retail-worker.com        I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

Log in Register FAQ Forum Index

History's Verdict...Summer of 1944 vs. Summer of 2004

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics

View previous topic :: View next topic
Author	Message
NAz Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 64 Location: Canada	Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:41 am    Post subject:   Quote: 1.) You'll recall that Saddam was in power at the time of the 9/11 invasion of the United States of America. If a bully is making life unsafe, the best answer is to remove the bully, not placate him. Oh boy...In one sentence you manage to equate Saddam Hussein's regime, with the terrorist attacks of Sept.11/01. There was no direct threat to The U.S and this has been proven. This is a ridiculously poorly thought out response. Quote: 2.) You have no proof that removing Saddam has increased terrorism. There were bombs and gun fire in the streets of the ME long before Saddam was ousted from power. I would venture to guess that an insurgency due to a resentment towards an occupying force could be called an increase in terrorism since Hussein was removed. No invasion=no insurgency=fewer terrorist attacks in this particular part of the Middle East. Quote: 3.) Ask the families of those who lost loved ones at the hands of Saddam (including his own family) if they think it's safer without Saddam in power. Your flawed logic outlined in your 2nd point answers this point. No one is saying that Saddam wasn't an aweful person, or that he should be the legitimate governing authority in Iraq. But the fact of the matter is, with car bombs and suicide bombings happening in the streets due to the INSURGENTS(terrorists that emerged AFTER the U.S. led invasion), the average joe walking down the street in Iraq is probably less safe than he was before the invasion. -NAz
Back to top
FOOTSOLDIER Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 1037 Location: Formerly 3333	Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:42 pm    Post subject:   Spoken like the true sLEK that you are. Footie
Back to top
NAz Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 64 Location: Canada	Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2004 11:06 pm    Post subject:   Thanks for being thoughtful in your response. -NAz
Back to top
FOOTSOLDIER Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 1037 Location: Formerly 3333	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:17 am    Post subject:   Hey... you know where I stand and it's obvious where you stand. Not sure there is much more to say in this thread. Your last paragraph was the ONLY time I've seen you even come close to expressing any dismay over Saddam's actions yet you can't criticize the United States and specifically our President fast enough. You do finally admit (sort of) that Saddam might not be the individual who should lead Iraq. Well, I don't think he would have voluntarily stepped down. Just how do you think he would have been removed from power if someone hadn't have given him a push? You can't have it both ways. Your logic is flawed. FS
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:24 am    Post subject:   Although I'm not surprised, as you have a posting history that clearly demonstrates your penchant for avoiding challenges when doing so would further undermine your already poorly thought out position, you didn't answer my questions Footsoldier. Let's try one more time. I ask only that you respond in the same manner that you demanded of me, to which I obliged. That means answer with "yes" or "no". You can put your retarded musings (as I'll describe below) right back in your ass where you got them from. Let's begin: Was removing Hussein from power worth the increased threat of terrorism around the world? Was removing Hussein from power worth the increased threat of terrorism in the ME? Was removing Hussein from power worth the increased threat of terrorism in Iraq? Now... Quote: 1.) You'll recall that Saddam was in power at the time of the 9/11 invasion of the United States of America. If a bully is making life unsafe, the best answer is to remove the bully, not placate him. First of all 9/11 was not an "invasion", it was an attack. Second, the question was "Was removing Hussein from power worth the increased threat of terrorism around the world?". That Hussein was in power at the time of the attacks is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question. That Hussein was a "bully" is irrelevant and doesn't answer the question. The fact remains that, since Hussein has been removed, more specifically since the US wrongfully invaded, there has been an increased threat of terrorism both domestically and abroad and the actual number of successful attacks has increased dramatically. You need look no further than the evening news to corroborate this. Some agencies have reported between 35-40 and up to 60 attacks in Iraq alone, per day. So, was it worth it? It's a simple question. Quote: 2.) You have no proof that removing Saddam has increased terrorism. There were bombs and gun fire in the streets of the ME long before Saddam was ousted from power. As above, you need look no further than the evening news to rebut such blatant ignorance. Regardless, chew on this chickenhawk: In June of 2004 the US General Accounting Office issued a report that quite clearly lays out the facts regarding increased attacks: Quote: Our analysis of information from the United Nations, nongovernmental organizations, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) indicates that the security situation in Iraq began to deteriorate during June 2003, with significant increases in attacks against the coalition and its partners—international and