Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Saddam wasn't slaughtering people? No!! Can't be!!Follow

#27 Feb 03 2004 at 11:38 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,291 posts
Meadros wrote:
How can anyone blame Bush for 9/11? Or Clinton ar anyone else besides the men behind it?


Umm..how about the people who established the colorful, and fu'cked up, US foreign policy in the middle east. Mighta played a part. Just mighta. Granted the reaction was more than a little extreme, but I just think there needs to be a realistic discussion if we're going to have one. Let's look at all sides.

____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#28 Feb 04 2004 at 12:10 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Here's an example of convoluted Dem logic. Thanks for the example btw.

Meadros wrote:
How can anyone blame Bush for 9/11? Or Clinton ar anyone else besides the men behind it? I have yet to hear anyone from either side blaming anyone but bin Laden, with the exception of the Bush team who somehow keeps trying to blame it on Hussein. Now that is very sound logic considering that there were 0 Iraqi Dinars put towards the venture and 0 Iraqis helping out.


Yet... Oddly. Many Dem rhetoric pushers did exactly that. How many folks came out of the woodwork after 9/11 talking about how Bush walked away from Clinton's middle east peace plan (let's ignore that a PM change in Israel kinda made that decision for us), and how many more started spouting off about Bush reducing intelligence assets and how those were to blame for 9/11? Heck. I seem to recall a certain very vocal Dem on this board, with alleged ties to US intelligence, speaking those very ideas and only semi obliquely implying that 9/11 was Bush's fault (or at least his administration's fault). But hey! That's just some crazy talk on a BB site. Are you saying you don't remember all the news articles and pundits coming out talking about how the WTC bombing 10 years earlier, and the embassy bombings, and the Cole bombing were all clear signs that we should have spoted, but missed? Maybe my memory is different then your's, but I could have sworn that there was a hell of a lot of finger pointing going on right after 9/11.


I'm going to repeat this next bit again, just in case you're not aware which part of the paragraph I'm refering to.

Quote:
I have yet to hear anyone from either side blaming anyone but bin Laden, with the exception of the Bush team who somehow keeps trying to blame it on Hussein. Now that is very sound logic considering that there were 0 Iraqi Dinars put towards the venture and 0 Iraqis helping out.


Really? Source? Find me one quote of a Bush administration official stating that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Please. I'll wait. You can't? Yup. That's because this is the biggest Dem strawman of all.

Here's the chain of logic used by the Bush administration:

1. 9/11 happens. Bush and co come under heavy fire for not "protecing the people".

2. Bush states that we'll find the people responsible for the act.

3. It's determined that Bin Laden and co are responsible for the act. Unfortunately, they are located in Afghanistan, which is held by the Taliban, with whom we have no diplomatic relations and who are at least somewhat bankrolled by bin Laden in the first place. Not surprisingly, the Taliban refuses to hand anyone over.

4. This is where things get interesting, so pay attention. Bush and co have to set a precident here. They make a decision that changes the rules of war slightly. They state that a regime that actively supports or endorses, or even just refuses to police, agents of terrorism are ultimately responsible for the acts of terror commited and therefore *can* have military action taken against them. Note. This is not just "we can invade Afghanistan" movement. We are setting a precident. We are making a political statement to the world in regards to a set of behavior that we find unacceptable, not just a single instance of it.

5. We invade Afghanistan. Taliban is routed. bin Laden gets away, but most of his core organization is squished and his funds are mostly seized around the world. Not a complete success, but not too shabby all things considered.

6. Ok. Stop your train of thought right here. Next action is completely unrelated to the prior one except with regards to the precident and authorization process we established in Afghanistan.


7. The UN starts to move towards removing sanctions from Iraq. Oops. We've been trying to get rid of Saddam for over a decade, but he's stickier then a tick on a ********. We have very strong reason to believe that if the sanctions are lifted, he'll go right back to producing bio/chem weapons and attempting to build nuclear weapons. We know also that he'll go back to mass killing both Shiites and Kurds. We have documented evidence that Saddam's regime (his sons specifically, which is about as close as you get) has direct ties to several terrorist organizations (not Al-queda though. No one in the administration ever claims this, yet many idiots assume "terrorist group" == Al-queda, so the misinformation gets spread).


8. This gives us several (not one. Several) reasons to invade Iraq. First, we can go with the lack of following the UN sanctions. While many members of the UN may be happy to just bury their heads in the sand, the Bush administration, especially after 9/11 and the push to be "proactive", is not. Saddam has very clearly never followed up on the conditions of the cease fire in 1990. He has never lived up to many of the UN sanctions. The UN may ignore that, but that sure as heck gives us a legitimate reason (read: Legal) to go to war.

