevails there is being conducted by al qaeda bastards who would love to see 3000 more American citizens vaporized on US soil.

And we are doing PLENTY to stabalize Afghanistan...more every day.

AND WHAT TRAINING CAMPS DID THE RUSSIANS MAKE IN AFGHANISTAN?! We were the ones that built Al Qaeda in a proxy war against the Soviets. The Russians got their ASSES kicked by the "terrorists".

Sorry if I seem a little combative on the subject, but considering what I do for a living I have a special pride and vested interest in what's going on in Iraq. Could it be handled better? Sure.
Have there been mistakes? Sure.

Should we have left that maggot in power? Apparently some say yes... I suppose Hitler had supporters too.

Adam

http://www.myspace.com/mksentinel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 7:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
So, since we live in a post 9/11 world, I guess it's okay to just grab people off the street and arrest them for crimes they 'might' commit? I think AJ might commit assault sometime next year - he even has a knife in his kitchen! Better do something! In case you've been asleep for the past few years, preemtively striking terror hasn't exactly been fixing the problem, has it?

It’s got nothing to do with living in a “post 9/ll world,” conspiracy to commit a crime has always been illegal. People have even gone to jail for it.

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
And finally, while I'm at it, that little gem. As if al-Z is an Iraqi or had been active in Iraq before the war even started. He's Jordanian, condemned in his own country, and came to the fight after we went in. Iraq may have been a lot of things, but it sure as hell wasn't a terror stronghold till we went in knocking around about the oil fields.

Al-Zawahiri is the operational commander of al Qaeda. In 2000 an Iraqi Intellegence operative was arrested by Pakistani authorities while trying to meet with Zawahiri. After being wounded in combat with American forces in Afghanistan in 2002, Zawahiri fled to Baghdad to receive medical treatement. There Zawahiri, along with many other fugative al Qeada operatives, established a base of operations to replace their previous base in the former Taliban controled Afghanistan. Based on what we know about Zawahiri alone we can conclude that Iraq was probably a terrorist stronghold before the US/UK invasion. This doesn’t take into account the strong relationship between many other al Qaeda operatives and Iraq, some of which go back to the early 1990s.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 7:54 PM

DREAMTROVE

Finn,

I assumed al-Z was Al Zarqawi.

Since Zawahiri is an Egyptian, the identification of Al-Z as Jordanian led me to that conclusion.

I really don't want to get embroiled in a framed debate, which is what this is, particularly this sort of framed debate which exists to perpetuate an illusion, but I need to spell this illusion out for people:

A framed debate is a debate initiated by someone who want to perpetuate an idea and can do so not by winning the debate, but simply as a result of the debates existance. This is often one that takes a very extreme position, or one in which the position is so strongly on the side of reason that it makes any opposition seem ludicrous.

A couple of examples:

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. (The goal of this debate is not to defeat evolution, it is to put up intelligent design up as a valid competitor to evolution, which it does simply by the existance of the debate. Without the debate, intelligent design would be discarded and totally ignored)

McCain's torture ammendment. (Opposing it would place anyone on the other side into an absurd position.)

Framed debates aren't always bad, but you have to be careful of them. In this case, by posting this, I help the cause of people who want to link the Iraq War to the war on terror, when in fact there is no connection other than the one pro-Bush spinmeisters want to draw.

Facts:

1. We invaded Iraq in order to steal the oil. This was the Clinton Plan. Bush followed the Clinton Plan because Bush is Clinton. A more incompetent Clinton, sure, but he is getting his policy ideas from the exact same place, because they aren't thinking men, they are men following orders.

2. The war on terror happened because we were attacked. Al Qaeda had been attacking us for some time, and in 2001 either we were a) unlucky, b) incompetent, or c) intentionally let it happen to escalate the conflict.

These two things are not particularly connected. The frame of this debate is to connect them.

Lynch is a clever guy. He and I are both pretty solidly right wing, and if it comes down to it, I can see us viciously opposing one another in this field of politics. But probably only in a primary, after it's over we'll probably vote for the same candidate. But I strongly disagree with these Iraq war claims that Bush/Cheney make, and the Lynch and others attempt to spin support for.

So...

Here's the ingenious web.

Lynch's statement is true.

This doesn't change the fact that he has framed this debate to support an idea which is distinctly 'not true.'

But here, Lynch isn't lying, he is tricking his opposition into making an error by claiming it's not true.

Here's the reality:

1. Saddam Hussein was an open supporter of terrorism. No way around it. He didn't hide the fact.

2. That terrorism was aimed mostly at Israel.

3. Saddam did not support Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden intentionally. He didn't like them.

4. Saddam is a secular socialist. He hates religious extremists like Bin Laden. Unfortunately, there are plenty of secular socialist islamic terrorist organizations for Saddam to support.

5. In US security terms, the particular issue of significance is whether or not Al Qaeda gets a serious base of support such as an oil rich muslim nation.

6. If this happens, we will be in a world of trouble.

7. At present, we are much much closer to this eventuality than we were before the war began.

8. Another solution other than war would might been able to reduce this threat, such as supporting an extant opposition to Hussein which also opposed Bin Laden.

9. But again, anti-terrorism was not what this war was about. If we didn't invade and occupy there would be no way for us to get our hands on the oil. Us being Chevron/Texaco.

10. The best way to ensure that Al Qaeda gets a permanent economic base is to immediately withdraw from Iraq.

11. Isn't this a tricky situation?

12. The democrats want to step up operations so they can spread the war throughout the region.

13. This is particularly because they don't like social practices which go on in nations such as Iran.

14. Bush/Cheney decided to paint the democratic ideas as a pull out because they knew everyone could see what a disaster this would be.

15. This reframing by Bush/Cheney was another cleverly framed debate.

What a fine mess it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:

First off, the death toll pales in comparison to recent major conflicts

None of which the US bothered to take an active role in. Sudan, anyone? Rwanda, anyone? No?

Quote:
and most of the injury has been inflicted by insurgents who would otherwise be striking out at American citizens.

Yes, because like a typical Fox news viewer, you believe insurgent=terrorist.

Quote:
Second, How come folks never focus on the fact that this bastard gassed and executed thousands of his own people.

Lets focus on that. There have been repeated articles debating whether or not the gassing even happened; that it was Iranians instead. Did he execute and torture his own people? Certainly. But I suggest if you are going to hold a war over that, you get your rifle ready, because the Saudis (who GWB loves to hold hands with) do it every single day. Call the White House and tell GWB to declare war on them next, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

Quote:
and that the evil that prevails there is being conducted by al qaeda bastards who would love to see 3000 more American citizens vaporized on US soil.