Iraqi—in October-November 2003 and again in April-May 2004. Moreover, since June 2003, the attacks have become more sophisticated, widespread, and effective. In May 2004, the Secretary of Defense and the Commander of U.S. Central Command projected that the level of violence could continue to increase as Iraq moves toward elections for a transitional government, currently scheduled to be held by the end of January 2005. So it appears that your own fucking government disagrees with you. Some "patriot" you are. :roll: Quote: 3.) Ask the families of those who lost loved ones at the hands of Saddam (including his own family) if they think it's safer without Saddam in power. The question was: "Was removing Hussein from power worth the increased threat of terrorism in Iraq?" As before, it's a "yes" or "no" question. Nevertheless, to reciprocate the fallacy, perhaps YOU should ask the families of the estimated 4,300 non-combatant civilians killed before April 20th 2004 how they feel about the US's misguided invasion. That's approximately 1.5 times the number of civilian casualties that resulted from the WtC attacks, is it not? Hmm... and Iraq didn't even attack the US. As I stated to BG earlier in this thread, perhaps it's time YOU put your ass where your war-mongering mouth is and enlisted. We'll see how strong your retarded convictions are when your ass is on line. At the very least, you should consider changing your nick' from the studly all-caps "FOOTSOLDIER" to something more appropriate like "chickenhawk" or "cannon-fodder". *** Quote: Slek, the article you posted from CNN was about terrorism in 2003. But lets take a look at the actual report from Patterns of Global Terrorism . Yes. Let's. Quote: These are figures were updated on June 22, 2004. Still think this is "absolute bullshit"? Absolutely! Did you read the qualifications for entry into the report? Quote: Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding U.S. definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, U.S. and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged to be terrorist attacks. So, what does that mean? Well, it means that the report does not include attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan that targeted active military assets nor does it include attacks by terrorist orgs' or individuals in their own countries. So every attack by AQ in Afghanistan is disqualified. As is every attack by insurgents in Iraq. Thus, as the report fails to account for these instances, it's absolutely meaningless within the context that you're attempting to use it. Quote: This article states that the U.S. is the largest arms dealer in the world...nowhere does it state that the U.S. largely responsible for arming terrorists around the world. 1+1=2 Does the US sell weapons to nations that sponsor terrorists or engage in terrorism? Hmm... Israel comes to mind: Quote: Israeli forces have used U.S. attack helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, tanks, and guided missiles to target Palestinian demonstrators, forces, and buildings, in what the State Department and human rights groups have called an excessive use of force against relatively lightly armed opponents. Indonesia (again ): Quote: From 1966 to 1999, the U.S. was the principal supplier of weapons to Indonesia, a notorious human rights abuser under the Suharto regime. In reaction to public pressure and evidence of the use of U.S. equipment in abuses by the Indonesian military -- such as use of U.S.-supplied M-16 assault rifles in the November 1991 massacre of peaceful demonstrators the East Timor capital of Dili -- Congress prohibited U.S. International Military Education and Training for Indonesia in 1992, and the sale of small arms, riot gear, and other crowd control equipment in 1994. But U.S. policy still permitted sales of other major weapons systems to Indonesia until one week after the August 30, 1999 referendum in East Timor, which was followed by a massacre and forced displacement of pro-independence East Timorese by militia backed by Indonesian forces. How about Turkey? Quote: During Turkey's 16-year-old fight against Kurdish rebels, human rights groups and the U.S. State Department have documented Turkey's use of U.S.-origin attack helicopters in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law. For example, the military has launched indiscriminate attacks on Kurdish villages, forcing hundreds of thousands of villagers to flee. Despite overtures to peace talks by the Kurdish rebels, the Turkish military continues to pursue an all-out military victory, including incursions into Iraqi territory that not only violate international law but also the No Fly Zone established by U.S. and coalition forces to protect the Iraqi Kurdish population. Saudi Arabia: Quote: While the Saudi government may not be directly supporting terrorist groups, it has not been very cooperative in arresting wanted terrorists. In April 1995, the Saudi government prevented U.S. officers from arresting Imad Mughniyah for his reputed roles in the 1983 car-bombing that killed 241 U.S. troops in Lebanon and for a 1985 TWA hijacking in which one American died. U.S. law officials--who were acting on a last-minute tip by an unnamed informant--were on route to the Jeddah airport to seize Mughinyah during a stop over of a Middle East Airlines flight. However, the Saudi government denied permission for the U.S. plane to land. (Washington Post, 22 April 1995) The U.S. government issued a protest, but the Saudi government said that it could not permit allow a foreign government to arrest a foreign citizen on its soil. Is that enough for you? Or should we rehash Iraq and hop over into Afghanistan? Maybe we can drop in on India and Egypt too and see what US made goodies they're using to maim and murder?