9. Second, he's got ties to terrorist organizations (like Hamas for example). Sure, not huge ones (the ties, not the organizations), but put the two problems together and it's not hard to connect the dots. If we allowed a regime with a past history of mass producing bio/chem weapons, and with known ties to terrorist groups to do whatever they wanted with no sanctions in place and no restrictions, and even *one* terrorist attack occured on US soils that could be linked back to Iraq happened, who the hell do you think the US public would crucify? Would they blame the peaceniks who refused to allow any action? Would they blame the UN for insisting that sanctions should be lifted? Nope. The'll blame the administration that didn't act proactively to prevent it. It would just be added to another in a string of things that were "missed".

10. Um... Then there's the whole human rights thing. Sure, it's minor, but it's there. Oh. You can throw in oil interests here too if you want. Basically, there's a lot of pretty good reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam, and not many for wanting him to stay in power (none actually).


11. So we invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power.


Can you see how the two actions are only related in terms of policy? No one in the bush administration is claiming we attacked Saddam in retaliation for 9/11. The actions of 9/11 certainly added up to a policy decision that allowed that action. However, that's like saying that we blamed Germany for the attack on Pearl Harbor in WW2. Not one bit. However, the attack on Pearl certainly gave us the motivation to get involved, and once involved, war with Germany came as part of the decision. This is a similar situation. The decision to take a military action against the Taliban put us on a path that made the decision to use military action against Iraq possible.


But hey! Let's ignore what actually happened, and twist it around into some bizaare strawman: "Bush is claiming that Saddam was responsible for 9/11!!! run for the hillls!". Yeah... Right...


Again though. You give a great example of exactly what Totem was talking about. While I'm not going to make a global statement about Dem logic, I've certainly seen a pretty large amount of convoluted logic come from the Dem party. On this issue, it's really apparent as well...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Feb 04 2004 at 2:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Circus peanuts.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Feb 04 2004 at 4:38 AM Rating: Excellent
*
188 posts
Quote:

Umm..how about the people who established the colorful, and fu'cked up, US foreign policy in the middle east. Mighta played a part. Just mighta. Granted the reaction was more than a little extreme, but I just think there needs to be a realistic discussion if we're going to have one. Let's look at all sides.


I agree with you, there are many root causes of our whole middle east problem. The funny thing is that our foriegn policy itself has caused a lot of them.

Before I say more I would like to point out the fact that during WW2 we were allied with Josef Stalin, one of the most dispicable characters in history. He was only not as bad as Hitler because he didn't declare war on us. So the precedent was set, to cooperate with bad men when we really needed to.

When Russia invaded Afghanistan the US gave a lot of money to resistance fighters. These people eventually became Al quada. When the Iran Hostage situation happened, we gave Saddam all of his uncoventional weapons, to use on Iran. You may as well call the Israeli military the US military, we gave them all of it. We also traded arms for hostages in Iran. Did you know the Bush's have relation going back 4 generations with the Saudi royals?

Ok I've established that bad regimes are both tolerated and supported by US foriegn policy. To this day these bad regimes are held up by us.

Why is Saddam so special? Someone please answer, how is Saddam so bad and Mushaffir is ok? For crissakes we gave the Taliban millions just before 9/11. Do you people know what that regime was like?

It's hypocracy. Those people don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for our menevolent empire.
#31 Feb 04 2004 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Really? Source? Find me one quote of a Bush administration official stating that Saddam was linked to 9/11


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

Quote:

Sept. 7 - This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed.

advertisement


MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: America remembers September 11, 2001. In Iraq, six months ago, the war began with shock and awe. Vice President **** Cheney appeared on MEET THE PRESS:

(Videotape, March 16):

VICE PRES. **** CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Did the Bush administration misjudge the level of organized resistance, the number of American troops needed, the cost of securing Iraq, and the existence of weapons of mass destruction? Those questions and more for the vice president of the United States, **** Cheney. Our exclusive guest for the full hour.

Mr. Vice President, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Good morning, Tim. It’s good to be back.

MR. RUSSERT: Two years ago, September 11, 2001, you went to New York City, just the other day, attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Has this nation recovered from September 11, 2001?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think in many respects, recovered, yes. On the other hand, there are some things that’ll never be the same. I look back on that, and I think about what we’ve been engaged in since.