Once more, slowly so everyone gets it. Common Iraqi != (does not equal) Al-Qaida, insurgent != terrorist, Iraq != 9/11.

Quote:
And we are doing PLENTY to stabalize Afghanistan...more every day.

Afghanistan insurgence growing stronger
By Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
FORT BRAGG, N.C. — U.S. Special Forces soldiers hunting Taliban and foreign fighters in southern Afghanistan say they are encountering a fiercer and more organized adversary than last year, and one that is far from being near collapse as predicted by an American general in April.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-11-16-afghanistan-taliban_x.ht
m?POE=NEWISVA

Quote:
AND WHAT TRAINING CAMPS DID THE RUSSIANS MAKE IN AFGHANISTAN?! We were the ones that built Al Qaeda in a proxy war against the Soviets. The Russians got their ASSES kicked by the "terrorists".

They didn't 'make' any, they enabled an inexperienced enemy to gain valuable combat experience fighting against a technologically superior foe, which is exactly what we're doing in Iraq right now. And, for later remember you said this

Quote:
We were the ones that built Al Qaeda

,
because usually right-wingers like to say that we didn't have anything to do with the creation of al-Qaida, and that our global foreign policy hasn't been the cause of any worldwide tension against us.

Quote:
I have a special pride and vested interest in what's going on in Iraq.

Because no one else could have friends or relatives serving over there, or take pride in how the US conducts itself in these matters? If you're going to use an argument that because you are in the military you get special pride/comment points, then remember that too the next time you comment on any other newsworthy issue in America (because if I had a nickel for every person that told me how they thought they knew how to 'fix' our education system but never taught a class...but I digress).

Quote:
Could it be handled better? Sure.
Have there been mistakes? Sure.

Well, we agree on something.

Quote:
Should we have left that maggot in power? Apparently some say yes... I suppose Hitler had supporters too.

Way to link people who don't agree with you to Nazi sympathizers. That particular fallacy is called an ad hominem, and it's used by people who don't have a real argument, or don't understand the argument in play. Just because people think he should have been left in power doesn't mean people don't think he was a scumbag. But he had a secular regime, open animosity towards Iran and al-Qaida (give it up Finn, Osama had been quoted up until the war started as saying he wanted Saddam's head on a stake), no WMD's, and was contained by sanctions and military no-fly zones. Explain to me how Saddam even remotely compares to Hitler. That's an Ann Coulter/Hannity talking point and it shows a juvenile understanding of both Saddam and Hitler.

Besides, you want to have it both ways.
- Saddam tortured his people, lets get him; the Saudis torture their people, lets be friends.
- Iraq might have wanted to commit terrorist acts against us, lets get them; Osama did commit a terrorist act against us, but we're "not that concerned about him" (GWB's own admission).
- Etc., etc.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 21, 2005 8:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

I assumed al-Z was Al Zarqawi.

Since Zawahiri is an Egyptian, the identification of Al-Z as Jordanian led me to that conclusion.

You’re right. I meant Zarqawi. I can’t keep these names straight. :biggin: That’s what I get for rattling stuff off the top of my head.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:40 AM

So because we didn't take as strong an action in Rwanda or Sudan we shouldn't take action anywhere? Typical leftist argument. I guess Americans are the only ones entitled to live without fear of an evil dictator (insert witty anti-Bush comment here).

Insurgent = terrorist. No comment here.

There's also a lot of debate over wether the holocaust ever happened as well. And I never said we shouldn't kick the dog shit out of the Saudis either. Since you seem to be an educated guy, you no doubt know why we have Bin Laden in the first place. Here's the brief history:

America can't fight a full-up-round war with The Soviets so we resorted to proxy war throughout much of the cold war. One of our biggest successes was the training and equipping of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

A large recruiting movement was being conducted in Saudi Arabia at the time, encouraging young men to go fight for what would surely be another Saladin's victory. Most went and did nothing but drink, smoke, and chase women, never fighting a day. Others became legend. Such was the case with Osama Bin Laden.

Post victory Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia a HERO. Well respected by the royal family and even praised by America.

That is until Hussein invaded Kuwait. Bin Laden's response. "Hey let's get some of my Mujahadeen brothers together and go in and kick this guys infidel ass!" Of course we know what the Saudi's chose to do. SO began Bin Laden's campaign against the Saudi family, his exile from his home country, and his deep-seeded hate for America...because we came when we weren't wanted or needed.

So, the Saudis have been an integral part of digging us into a deep dark hole for years now. We need to become a NON-OIL-DEPENDANT country so we can deal with them as well.

"Once more, slowly so everyone gets it. Common Iraqi != (does not equal) Al-Qaida, insurgent != terrorist, Iraq != 9/11. "

Ummm...and you use the ad hominem defense on me for my Nazi comment? And the slowly thing is also a higher form of debate as well I guess? I never said that the common Iraqi = terrorist. However you MUST know from your reading and research that the insurgent leaders are mainly Al Qaeda operatives like Al-Zarqawi (another Mujahadeen vet) or displaced Iranian religious zealots who are just as bad. Sure, I imagine there are a few "patriots" thrown into the mix, but let's not paint these folks as the poor oppressed voice of the Iraqi people either. They are a fringe movement of malcontents and miscreants who want to build a new terrorist state in the wake of the fall of Saddam's regime.

As for the Afghanistan issue, we're handling it. Asymmentircal warfare sucks, but our folks are developing new tactics every day to adapt and overcome. I think the "threat" in Afghanistan is being slightly over-blown in this article.

Also, I know what I said. Read the above for more. I also know that the only reason the Afghanis WON against the Soviets was because we backed them in the fight against communist rule. The primary weapon that won them the war was the stinger missle...which blew Soviet helicopters out of the sky. Me...well YEARS later I'm a big fan of stealth technology and precision munitions.

Which brings me to another point, that in a way we kind of force these folks into acts of terrorism, because NO ONE ELSE ON THE PLANET can really contend with the US as a military threat. The closest would be the Chinese (go Whedon).

In closing, this is probably pointless. You speak your voice, I counter. I speak mine, you counter. No one learns anything or comes away with a different perspective. I hope you'll see that I'm a little more educated on the subject than your typical "uber patriot" poster AND I'm willing to concede that a lot of what has gone on and is going on is f'ed up.

Also, though it may not appear that way I am enjoying the discussion and am sorry if I've offended you. I wasn't saying that you have no right to an opinion or to post your feelings because I'm a military member. I was merely pointing out that because I'm a military member I take it more personally than most, because it probably won't be much longer before I have to set boots on the groud over there and possibly take an IED in the face. I'd like to think that in that instance my death (and the deaths of our 2000+) would have not been wasted, but may have been a part in freeinf the Iraqi people from an oppressive regime.