Back to top
NAz Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 64 Location: Canada	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:08 am    Post subject:   Edit: Double post!---Sorry guys! -NAz Last edited by NAz on Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
NAz Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 64 Location: Canada	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:10 am    Post subject:   Footie, your analogy is childish. Firstly, the mere fact that the war was based on the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction and not(officially) as a means to remove Saddam Hussein, renders this argument irrelevant. If you wish to debate the fact that the war was started to "remove an evil dictator", then by all means, have at her, but understand that the GWB administration's own reasons for invading Iraq were not what you seem to believe. Quote: You do finally admit (sort of) that Saddam might not be the individual who should lead Iraq. Sort of? I think I made it quite clear... Quote: No one is saying that Saddam wasn't an aweful person, or that he should be the legitimate governing authority in Iraq. The phrase "no one" implies that I am a part of the collective, "one". I just want to get that cleared up as I guess I wasn't clear enough in my first post. -NAz
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:11 am    Post subject:   Quote: As I stated to BG earlier in this thread, perhaps it's time YOU put your ass where your war-mongering mouth is and enlisted. We'll see how strong your retarded convictions are when your ass is on line. At the very least, you should consider changing your nick' from the studly all-caps "FOOTSOLDIER" to something more appropriate like "chickenhawk" or "cannon-fodder". Ad homs.....tsk tsk tsk "retarded"? And by the way I tried to enlist in the reserves after 9/11 and was too old. I joined the Ameri-corps instead. I also registered for the draft when I was 18 as required by law in 1984. I carried my card untill I was 28 .........the requried age to do so. So stick your cowardly accusations where the sun dont shine daddio. Last edited by Bodyguard on Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 6:43 am    Post subject:   Quote: The fact remains that, since Hussein has been removed, more specifically since the US wrongfully invaded, there has been an increased threat of terrorism both domestically and abroad and the actual number of successful attacks has increased dramatically. Wrong or shoud I say "retarded"? There have been no "domestic" terror attacks. So you are wrong. Back up YOUR bullshit about domestic attacks with facts. Quote: Quote: Our analysis of information from the United Nations, nongovernmental organizations, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) indicates that the security situation in Iraq began to deteriorate during June 2003, with significant increases in attacks against the coalition and its partners—international and Iraqi—in October-November 2003 and again in April-May 2004. Moreover, since June 2003, the attacks have become more sophisticated, widespread, and effective. In May 2004, the Secretary of Defense and the Commander of U.S. Central Command projected that the level of violence could continue to increase as Iraq moves toward elections for a transitional government, currently scheduled to be held by the end of January 2005. Terror takes many forms. Living under the constant threat of being murdered for your political views is a form of terror is it not? The Nazis used the same sort of terror. So the attacks in IRAQ may increase before they decline under the relentless pressure of democracy. Time will tell. Quote: So it appears that your own fucking government disagrees with you. Some "patriot" you are. Ad homs again........... Quote: Nevertheless, to reciprocate the fallacy, perhaps YOU should ask the families of