And in a sense, sort of the theme that comes through repeatedly for me is that 9/11 changed everything. It changed the way we think about threats to the United States. It changed about our recognition of our vulnerabilities. It changed in terms of the kind of national security strategy we need to pursue, in terms of guaranteeing the safety and security of the American people.

And I’m not sure everybody has made that transition yet. I think there are a number of people out there who hope we can go back to pre-9/11 days and that somehow 9/11 was an aberration. It happened one time; it’ll never happen again. But the president and I don’t have that luxury. You know, we begin every day reading the intelligence reports from the CIA and the FBI on the nature of the threat that’s out there, on the plotting by al-Qaeda members and related groups to launch attacks against the United States and contemplating the possibility of an attack against the U.S. with far deadlier weapons than anything we’ve seen to date. So on the one hand, I’m sure everybody wants to get back to normal, and we have in many respects. But on the other hand, we all have to recognize as a nation that 9/11 changed a great deal in our lives.

MR. RUSSERT: You fully expect that there will be another attack on the United States.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have to assume that. The president has to assume that. It would be nice to be able to say that that can’t happen. But if we’ve learned anything, if we look back now, it seems to me that we’ve learned that there was a campaign of terror mounted against us. Before 9/11, we tended to think in terms of a terrorist act as a criminal enterprise. And the appropriate response was a law enforcement response.

You go find the bad guy, put him in jail, case closed. What we’ve learned since is that that’s not the case at all; but, in fact, a lot of the terrorist attacks we’ve suffered in the 1990s were al-Qaeda directed. That’s certainly true in the World Trade Center in ’93, in the East Africa Embassy bombings in ’98, and the USS Cole in 2000 and obviously on 9/11.

It’s very important we make that transition in understanding that we’re at war, that the war continues, that this is a global enemy that struck in not only New York and Washington but in Bali and in Djakarta, in Mombasa, in Casablanca, Riyadh since 9/11, that this is an enterprise that is global in scope and one we’ve had major success against it. And the fact of the matter is there were thousands of people that went through those training camps in Afghanistan. We know they are seeking deadlier weapons—chemical, biological and nuclear weapons if they can get it. And if anything, those basic notions that developed in the early days after 9/11 have been reinforced by what we’ve learned since.

MR. RUSSERT: There’s grave concern about surface-to-air missiles shooting down American commercial aircraft. Should we not outfit all U.S. commercial airliners with equipment to detect and avoid that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, there are technologies available. They are extremely expensive if you’re going to put them on every airliner. You’ve got to make choices here about, you know, when you’re dealing with a risk, there may be certain aircraft flying into certain locales that are especially vulnerable that you may want to deal with. But I wouldn’t automatically go to the assumption that we need to put the most sophisticated system on every single airplane.

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.

Now, is there a connection between the Iraqi government and the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93? We know, as I say, that one of the perpetrators of that act did, in fact, receive support from the Iraqi government after the fact. With respect to 9/11, of course, we’ve had the story that’s been public out there. The Czechs alleged that Mohamed Atta, the lead attacker, met in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official five months before the attack, but we’ve never been able to develop anymore of that yet either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it. We just don’t know.


The Chech story was discredited almost instantly.

You know, on a wholly diffrent subject, I've met George Tenet. I wouldn't say I know him, but I know of him.

He's absolutely, positively NOT going to be thrown under the bus for the "inteligence failures" re: Iraq. He will go public and he will go down swinging and take as much of this administration as he can with him.

So, no, no one's ever come out and said "Saddam was involved with 9-11" but that's not the point.

The point is that the idea was constantly and consistently pushed by the Administration, the VP's office particularly to the point where most people in the US thought they had made a statement to that effect. That's just as good for Dems.

Why? Because when you point out that what people thought the government saying was a lie, they don't quibble over technical distinctions.

I don't care why people don't vote for Bush in '04. I don't care if they stay home because they think he's TOO LIBERAL. I don't care if they stay home because they think he lied to them. I don't care if they stay home because it snows on election day.

I do know that this Administration squandered a MASSIVE OVERWHELMING public oppinion advantage to the point where they now poll lower than Kerry in a one on one race. They're in trouble. There's a long time till the election for sure, and the polls now are essentially meaningless in regards to how it turns out, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're capable of stopping the bleedning.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Feb 04 2004 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
Oh crap. Just what we need around here: another Blame America Firster. Meadros, you, like every other equivocator, need to get a clue.

Based on that logic cops wouldn't use snitches, go undercover, or set up sting operations.