Thanks,

Adam

http://www.myspace.com/mksentinel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
JUNE 18 2004 MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) -- Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

From AJ:

Quote:
And here is the proof! It is information from Mr. Putin, hardly a friend of the US during the Iraq war. The story was published by none other than CNN, so I don't think anyone can reasonably say this source is biased FOR President Bush.

Well, and of course Putin would NEVER lie because he would NEVER want to see our troops tied up in Iraq, and would NEVER want to see us spending hundreds of billions of dollars, bankrupting our economy, and diverting both world and Islamist fanatic attention from Chechnya! And being the ex-head of the KBG, Putin is an honest man who only has our interests at heart! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Snort! Guffaw!

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

THE SENTINEL SAID:

Quote:
...and most of the injury has been inflicted by insurgents who would otherwise be striking out at American citizens.

How did you manage to cram two SERIOUS misunderstandings into less than one sentence??? First of all, most Iraq deaths are due to the USA, not to the insurgents.

Secondly, even the military says that the vast majority of the insurgents are Iraqis, not al-Qaida terrorists. (Military issued several statements that the insurgent dead appear to be about 95+% Iraqis) And the Iraqi insurgents have NO plans on the USA- they just want us out of their country.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
In closing, this is probably pointless. You speak your voice, I counter. I speak mine, you counter. No one learns anything or comes away with a different perspective...... Also, though it may not appear that way I am enjoying the discussion and am sorry if I've offended you.

Actually, there's a lot we agree on; the problem as I see it is that we look at the same facts in two entirely different ways. And yes, I suspect as you do that the back and forth on this issue is pointless, because no new facts provided are going to change anyone's minds on this issue, contrary to what anyone might claim.

What bothered me about your first post (bothered me enough to respond into a pointless argument), and what bothers me about what you call "uber-patriots," is the whole issue of "lets show how American we are and stomp some ass" - like world events are just some cute Toby Keith song. Cheerleading like it's a fun thing when kids have to die for ideas thought up by people who never fought (and yes, I do mean you, 5-deferrment Dick). They do the same thing at election time; you don't hear Democrats saying "we won, you lost, get over it" (which may be their one redeeming feature), but you hear it like some twisted voodoo chant from talking heads on Fox.

There are too many armchair generals in America that talk about collateral damage like it's unimportant. You did it too; you probably don't lose sleep over the fact that there are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, an estimate many have said is more than were killed under SH's entire rule. Who speaks for them? Do you, when you say things like "lets go in and kick some ass?" It makes you no less ignorant than the "glass parking lot" crowd, no matter how smart or educated you are.

I leave you with this quote from John Q Adams, which I think is very vital to our role in regard to Iraq.

But (America) goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

... She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
There are too many armchair generals in America that talk about collateral damage like it's unimportant. You did it too; you probably don't lose sleep over the fact that there are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, an estimate many have said is more than were killed under SH's entire rule.

By SH I’m assuming you mean Saddam Hussein. In that case, there were more innocent Iraqis killed under Hussein’s rule, just during the 12 some odd years between the first gulf war and the second then were killed in both wars combined.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:52 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
:biggin:

Mmmmm....big gin....

*drool*

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:53 PM

Okay, Finn, let's assume that you are correct and I'm wrong - I won't even google or go fact checking to defend myself. But even you can't deny that we've been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. That wasn't the real point, anyway - The question that matters is still do you even care that we have done that? Or are they just faceless numbers to you?

I'm betting the latter.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:44 PM

By the way, what is the meaning behind sevenpercent?

Interesting name...

http://www.myspace.com/mksentinel

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 4:05 PM

In the Firefly ep Out Of Gas, it's the percentage Jayne is getting for working for the guys who have a run-in with Mal - Mal uses how low of a number it is to make fun of Jayne (for being paid next to nothing compared to Zoe), which causes Jayne to turn on his partners and come on board Serenity.

"Seven percent's the standard," is what Jayne says to Mal.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Okay, Finn, let's assume that you are correct and I'm wrong - I won't even google or go fact checking to defend myself. But even you can't deny that we've been responsible for thousands of civilian deaths. That wasn't the real point, anyway - The question that matters is still do you even care that we have done that? Or are they just faceless numbers to you?

I'm betting the latter.

That’s not the question that matters. That’s just the question that will make you feel better about your own opinion. If one can assume that one’s opponent is a ruthless heartless bastard, then one can more easily assume themselves a place of relative righteousness. It’s unfortunate that you feel that way about me, but immaterial. It changes nothing about the history or the politics of this war. The fact is that Hussein was a murderer of his own people, and the US would have to target civilians in large number in order to achieve his results. Whatever you think about me, doesn’t change that. It simply means you've lost perspective; you're no longer arguing the validity of this war, you're attacking those people whom you think are proponents of it. I think you should reformulate your approach; I think you'd have better success if you argued why you feel the war was wrong, not what you think other people feel about it, which is something you can't really know.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

That’s not the question that matters. That’s just the question that will make you feel better about your own opinion. ... you're no longer arguing the validity of this war, you're attacking those people whom you think are proponents of it.

No, look at my post; I was attacking the cheerleader mentality that thinks "asskicking" is what a war is all about. The people that have "lost perspective" are ones that have absolutely no concern for human life, who just sit back and talk about 'objectives' and 'collateral damage.' You started chiming in with the statistics about when people were killed in greater numbers, which lead me to the conclusion that you're one of the cheerleaders whose vision has become a tad cloudy.

I don't need to "feel better" about my own opinion; my opinion is that human life and warfare aren't fun and games and snapshots on CNN. I'm pretty comfortable with it.

Quote:
I think you should reformulate your approach; I think you'd have better success if you argued why you feel the war was wrong,

Why? Why go back to facts? Are you really going to change your mind at this point? Rue, Signy, et. al. have thrown fact after fact at you, which you've countered with facts of your own. AJ has said nothing in this thread I haven't heard before, neither have you, and my posts have been nothing you two haven't heard before. Which is why I'm not running to google to start linking - it's pointless (with the exception of the linked article to the Afghan conflict, I only did that because I happened to have just finished reading it so it was fresh in my mind).

Quote:
not what you think other people feel about it, which is something you can't really know.

Which is why I brought it up. I can know if I ask. I feel when deaths become trivial to us, something is very wrong with our nation. All I asked you is if you thought that the Iraqi civilian deaths were trivial to you - are you scared to answer? How do you feel about it?