the estimated 4,300 non-combatant civilians killed before April 20th 2004 how they feel about the US's misguided invasion. That's approximately 1.5 times the number of civilian casualties that resulted from the WtC attacks, is it not? Hmm... and Iraq didn't even attack the US Talk about retarded...........how about the hundereds of THOUSANDS that died under Saddam????? How fucking dare you insult the Iraqi people like that? YOU really have the guts to say that?????? How many mass graves have we discovered????? and you dare to compare a war to free the Iraqis?????? Good Lord that is truly disgusting. Quote: So, what does that mean? Well, it means that the report does not include attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan that targeted active military assets nor does it include attacks by terrorist orgs' or individuals in their own countries. So every attack by AQ in Afghanistan is disqualified. As is every attack by insurgents in Iraq. Thus, as the report fails to account for these instances, it's absolutely meaningless within the context that you're attempting to use it. ROFLMFAO....."disqualified"? Your arrogence floors me........My own flesh and blood has their ass on the line in the middle east. Gutless wonders in this world make me puke. My OWN FAMILY is there. Are yours? Quote: 1+1=2 Does the US sell weapons to nations that sponsor terrorists or engage in terrorism? Hmm... Israel comes to mind: Quote: Israeli forces have used U.S. attack helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, tanks, and guided missiles to target Palestinian demonstrators, forces, and buildings, in what the State Department and human rights groups have called an excessive use of force against relatively lightly armed opponents. Your anti-semitic bias has just shown itself. Isreal is the ONLY freaking democracy in the region! So it is a terrorist democracy???? And be sure that it is well known that "anti-zionism" is a code word for anti-semetism. Quote: Quote: Israeli forces have used U.S. attack helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, tanks, and guided missiles to target Palestinian demonstrators, forces, and buildings, in what the State Department and human rights groups have called an excessive use of force against relatively lightly armed opponents. Hmmmm another retarded position by your OWN standards! The Palistinians want the complete distruction of Israel! And you wonder why they feel THREATENED????????? And dont give me any bullshit that the the PLO is not dedicated to the "right of return".......if you know what that means you know that it means the destruction of the state of Isreal. If you dont...........look it up before you state the anti semitic crap you just posted. And since you are on a US bashing trip.........I have a question for you. Just what has Canada done for the world lately? It must be nice to sit on your ass and bitch and moan about the US while being protected by us year after year. EDIT..........ah homs and bad language were included in your posts so I expect the same latitude in this thread.
Back to top
CCCs Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 762	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:03 am    Post subject:   Quote: Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged to be terrorist attacks. slek wrote: Quote: So every attack by AQ in Afghanistan is disqualified. As is every attack by insurgents in Iraq. Not quite sure how you draw this conclusion...the attacks are disqualified only if perpetrated against military targets...not civilian targets. The methodology used to figure these numbers has not changed. Quote: 1+1=2 Does the US sell weapons to nations that sponsor terrorists or engage in terrorism? Not the original thought...that the U.S. is the largely responsible for supplying weapons to terrorists around the world. Who is moving the goal posts this time?