No one would ever get any work done, business accomplished, or goal completed since anybody who was remotely connected with any questionable activity would have to recuse themselves from said activity.

Naivete is flowing like wine at the Gallo plant around here...

Totem
#33 Feb 04 2004 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
The latest intell is saying that the attacks on US and British troops are being coordinated and executed by Al Qaida. This was on the national news last week. That can be construed as a link even if it is after the fact. In other words, the support structure was in place for them to move into Iraq and begin operations. The fact that they are being moderately successful means that they are familiar with the terrain and indiginous personnel.

Totem
#34 Feb 04 2004 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:
Naivete is flowing like wine at the Gallo plant around here...


Only when you post, my freind.

Totem: These trucks are used to make WMD!

Reality: They're not.

Totem: Oh.

Totem: Haliburton won't engage in anything illegal!

Reality: They did.

Totem: Oh.

and so on and so on.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#35 Feb 04 2004 at 3:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Overcharging isn't illegal, the music industry has been doing it for years.

20 bucks for a CD??

Bah.




Edited, Wed Feb 4 15:27:59 2004 by Skeeter
#36 Feb 04 2004 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

The latest intell is saying that the attacks on US and British troops are being coordinated and executed by Al Qaida. This was on the national news last week. That can be construed as a link even if it is after the fact.

Sure, a link to the American occupation.

Quote:

In other words, the support structure was in place for them to move into Iraq and begin operations. The fact that they are being moderately successful means that they are familiar with the terrain and indiginous personnel.


You mean like the US was when we invaded? Christ, I had no idea that the US had links to Al Queda!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#37 Feb 04 2004 at 3:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

Overcharging isn't illigal, the music industry has been doing it for years.


Taking kickbacks is.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#38 Feb 04 2004 at 3:36 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
Either you are being purposefully obtuse or your vaunted background in intel isn't as truthful as you've presented it to be, Smash.

If it is correct that it is Al Qaida that is operating so effectively in Iraq, the fact it is such a short time after we entered that country points to them being familiar the people and terrain-- something which would be difficult under normal peaceful times, much less under the strains of curfew, an Allied occupation, and an on-going effort by the US to squash any and all Al Qaida cells. All of which means they circumstancially have had ties with Iraq.

Fairly obvious and straightforward, yes?

Totem
#39 Feb 04 2004 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:

If it is correct that it is Al Qaida that is operating so effectively in Iraq, the fact it is such a short time after we entered that country points to them being familiar the people and terrain-- something which would be difficult under normal peaceful times, much less under the strains of curfew, an Allied occupation, and an on-going effort by the US to squash any and all Al Qaida cells. All of which means they circumstancially have had ties with Iraq.

Fairly obvious and straightforward, yes?


No. You've taken something that may or may not be fact and worked backwards to a fantasy world of what you'd aparently like to be true.

Tell me why your argument is any more valid than:

In the post war confusion, Al Queda sent opratives into Iraq and RECRUITED IRAQIS with local knowledge who were less than happy that the US was dropping fire from the sky on their families and now telling them how to live.

Think outside the conservative echo chamber for just a milisecond, would you?

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#40 Feb 04 2004 at 5:06 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
Same difference.

Al Qaida recruited Iraqis = Al Qaida operatives. The connection is equally as valid regardless of who signs their paycheck.

The Al Qaida link may or may not be factual, but if it is and is proven to be so, then I would consider that to be a solid connection of the members of the former Saddam regime to a terrorist organization, ie. Al Qaida.

I maintain that to be as effective and difficult to find, pin down, and kill as these bombers have been for Allied troops-- with all the operational support they have been receiving in the form of vehicles, munitions, safe houses, etc. --they (Al Qaida) have been in-country longer than Allied troops have been.

Totem
#41 Feb 04 2004 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I would consider that to be a solid connection of the members of the former Saddam regime to a terrorist organization, ie. Al Qaida
Erm, I think Smash is suggesting that Al Qaida folks took a moment of opportunity when they saw Iraqis grumpy about the post March invasion and then recruited them to do their work. An ex post facto connection to a terrorist organization.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Feb 04 2004 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
I re-read that last post and I don't think I was clear. The process of finding, recruiting, and organizing themselves to carry out operations against the Allies would take much longer than the time it has been since the war began. The Iraqis resistance would be difficult to find and organise in such a short time, especially to the degree that they have been effective and not been turned over by anti-Saddam sympathizers.

It smacks of a network of organization which pre-dates the opening of hostilities, thus a connection between Saddam and Al Qaida.