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
First off, the death toll pales in comparison to recent major conflicts and most of the injury has been inflicted by insurgents who would otherwise be striking out at American citizens.

This is a common and fatal flaw used to justify pre-emptive action against Iraq. There never was, nor was there ever going to be an "insurgent" or even terrorist Iraqi threat against US citizens. Nobody has ever demonstrated such a claim.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
Second, How come folks never focus on the fact that this bastard gassed and executed thousands of his own people.

How come folks never focus on the fact that previous US administrations ARMED Saddam Hussein with the very weapons used to attack his neighbors? It's so convenient to forget how culpable the US has been in creating the very terrorism it now says it's trying to "defeat."

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
How come the CNN viewers always seem to ignore the GOOD that has been done in the liberation of Iraq and that the evil that prevails there is being conducted by al qaeda bastards who would love to see 3000 more American citizens vaporized on US soil.

It has been substantiated time and again that al-Qaeda had no pre-existing relationship with Saddam Hussein. Hussein openly DIDN'T LIKE al-Qaeda and was no friend to bin Laden. He never sheltered nor aided the netork. This far into the "war" I can't believe people still think this has conflict was something to do with al-Qaeda. It doesn't.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
AND WHAT TRAINING CAMPS DID THE RUSSIANS MAKE IN AFGHANISTAN?! We were the ones that built Al Qaeda in a proxy war against the Soviets. The Russians got their ASSES kicked by the "terrorists".

Congratulations, we created the terrorist network we now seek to eliminate. Bravo. So terrorism is good--that is, jihadist islamicist fundamentalism--is good when it's against commies. Bad when it's against us. Please.

Quote:
Originally posted by TheSentinel:
Should we have left that maggot in power? Apparently some say yes... I suppose Hitler had supporters too.

If you're going to argue that Saddam was a bad man (he was, undeniably) and therefore needed to be removed from power, then why hasn't the US government destabilized oppressionist warlord leaders in Africa (Somalia, Sudan) and elsewhere around the world? Oh, it's not convenient? They're not REALLY a threat? Well, I got news for you, neither was Saddam Hussein.

I realize that hawks will always seek war to further peace, and doves will always seek peace instead of war. What gets me is the hypocricy used to justify so many hawk positions. It's easy to justify a war against ANYONE if you want to go to war. All you need is rhetoric and some catchy lies. Hawks never remember that US sanctions against Iraq completely rendered Saddam's regime ineffective and militarily UNVIABLE. Arguing that it'd be a bad idea for Saddam to acquire nukes is like arguing that ANY banana republic dictator should be denied access to nukes. You don't see us overthrowing these guys in Africa.

Saddam had no ties to al-Qaeda and no connection to 9/11. If retribution is your game, we're striking against the wrong enemy. The idea that you can "win" a "war against terror" is utterly absurd. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy, and in any case you can never defeat all your enemies... that's the oldest precept of war. Only through statecraft can a nation outlast it's rivals. Only through statecraft can a nation build and maintain alliances. Only through statecraft can you truly protect your citizens from harm.

I'm not sympathizing with "the terrorists" ... just looking for a little accountability. The US is creating more terror than it's preventing, and that's a fact substantiated by daily evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:48 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!! That's like saying the Bush/Cheney/CIA are a threat to USA! Who do you think gave Saddam all his WMDs and ordered him to invade Kuwait? 50,000 dead US troops and 400,000 US troops disabled by "friendly fire frag" via sabotaged vaccines, DU nuke radiation and Made-In-USA Iraqi chem weapons. Not to mention 1.6-million Iraqis genocided by the US colony for the British Empire. Iraq has 5-cents/gallon gasoline, and all Saddam wanted to do was sell cheap oil to USA, but Bush Gang's New World Order Satanic Commie/Nazi dictatorship can't allow that to happen if it wants to destroy USA.

"I don't trust government. And neither should our citizens."
-US Senator Larry Craig, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, "DOJ Oversight: Terrorism and Other Topics", testimony by US Attorney General John Ashcroft re President George Bush Jr.'s Executive Orders to "legalize torture" of US citizens for ALL "crimes" including "victimless 'crimes'", and refusal to release that memo (felony Contempt of Congress), C-SPAN2, June 8, 2004

"Operation NORTHWOODS may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods had called for nothing less than the launch of a secret campaign of terrorism within the United States in order to blame Castro and provoke a war with Cuba."
—James Bamford, ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," May 1, 2001
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

"In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation NORTHWOODS, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro. America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years. The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military. Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job. Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. "The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford."
—David Ruppe, ABC News, "Friendly Fire - U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba," May 1, 2001

"We could blow up a drone (unmannded) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. The presense of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The US could follow with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existant crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation. We could develop a Communist Cuba terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Flordia cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. Use of MIG-type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping, and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type palnes would be useful. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce that fact. Hijacking attampts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged. It is possible to create an incident which would demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civilian airliner from the United States. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and the passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rondevous. From the rondevous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly to an auxiliary airfield at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. Meanwhile the drone aircraft will continue to fly the filed flight plan. The drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency "MAY DAY" message stating it is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident. It is possible to create an incident that will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly Tail-end Charlie. While near the Cuban island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. This pilot would then fly at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who performed the mission under an alias would resume his proper identity. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared. A submarine or small craft would distribute F-101 parts, parachute, etc. The pilots retuning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found."
—Jewish Zionist General L.L. Lemnitzer, chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff at Pentagon, Memo to Secretary of War Robert McNamara - Subject: Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba - Operation NORTHWOODS, March 13, 1962 (declassifed 2000)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
http://ussliberty.org

OPERATION NORTHWOODS VIDEO DOWNLOADS:
http://september911surprise.com

Pirate News TV
Knoxville, Tennessee
Winner Best Music Video
"We Never Went to the Moon"
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
http://piratenews.org
http://ufoetry.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Which is why I brought it up. I can know if I ask. I feel when deaths become trivial to us, something is very wrong with our nation. All I asked you is if you thought that the Iraqi civilian deaths were trivial to you - are you scared to answer? How do you feel about it?

Obviously I don’t think they are trivial, but are you going to believe that? You’ve already said that you assumed that I don’t care; so the question would seem to be rhetorical or rather loaded.