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:27 am    Post subject:   Quote: There have been no "domestic" terror attacks. So you are wrong. Back up YOUR bullshit about domestic attacks with facts. Learn to read. I said "increased threat". Nevertheless, successful attacks abroad, specifically within Iraq (which happens to be domestic terrorism if you're an Iraqi), have, as I stated, increased dramatically. Quote: Living under the constant threat of being murdered for your political views is a form of terror is it not? Yup. Too bad that that wasn't your justification for the invasion. It's also too bad that thousands of civilians have been murdered in order to "save them from being murdered". Smart Move™ Quote: So the attacks in IRAQ may increase before they decline under the relentless pressure of democracy. Democracy? Has there been a vote? Has the new Iraqi PM been elected by the people? Nope, no election yet. It's has been reported, however, that Iraq's interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, shot seven Iraqi insurgents in cold blood. How does that saying go? "Out of the frying pan and into the fire"? If that turns out to be true, it's yet another Smart Move™, that reeks of "democracy" and "American Ideals", from the puppet show that you call your current administration. Quote: how about the hundereds of THOUSANDS that died under Saddam? Yup. How 'bout them? Again, it's too bad that that wasn't your justification for the invasion. Quote: How fucking dare you insult the Iraqi people like that? Excuse me? And how exactly do you presume to know the sentiments of Iraqs people? Oh! That's right! You're a Fox news fanboi! Therefore it was clearly my mistake for assuming that you're a misinformed apologist for the Bush administration. Oops! My bad. :roll: Perhaps you'd care to dispute the truth of the proposition instead of getting all foamy again? You'll note my points were: the estimated 4,300 non-combatant civilians killed before April 20th 2004 That's approximately 1.5 times the number of civilian casualties that resulted from the WtC attacks and Iraq didn't even attack the US. Quote: and you dare to compare a war to free the Iraqis? "Free the Iraqis"? Back to the farcical "liberation" argument again BG? This is your second visit to that tired tripe in this thread already. What angle are you going to choose next? Are you going to "flip", or maybe "flop", back over to the "imminent threat" BS? Puhleeeeze! Spare us the laughter and pay attention: for the, I dunno, BAZILLIONTH time, "liberation" was not the pretense for the invasion. Thus constantly repeating that shit to spite the rather clear, obvious, and well-documented fact of the matter, is patently stupid. But hey, you do what you can! Quote: ROFLMFAO....."disqualified"? Your arrogence floors me. My arrogance? I didn't write the report dumbass. Nor did I determine the criteria for inclusion. You got a problem with it? Take it up with your .gov as they're the ones that disqualified the inclusion of domestic attacks (domestic, as in Iraqi insurgent attacking targets in Iraq - a concept you seem to have some issue comprehending). Quote: Your anti-semitic bias has just shown itself. Quote: the anti semitic crap you just posted. Quote: Just what has Canada done for the world lately? :yawn: Now THIS BG, pay attention now - read it few times if you must, is an ad-hom. Here you completely ignore the point, the point being that the US sells arms to countries that use them in questionable operations (to say the least), and, instead, resort to libel. Weak BG, very weak. Very transparent too. I had hoped that you would have learned by now but... well, there's that Fox news factor again. :shrug: *** Quote: Quote: So every attack by AQ in Afghanistan is disqualified. As is every attack by insurgents in Iraq. Not quite sure how you draw this conclusion...the attacks are disqualified only if perpetrated against military targets...not civilian targets. Note "AQ in Afghanistan" - "insurgents in Iraq". And I quote: Quote: the report does not include attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan that targeted active military assets nor does it include attacks by terrorist orgs' or individuals in their own countries. (emphasis re-added) Thus the probable majority of attacks that are still taking place in Iraq, suicide bombers etc., were not included in the numbers because those attacks were carried out by Iraqis in their own country. I find it interesting, and rather unconscionable, that they exclude domestic attacks in Iraq which, as you should be well aware of, make up the abundance of terrorist activity. Quote: Not the original thought...that the U.S. is the largely responsible for supplying weapons to terrorists around the world. It certainly is the original thought. If you'd like to dispute it, please do, as I'm afraid simply disagreeing with it without providing any reasoning whatsoever doesn't really cut the mustard.