Does that make it any more clear?

Totem
#43 Feb 04 2004 at 5:14 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You do realize that it's not *just* Al Queda who wants to kill our troops, right? This war was the absolute *BEST* thing that could possibly have happened to Al Queda. Resources were taken away from combating them and moved to Iraq. The rest of the Muslim world got to see that they were right. We would invade and impose our own government on them.

There was no need for them to be in Iraq before the war. There was no reason for them to be. They are philosophically diametrically opposed to the Bath Party. Hezbolah, sure. Al Quesa, no.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Feb 04 2004 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Quote:
The process of finding, recruiting, and organizing themselves to carry out operations against the Allies would take much longer than the time it has been since the war began. The Iraqis resistance would be difficult to find and organise in such a short time, especially to the degree that they have been effective and not been turned over by anti-Saddam sympathizers.


You really don't get it, do you? The VAST MAJORITY of people in Iraq want us OUT. Why is that such a mystery to you? The process of recruiting would go like this "We have explosives and money for anyone willing to kill Americans" BOOM! 500 recruits.

Anti-Saddam doesn't mean pro US. In fact, now that Saddam has been captured you have MORE of a problem. Contrary to the ludicrous neo-con theory that capturing him would lead to less guerilla war, all capturing him does is send the following message:

THERE IS NO ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR THE US TO STILL BE IN IRAQ

More Iraqi's than ever are willing to kill US troops.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Feb 04 2004 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
"The VAST MAJORITY of people in Iraq want us OUT." --Smasharoo

That's an assumption I am not convinced is valid. It may be true, but it could easily not be true as well. The fact is, I don't know. I am reading the mainstream press to say what you are arguing, but I talk to some of my acquaintances in the military and peruse other publications that state quite the opposite. That a vocal and energetic minority are skewing the information that is coming out of Iraq.

Even if you are correct, that the Al Qaida operatives know who to go to, where to go to meet them, how to organise the various resistance cells means there is a connection. If you believe that Al Qaida has done this in a vacuum with no prior knowledge, you are being foolish. I can certainly see your point, but you seem to ignore mine.

I am simply making a connection between the resistance and what US intelligence is saying are Al Qaida-driven attacks. I find it extremely unlikey that they just showed up one day and started operations in a location which, if you were to believed, they had no prior knowledge of. All of this takes time, personnel, and some human connection at the high level of a terrorist organization or established sovereign nation like Syria.

Operations just don't spontaneously begin, especially in the refined form they are being done in now.

Totem

edited for glaring typographical errors

Edited, Wed Feb 4 17:33:30 2004 by Totem
#46 Feb 05 2004 at 1:29 AM Rating: Good
I can't believe I've neglected this thread for so long. I feel obligated to question the legitimacy of the article linked in the op. If the National Man-Dog Love association decides that Smasharoo molests collies, does that mean Smasharoo molests collies? I visited the Human Rights Watch website and they appear to be somewhat politically biased. I won't trust "news" from a biased source, whether it's the Limbaugh Letter or the Human Rights Watch.

Nat
#47 Feb 05 2004 at 11:47 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
Ya, but those are the links we prefer here to bolster our weak-a$$ arguments.

;)

Seriously, this is the problem with media of any sort. The perspective of the writer or organization which dispenses the information invariably skews the details to emphasis the important points (to them) that need highlighting.

The only point I wanted Smash to acknowledge is that the logistics alone require a certain spool-up time, let alone the actual operational phase of planning. And from my perspective, the attacks, which are ongoing in Iraq, are well planned enough that, when coupled with intel about Al Qaida, mean a long standing connection there which prior to this point we have not been able to quantifiably make.

Totem
#48 Feb 05 2004 at 2:20 PM Rating: Good
*
188 posts
With Kerry so strong now Iraq is about to become a moot point, unless Kerry tries to convince the voters he was fooled by Bush without lookin like a fool. This argument is moot. The war happened, for better or worse. Just like Clinton's impeachment, the 2000 election, 9/11 it is time we moved on. I think history won't be very kind to W, but he earned his legacy.

I never apologized for Clinton when he got caught with big pants. While I might argue that a sex affair is small fries, the man did it and has paid for it with spades.

If the legislature wasn't controlled by W's party, there would be an impeachment trial right now. Believe that. Had the Supreme Court stepped up for Gore with some bogus equal protection ruling, Gore would have no quarters by the right. Had Gore been the POTUS after 9/11 I wonder how much the GOP would get behind him. What would Maureen Dowd say if Gore had been the one to reallign our war on terrorism from Al Quada to Iraq, I can't guess. But I am sure she wouldn't be singing this Saddam himself is a WMD bullchit.