You can assume that a person is a proponent of this war because they don’t care about the Iraqi causalities, but that’s not an assumption that you’re likely to find a lot of support for, since many, if not most of the proponents of this war generally hold Saddam’s brutal record as a major reason for their position. On the other hand, where you’re more likely to find a dismissal of innocent casualties is on the anti-war Left, where many have tried to downplay Hussein’s record or insisted that this wasn’t a reason for going to war. In fact some on the anti-war Left have argued rather blatantly that it is preferable for Saddam Hussein to kill 1.5 million innocent Iraqis (mostly women, children and elderly) in order to make a political statement about UN sanctions, then it is for the US/UK to kill 10-30 thousands (and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt) trying to remove Saddam Hussein. So the implication of that argument is that millions of innocent Iraqi deaths are tolerable as long as the anti-war camp can have a clear conscience. I'm not making accusations or value judgments, I'm just briefly retelling arguments I've seen.

Intelligent minds can disagree on whether going to war was the right thing to do, but I don’t think your argument in this case is a good one, and that is why I suggested that you rethink it.

This is an interesting picture. It’s of a picket sign that I've seen several times in several different venues. It’s one of the more blatant examples of this position displayed at an anti-war rally. (This picture is from a personal website, so I don't want to link directly to it in this thread, but it is from Boston University, so I think it is safe content.)

_http://deneb.bu.edu/geocities/essays/antiprotest/counterprotest1.jpg_

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:51 PM

It is too late and too early to be discussing whether or not it was right to start the war. It’s too late because the war has already started. It’s too early because the war been going on for quite a while now. Our main concern should be how we can come out of this war with minimal losses. Once we’ve done that then we can talk about whether or not the war was right until the next crisis. While people are wasting their time discussing whether or not the war was right, they’re not coming up with ways to resolve the problem. One thing I haven’t heard nearly enough about is getting other countries to help, not just with their troops but with their businesses. Our enemies pick their target based on race. Caucasian workers who are kidnapped by terrorists get decapitated. Asian workers who are kidnapped by terrorists get released a week later, without even get a beating. American and European workers are far more likely to be attacked and killed by terrorists than Chinese, Japanese, and Korean workers. This should be obvious to the most dimwitted of people and yet we haven’t done nearly enough to hiring Asian companies because we’re wasting our time talking about whether or not we should have started the war in the first place.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
Our enemies pick their target based on race. Caucasian workers who are kidnapped by terrorists get decapitated. Asian workers who are kidnapped by terrorists get released a week later, without even get a beating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62068-2004Jun22.html

Yeah, they love asian workers in Iraq.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 5:57 AM

Oh please. Terrorists are far less likely to target Asian workers than Caucasian workers. The number of Asian workers killed relative to the total number of Asian workers in Iraq is far less than the number of American and European workers killed relative to their total numbers. It’s something we have yet to take full advantage of. Having Asian businesses, especially Indian and Chinese ones working in Iraq would benefit us greatly. Not only would it be a hell of a lot cheaper than using US companies, there would be less terrorist attacks, and since life is not valued as much in India and China as it is in the US, they could sustain substantial casualties without complaint. Hell, if we paid India or China one tenth of what we’ve spent on the war to fight for us in Iraq, they would have won by now.

If we can get over this “whether or not the war was justified” debate we can move onto much more important issues like how poorly the war has been fought. Not nearly enough has been done to teach our troops Arabic or to recruit people who speak Arabic. A lot of the rations we have sent to Iraq and Afghanistan were wasted. The rations were created for Americans and Europeans. For example, they don’t eat peanut butter in Afghanistan, the poorest people, the ones that need the rations, don’t even know what peanut butter is, yet we dumped crates full of peanut butter on them. The war has been very cost inefficient, especially in Afghanistan. Generally, the targets we destroy are worth more than the bombs we used to destroy them but with the war in Afghanistan the cost of the bombs far exceeded the targets they destroyed.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 6:33 AM

AJ, I read your post, and went to the article on the link. I had a knife and fork ready, in case I needed to eat crow.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said.

Bush, making complete sense again, literate fellow that he is.

The 9/11 commission's report said bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime."

It says the contact was pushed by the Sudanese, "to protect their own ties with Iraq," but after bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, "Iraq apparently never responded."

The report also said, "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

I respectfully suggest you read the whole article before waving your hands and shouting "I'm right!! Look, I'm RIGHT!!!"

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
Hell, if we paid India or China one tenth of what we’ve spent on the war to fight for us in Iraq, they would have won by now.

Won what, exactly? The "war on terrorism" ? I said this before, but the first precept of warfare is that you cannot defeat all your enemies. This is especially true when the very enemy is a revenge culture whereby casualties are replaced by 2-3 relatives bent on jihadist revenge. I agree with you, completely, that our troops and leaders need better cultural training. But it's assinine to think you can win a war against a tactic like terrorism. The first thing we need to do is define a clear enemy. If that enemy is al-Qaeda, then why the hell did we go to Iraq? Simply: because the majority wouldn't have supported a war against Iraq without believing Hussein was connected to 9/11 in some way. Sure, now we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, all the while forgetting that they weren't operating there until we destabilized the country for them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
If we can get over this “whether or not the war was justified” debate we can move onto much more important issues like how poorly the war has been fought.

Indeed. From my vantage point (albeit, far from the killing fields), what we first need is a clear enemy. Quelling an insurgency is a policing problem with a political (not military) solution. The enemy isn't forming up tank battalions. There are no regimented brigades of enemy troops. The whole insurgency amounts to little more than car bombers and RPG gangs disrupting the political process (i.e., terror, not surprisingly VERY effective against US military operations). Either define a military enemy, or remove our military from Iraq and get on with political solutions.

It's time we start accepting that there is no way for the US military to leave Iraq with dignity. Some argue that if we "stay the course" for 5-10 years, we'll eventually stabilize the region long enough to maintain Iraqi troop readiness and political control. Either we do that, and do it right, or we acknowledge that our troops have the wrong tools for the job and bring them home.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:08 AM

Sorry about the bold.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zirzird:
Won what, exactly? The "war on terrorism" ? I said this before, but the first precept of warfare is that you cannot defeat all your enemies. This is especially true when the very enemy is a revenge culture whereby casualties are replaced by 2-3 relatives bent on jihadist revenge. I agree with you, completely, that our troops and leaders need better cultural training. But it's assinine to think you can win a war against a tactic like terrorism. The first thing we need to do is define a clear enemy. If that enemy is al-Qaeda, then why the hell did we go to Iraq? Simply: because the majority wouldn't have supported a war against Iraq without believing Hussein was connected to 9/11 in some way. Sure, now we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq, all the while forgetting that they weren't operating there until we destabilized the country for them.

It's a matter of resolve, of will, and more importantly, of sacrifice. We have proven ourselves weak in the eyes of our enemies because our compassion for human life. Our enemies are willing to sacrifice five, even ten of their lives just to end the life of one of us and they would still view that as a victory. If China was fighting the war in Iraq, the insurgency would have given up because China values human life even less than the terrorists. The Chinese would be more than willing to sacrifice twenty lives to end the life one of terrorist. Their media is state controlled; it would only report victories, no losses, no setbacks, no casualties. The entire country would be united against the terrorists.

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Giantevilhead:
It's a matter of resolve, of will, and more importantly, of sacrifice. We have proven ourselves weak in the eyes of our enemies because our compassion for human life.

I challenge the notion that through perseverance our badly flawed war policy will somehow prevail in Iraq. That isn't will, that isn't resolve, and it isn't sacrifice. That is poor strategy. Many of the congressional supporters of the war like to portray the conflict as a test of US character. What it should be is a test of wartime tactics.

And we're not talking about people defending the homeland. While ~3000 civilians dead in NY may seem like a hefty toll, we've countered with >30,000 civilian dead in Iraq, a place which had no involvement in the 9/11 killings. That doesn't seem right to me. Every analysis conducted (and casual interest in unbiased news accounts will say the same) this activity is creating terror, not eradicating it, while making the world less safe for Americans. Go Team Bush. Thanks a lot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

snicker

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It's a matter of resolve, of will, and more importantly, of sacrifice. We have proven ourselves weak in the eyes of our enemies because our compassion for human life. Our enemies are willing to sacrifice five, even ten of their lives just to end the life of one of us and they would still view that as a victory. If China was fighting the war in Iraq, the insurgency would have given up because China values human life even less than the terrorists. The Chinese would be more than willing to sacrifice twenty lives to end the life one of terrorist. Their media is state controlled; it would only report victories, no losses, no setbacks, no casualties. The entire country would be united against the terrorists.

Your answer begs the question: Who ARE "our enemies"? In your mind, eveyone who is fighting us in Iraq is an enemy and "therefore" a terrorist. I know this is hard to keep in mind, but Iraqs were not "our enemies" until we invaded. Their interests are vitally different from the (less than 5% of) foreign fighters, who really are terrorists and who migrated into Iraq specifically to fight the great Satan. If you lump them all together, you will eventually find that every Iraqi becomes an "enemy" in any policy that you might propose, and you simply can't win that kind of fight.

So, in your mind... Do we have any FRIENDS in Iraq?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 10:29 AM

*LynchAJ sits at his computer, shaking his head. "Why is it every time I start a Pro-Bush thread, it gets turned into a discussion about how he's not doing a good job?", he wonders to himself. He starts a new thread entitled: "Bush is a modern-day Christ; he's sacrificing himself for us, don't you see that?" "There, now they'll finally understand", he mutters.*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 11:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by lynchaj:
I know I will never change your mind (or Rue or SignyM, HK, et al). You are too invested in your positions to ever consider anything else. I am trying to stimulate discussion and thought on the topic with those that are still open to the possibility that the US did the right thing.

I am thrilled with the quality level of discourse so far. It is the best one yet.

Hey, I'm ready to be wrong about anything, anytime (Some see this as a weakness, or wishy-washy-ness), and if I am, I'll accept it.

I am willing to see that Saddam would have to be dealt with eventually, maybe even forcefully. I am not opposed to the capture or killing of a murderous tyrant. I am opposed to the U.S. creating these tyrants in the first place, though.

The overall results of our actions in the Middle-East just might be a good thing in the end, but those results could be achieved with a lot less death and violence IMHO. Sort of like a heroine addict getting his arms chopped off to help cure him, sure, it would force him to stop jabing his veins, but ain't there an easier way?
I think there is/was.

I agree though, good thread here. Kudos, AJ!

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:03 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I agree with SignyM.

Russia has promised the EU whatever oil it needs in the upcoming energy crunch from its westward flowing pipelines. Japan is vying with China for Russia's eastward flowing oil. (As an aside, in the meatime, the large influx of oil money, whether in Euros or US dollars, is causing severe inflationary pressure in Russia.)

Meanwhile, Russia is dealing with its own Muslim issue.

Between oil and uprising, Russia is not a disintered party in the intelligence game.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Saddam Hussein's Iraq was tremendously weakened and susceptable to an internal takeover by the AQ "insurgents" we are presently fighting. Now AQ would possess Iraq like it did Afghanistan, but with Iraq's oil wealth, its WMD industrial capabilities, its vast armaments and intel. Then don't you think AQ would have presented a major terrorist threat?

This seems like a farfetched scenario. Despite Saddam's weakened central authority, there were/are three indingenous power groups in Iraq, none of whom were particularly receptive to AQ: the Kurds, who had been operating a virtually autonomous state for the past ten years and would really want to hang on to their potential oil revenues, the Sunni power structure built up under Saddam (military, intelligence, police) who were mainly secular and loathe to give up their power, and the Shias who were less organized but numerically stronger and who are in the opposing religious camp and also reluctant to give up their oil fields. (AQ is nominally Sunni). I guess what I'm saying is that there was no serious power vacuum to fill, which was the problem in Afghanistan. Being numerically small, it's doubtful that AQ could have overtaken Iraq and its established power structures/ interests.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 3:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by zirzird:
I challenge the notion that through perseverance our badly flawed war policy will somehow prevail in Iraq. That isn't will, that isn't resolve, and it isn't sacrifice. That is poor strategy. Many of the congressional supporters of the war like to portray the conflict as a test of US character. What it should be is a test of wartime tactics.

And we're not talking about people defending the homeland. While ~3000 civilians dead in NY may seem like a hefty toll, we've countered with >30,000 civilian dead in Iraq, a place which had no involvement in the 9/11 killings. That doesn't seem right to me. Every analysis conducted (and casual interest in unbiased news accounts will say the same) this activity is creating terror, not eradicating it, while making the world less safe for Americans. Go Team Bush. Thanks a lot.

We cannot defeat the terrorists through perseverance. We can only defeat them if we change our perception, our way of life, if we no longer care for human life. That’s the kind of sacrifice I’m talking about. Once we stop caring about our casualties, once we stop caring about human rights, once we sink below the level of our enemies, that’s when we have a chance to defeat the terrorists. If we no longer care about the people the terrorists kill then there will be no more reason for terrorists to kill us.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Your answer begs the question: Who ARE "our enemies"? In your mind, eveyone who is fighting us in Iraq is an enemy and "therefore" a terrorist. I know this is hard to keep in mind, but Iraqs were not "our enemies" until we invaded. Their interests are vitally different from the (less than 5% of) foreign fighters, who really are terrorists and who migrated into Iraq specifically to fight the great Satan. If you lump them all together, you will eventually find that every Iraqi becomes an "enemy" in any policy that you might propose, and you simply can't win that kind of fight.