Moebius, Totem, Gblahblahblahji, any of you conservatives, answer these question truthfully. Do so and you will have my respect.

1. Had the supreme courts ruled in Gore's favor, would you have accepted it?

2. If Bush got caught eating Lynn Cheney's ***** in the oval office would you be screaming for impeachment?

3. Had Gore implemented the Patriot Act or became engaged with Iraq would you have honestly supported it?

4. Had micheal Moore got caught with a bunch of narcotics would you question whether his privacy right were at stake?

#49 Feb 05 2004 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Gblahblahblahji
Teehee!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Feb 05 2004 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
**
863 posts
Quote:
1. Had the supreme courts ruled in Gore's favor, would you have accepted it?

would we have a choice? in other words, yes.
Quote:
2. If Bush got caught eating Lynn Cheney's @#%^ in the oval office would you be screaming for impeachment?

if proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (like last time), yes
Quote:
3. Had Gore implemented the Patriot Act or became engaged with Iraq would you have honestly supported it?

yes
Quote:
4. Had micheal Moore got caught with a bunch of narcotics would you question whether his privacy right were at stake?

depends on the situation. But I think its certainly important to raise the question. So I'd say probably yes.



I'm not as much of a conservative as some of the others here, but I tend to lean to the right.
I feel partison politics is what is ruining this country.

I mean, some of you folks from other countries must look at the US during presidential election time and laugh your asses off. I know I would if I lived in another country.
For christ sake, Democrats on the campaign trail are so venomous in their rhetoric that you'd think GWB was Bin Laden himself.
Their only tactic is to slander (possibly, how am I supposed to trust any news source anymore) the Republican party so viciously that the general public is scared into thinking that our current president is pure evil.

I forget, are we all from the same country?

So here is what I think of partison politics:
Republicans lie (or so the dems/liberals would have us believe)
Democrats spin (well, I'm no political expert and even I can see this)

I'm afraid there is no lesser of 2 evils here, so what the hell am I as a voting american supposed to do?
Hope I make the right decision at election time seems all there is left.
#51 Feb 05 2004 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
16,160 posts
1) Had the Supreme Court had ruled in Gore's favor, would you have accepted it?

Yes. Unequivocally. But in truth, it makes no difference in retrospect since no matter what chads you accepted or rejected, no matter which polling sites were left open late, no matter what districts were gerrymandered or not, whether the popular vote or the Electoral College determined who won in Florida, Bush won in every instance or situation.

2) If Bush got caught eating Lynn Cheney's @#%^ in the oval office would you be screaming for impeachment?

Yes. Unequivocally. Even more so than in Clinton's case since Bush's spiritual stance is genuine rather than a prop to further his political goals as was Clinton's.

3) Had Gore implemented the Patriot Act or became engaged with Iraq would you have honestly supported it?

Yes. Unequivocally. I have no problem with reining in the rights of non-US citizens. The Bill of Rights should extend to Americans and Americans only. I would have no trouble implanting a computer chip under the skin of foreigners and monitoring everything they do while inside our borders.

4) Had Micheal Moore got caught with a bunch of narcotics would you question whether his privacy right were at stake?

No. Unequivocally. Use, possession, intent to distribute, plans to purchase dope for recreational use later is wrong, wrong, wrong. And should be punished in as harshest of sentences as possible. No, I do not wish to engage in a discussion of it being a victimless crime, it being a minor infraction of an unjust law, or that personal freedoms dictate that you can do with your body what you will. It is immaterial, because it is wrong.

Contrary to popular belief, my political views are quite even handed. I am not a Republican other than the fact they more closely follow my political beliefs; I am a conservative. My views on disfiguring myself are the result of a lifetime of living a wide variety of experiences, being a parent, and being well traveled. I value reason over emotion in almost all things. When it comes to my leaders, elected or otherwise, I expect them to adhere to a standard of conduct far more strict than the standard I hold to myself. I expect people to be personally responsible for their own actions. I expect people to think through their actions before they take them and weigh the consequences. I expect to get my money's worth. I value the Midwestern work ethic. I am beholden to my country to answer her call to service regardless how old I am, whether or not I have previously served, whether or not I disagree with the reasons for doing so, and must do so to the best of my ability. This applies equally to military service as to jury duty.

Any parts of my personal beliefs you find appallingly facist?

Totem





Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 345 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (345)