So, in your mind... Do we have any FRIENDS in Iraq?

Anyone who tries to kill us is an enemy. It's too late for negotiations or peace and leaving them now will not help at all. The war has created a blood feud that will perpetuate for years. There’s no way we can “win.” The only way we can resolve this now is either to kill them all or to crush their spirits. If we don’t then we’ll end up like Israel, living in fear of terrorist attacks. Either way, we’re screwed.

There’s just no way for us to win by taking the high road. It won’t even matter if we somehow turn Iraq into a paradise with rainbows and pixies and unicorns and lollipops. The families and friends of those we have killed will never relent. This entire generation of Iraqis will hate us, there’s some hope that future generations will shrug off those shackles, but it’s this generation we have to deal with. It is death and destruction which we have wrought and it is death and destruction which will resolve this conflict. Pretty grim assessment ain't it?

"I swallowed a bug." -River Tam

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:00 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think the USA is making serious but (on the whole) reversible mistakes. Maybe we need to rid ourselves of some cherished but unrealistic goals in order to see our way.

Just after we invaded, I thought about the natural constituencies in Iraq and I realized that there was no natural constituency for a united, secular, democratic Iraq. Every major power had SOMETHING against that formula: The Kurds didn't really want unity, the Sunnis didn't want democracy, and the Shias didn't want secularism. It's not a winning formula. What happens if we jigger the goals?

Ooops I will have to finish this tomorrow.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Obviously I don’t think they are trivial, but are you going to believe that? You’ve already said that you assumed that I don’t care; so the question would seem to be rhetorical or rather loaded.

Of course it's loaded, but that doesn't make it an invalid question to ask. And it's not obvious that you don't think they're trivial, contrary to your opinion, because you keep talking about it in terms of a numbers game. It's bad if there are more than 30k killed, but okay if there are less? Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, right? But I'll get to more of this later.

Quote:
You can assume that a person is a proponent of this war because they don’t care about the Iraqi causalities, but that’s not an assumption that you’re likely to find a lot of support for, since many, if not most of the proponents of this war generally hold Saddam’s brutal record as a major reason for their position.

Actually, that's total and utter bullshit, Finn, and it smells a mile away. Funny, when WJC was blitzing Kosovo, the right didn't think standing up for human rights was a good enough reason to go in. GWB even wanted a timetable (funny that now, to him, a timetable is out of the question). The right sits and watches as African nations spiral out of control and refuses to even label atrocities committed there as genocide. They've cozied up to the Saudis, let Iran get out of control, and thought diplomacy was the answer to Syria (by far a worse perpetuator of terror than Iraq ever has been). Yet you have the unmitigated gall to sit there and tell me this war is all about the wingnut concern for human rights? H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y.

Quote:
On the other hand, where you’re more likely to find a dismissal of innocent casualties is on the anti-war Left, where many have tried to downplay Hussein’s record or insisted that this wasn’t a reason for going to war.

I've never downplayed his record at all. I think he was a brutal dictator and a menace to his region and its peoples. However, I don't believe regime change, threat of terror (emphasis on threat, not action), or possession of WMD's are a legitimate excuse for a preemptive war, nor do I believe democracy can be created at swordpoint. That was how the war was sold to the American people; and Halliburton and Ahmad Chalabi's influence on the new regime lead me to belive "freedom" wasn't our ultimate goal in the region.

Quote:
US/UK to kill 10-30 thousands (and I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt)

Benefit of the doubt? Estimates of civilian causalties have gone well over the 100k range according to some sources. You're a smart guy; you can't possibly sit there and think that we've killed less that 10k civilians in this action.

Quote:
but I don’t think your argument in this case is a good one, and that is why I suggested that you rethink it.

I wasn't aware that I had made an argument (until this post) other than believing that cheerleading for deaths was morally bankrupt. That "asskicking for democracy" was a stupid chant made by people who need a little more moral fiber. Would you like to claim the opposite position? That we should send soldiers around the world to "asskick," or turn places into glass parking lots? If so, you see why I called your values into question in this thread.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 7:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
Of course it's loaded, but that doesn't make it an invalid question to ask. And it's not obvious that you don't think they're trivial, contrary to your opinion, because you keep talking about it in terms of a numbers game. It's bad if there are more than 30k killed, but okay if there are less? Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, right? But I'll get to more of this later.

Which number is larger, 1.5 million or 30,000? Do you think that the death of 30,000 innocent civilians is worth the lives of 1.5 million?

In any event, now you know why I was reluctant to answer your question to begin with. You never had any intention of believing anything that doesn’t fit your preconceived notion. I like you, but this is a waste of time.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 8:46 PM

For crying out loud, Finn - The argument isn't about the numbers. You've turned one small point into an attempt to derail the whole thread. Is it that damn difficult to get you to take a moral stance on whether or not "asskicking for Jesus/Democracy/GWB/America" is morally acceptable? Did you read the whole post, wherein I gave to you my reasons for why I thought the right wing's position on Iraq was hypocritical? Or where I disagreed with your assessment of the left defending Saddam? Do you comment on any of those things? No, instead you keep trying to turn this into quibbling over casualty numbers, which was never the point to begin with.

I like you too, but you're trying to nitpick me into debating over minutiae instead of addressing the larger issues. I believe that you do care about innocent life, I really do - but the problem you seem to have is that you are unwilling to state "yes, you have a point there," because it highlights the blatant hypocrisy of the right's position vis-a-vis human rights issues. If you say "yes, I'm concerned," then it points out flaws in the human rights justification for Iraq because the wingnuts have ignored fouler human rights violations than what was seen under SHussein (unless you are willing to caveat it with we should be choosing better allies and helping more around the world).

The invasion of Iraq was like a global-scale version of that scene from Casablanca, where they don't even bother catching the real criminals, they just round up the usual suspects. 9/11 we were attacked by OBL and a motley flight crew of 15 Saudis, 3 Jordanians and an Egyptian, yet there we are in Iraq - because there is no real plan, because you can't fight a war on a concept (notice how well the 'war on drugs' went?) so you round up the usual suspect that you know you can beat that will make you look good in the polls. Then when it all goes south, keep changing the reason why you went in and attack everyone that knew it was going to be a cluster

. Great plan.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 6:08 PM

GELASSENHEIT

Any country not inside the US (except for Canada and maybe the UK) is a threat to the US.

Think about that for a moment. Okay, back to Firefly talk

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 7:05 PM

SERGEANTX

I haven't read this whole thread. I'd try but I'm feely a bit sick as it is. Anyway, I've being seeing this junk posted by desperate Bushites all over the place lately. But think about it. As hard and as long as they been trying to dig up something that might look like a link between Iraq and 9/11 and this is the best they can come up with? With half the effort, in half the time, I'm willing to bet we could dig up equally compelling evidence that our own CIA was in on it. We have incontrovertible evidence that the terrorists were in the US before 9/11!!! Coincidence??

If only those scrambling for all this 'evidence' would considered putting some effort into tracking down Osama rather than trying to ease their consciences with reports from 'unnamed sources' that Osama's third cousin played golf with Saddam's accountant in 1979. Give it a break already.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 1, 2005 7:21 PM

SERGEANTX

Ok, I got sucked in. I went back and read through this thread. What struck me is that AJ's spurious attempt to legitimize the Saddam - 9/11 excuse for invading Iraq was completely disected and destroyed in one post by DreamTrove. Why we still talkin' bout this?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 8, 2005 10:43 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Joss' script for BTVS included US gov't plot to perp terrorism against USA, to blame the demons... Why is this concept okay for Fox TV fiction, but it's self-censored reality by the people (declassifed Operation Northwoods)? Heck, ALL the heros on Firefly are crooks, so why can't Firefly fans figure out our "leaders" are crooks, too, when they have already been convicted of criminal acts, and are currently sued under RICO Act for perping the 9/11 terrorism? Bush Gang's own published reports - before they were "elected" in 2000 - confess they intended to invade Iraq on a pretext, and that they would need a "new Pearl Harbor event" (PNAC) to trick the public into volunteering for the 15-year-old war, again. So the bogus reasons for invasion of Iraq pale in comparison to the mountain of 9/11 evidence that provides probable cause for any cop, grand jury, judge, prosecutor or citizen to arrest every member of the Bush Gang. But most people just want to worship every politician as a god...

Mind-control brain chips were on the cannibal menu for Riley (who unfortunately is not in Firefly). Now our Real-World Dr Frankensteins are growing lab-rat cyborgs to fly fighter jets for the Pentagram, er, Pentagon:

"It sounds like science fiction: a brain nurtured in a Petri dish learns to pilot a fighter plane as scientists develop a new breed of "living" computer. But in groundbreaking experiments in a Florida laboratory that is exactly what is happening. The 'brain', grown from 25,000 neural cells extracted from a single rat embryo, has been taught to fly an F-22 jet simulator by scientists at the University of Florida."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/12/06/1102182227308.html?rats

So give Joss and his gang some credit, without having to suspend all disbelief of the plotline. Yes, we do, unfortunately, have psychopaths trying to run the world, etc. One reason Joss' work is interesting to me, is that it has this DARK undercurrent of reality. Or is that just disinfo at its best, using neurolinguistic programming to associate/confuse fantasy (scifi antitech or magical witchcraft) with the reality of Gangsta Govt?

Either way, its interesting to reverse-engineer the Joss magic formula for success. It sure beats those lame UN/NWO scripts for Star Treks, except for the universal lack of real-world space physics.

That's the danger for USA - and Hollywood - of living in a fantasy world. 80% of movies and TV shows in USA are now NOT made in USA. Our Gangsta Govt is bribed by NWO Shadow Govt to destroy USA by exporting factories, farms and jobs, and importing 100-million illegal aliens. Reality is a rush, not a bummer. Embrace it! My computer and video equipment was made by slaves in Commie China, where internet dissidents are skinned alive in traveling Death Vans, and cannibalized for US medical/cosmetic cartels... just like the Reavers... 7,000 Americans are iatrogenocided and cannibalized EVERY DAY in Death Camps in USA... Isn't that a rush? Won't the Reavers be jealous?

Pirate News TV
Knoxville, Tennessee
Winner Best Music Video
"We Never Went to the Moon"
(watch as Apollo LEM "blasts off" from "moon" WITHOUT rocket exhaust)
Los Angeles Music Awards 2005
http://piratenews.org
http://ufoetry.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2005 5:49 AM

SERGEANTX

Here's a conspiracy theory for you. The tinfoil hat posters

are actually Republican plants to discredit legitimate opposition to their policies. Hmmm...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2005 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:

7,000 Americans are iatrogenocided and cannibalized EVERY DAY in Death Camps in USA... Isn't that a rush? Won't the Reavers be jealous?

Care to harden the target and be a little more specific, piratenews?
I'm really interested, if true.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2005 7:53 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Ok, I got sucked in. I went back and read through this thread. What struck me is that AJ's spurious attempt to legitimize the Saddam - 9/11 excuse for invading Iraq was completely disected and destroyed in one post by DreamTrove. Why we still talkin' bout this?

Because DT's post - which details our Iraqi conundrum quite nicely- needs a response? What DT said in a nutshell (DT-correct me if I'm wrong is):

1) AJ's post is a framed debate. His post is better left ignored.

2) The Iraq inavsion and the "war on terror" don't intersect. Hussein - as a secular socialist dictator -kept AQ from acquiring an oil-rich base of support. By deposing Hussein, we "are much closer to that eventuality than we were before the war began."

3) By w/drawing from Iraq, we bring ourselves even closer to that eventuality.

---------------------------

However, it's also clear that we can't stay in Iraq, since our presence is destabilizing. So... how can we w/draw from Iraq and assure our security in the area?

The current plan seems to be to ditch at least one of the "legs" of the three stated goals (unified, secular, democratic) and possibly two: We are no longer insisting on a secular government, and may be okay with a government that oppresses 70% (women plus Sunnis) of the population. In other words, we are throwing our weight behind a Shiite theocracy. I suspect that this is exactly what the Sunni insurgents fear- payback being such a b*tch and all that.

I would suggest that it would be best if we simply allowed Iraq to break up. Iraq now is like former Yugoslavia: a synthetic nation created for the convenience of an empire. And Hussein was like Tito: A strongman holding together a pastiche of ethnic, language, and religious minorities through sheer terror. It took seventy years and over 250,000 deaths until the Yugoslavian fantasy was allowed to dissolve. http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa011998.htm

What are the possible repurcussions, and how could we control them in our favor?

Neither the Kurds nor the Shias have any love for AQ. That leaves the Sunnis, who might be looking for support and who are nominally of the same religion as AQ.

And, oops- later dude.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 9, 2005 8:11 AM