Back to top
FOOTSOLDIER Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 1037 Location: Formerly 3333	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:10 am    Post subject:   sleK writes: Let's try one more time. I ask only that you respond in the same manner that you demanded of me, to which I obliged. That means answer with "yes" or "no". You can put your retarded musings (as I'll describe below) right back in your ass where you got them from. Getting a little testy are we? YES YES YES And I have explained why multiple times in this thread and others. Be careful.... the guy in charge here doesn't like it when people beat dead horses. FS
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 12:14 pm    Post subject:   Allright then, let's recap: Was removing Hussein from power worth the increased threat of terrorism around the world? Footsoldiers answer: Yes Was removing Hussein from power worth the increased threat of terrorism in the ME? Footsoldiers answer: Yes Was removing Hussein from power worth the increased threat of terrorism in Iraq? Footsoldiers answer: Yes To think that you had the nerve to suggest that my objection to actions that increase the threat of terrorist attacks was somehow "appalling" and here you are explicitly endorsing such action despite the results. With blatant, willful, stupidity like this, is it any wonder that hatred for the US is so prevalent in the Middle East? Quote: And I have explained why multiple times in this thread and others. No, you've simply regurgitated the same fallacious arguments as the rest of the chickenhawks and, much like you've done in this thread, failed to adequately support them. gg
Back to top
CCCs Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 762	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:34 pm    Post subject:   Quote: And I quote: Quote: the report does not include attacks in Iraq or Afghanistan that targeted active military assets nor does it include attacks by terrorist orgs' or individuals in their own countries. If I recall, this is your own quote. The quote from the Patterns of Global Terrorism report says: Quote: Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding U.S. definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, U.S. and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged to be terrorist attacks. No where does this "disqualify" attacks by AQ in Afghanistan or insurgents in Iraq that occur against civilian targets...in fact it says they are included. Quote: I find it interesting, and rather unconscionable, that they exclude domestic attacks in Iraq which, as you should be well aware of, make up the abundance of terrorist activity. They don't disqualify domestic attacks in Iraq...only attacks against the military.
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 7:29 pm    Post subject:   Quote: Puhleeeeze! Spare us the laughter and pay attention: for the, I dunno, BAZILLIONTH time, "liberation" was not the pretense for the invasion. Thus constantly repeating that shit to spite the rather clear, obvious, and well-documented fact of the matter, is patently stupid. OK Oh mighty sleKster....tell us the REAL reason we went to war. You say the REAL reason was well-documented. Please spread the pearls before the swine. Lets hear it. Quote: Nevertheless, successful attacks abroad, specifically within Iraq (which happens to be domestic terrorism if you're an Iraqi), have, as I stated, increased dramatically Please give me the figures regarding terror in Iraq BEFORE the war. Do you have them? How many Iraqis were murdered and abducted in the night during Saddams regime? So unless you have the figures then how can you state such a fact? Secrecy was the watch word with the Baathists..... Quote: Too bad that that wasn't your justification for the invasion. It's also too bad that thousands of civilians have been murdered in order to "save them from being murdered". Such arrogence from a completly safe person. Wich is the lesser of two evils, oh great moralizer? 4000 dead or 250,000 dead? Or do Arab lives mean so little to you? And how many more will be saved? I dont care about the reasons we went to war. The result will be better for the world. Let the terrorists come to Iraq.......it is a good strategy.....if they are all in one place then we can kill them all. Quote: Nope, no election yet. It's has been reported, however, that Iraq's interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, shot seven Iraqi insurgents in cold blood. Oh gee I surrender! A report with no facts! Wow you got me there! Get a grip.... Quote: Back to the farcical "liberation" argument again BG? This is your second visit to that tired tripe in this thread already. What angle are you going to choose next? Are you going to "flip", or maybe "flop", back over to the "imminent threat" BS? The US and its President and the Congress saw the same info and concluded as did the UN including the cowardly French that Saddam did indeed possess weapons that were not allowed by the UN. THESE ARE FACTS. Ever hear of UN resolution 1441? These are the reasons we went to war. It was also seen that by removing Saddam we would remove an enabler of terror (the admin never claimed he had directly helped the 9/11 bombers) but he did in the past supported terrorists groups. The fear was that an Iraq governed by such a person that either had WMDs or the capability to produce them could just possibly give or sell such wepons to terrorist groups. Was it worth the chance that such a thing could happen? Our answer was no. So if you want to piss and moan about what we did......so what? It was based on the info we AND the UN had at the time. Quote: Now THIS BG, pay attention now - read it few times if you must, is an ad-hom. Here you completely ignore the point, the point being that the US sells arms to countries that use them in questionable operations (to say the least), and, instead, resort to libel Quote: Does the US sell weapons to nations that sponsor terrorists or engage in terrorism? Hmm... Israel comes to mind: You claimed that Isreal sponsors terror or in fact egages in terrorism. You then quoted this... Quote: Quote: Israeli forces have used U.S. attack helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, tanks, and guided missiles to target Palestinian demonstrators, forces, and buildings, in what the State Department and human rights groups have called an excessive use of force against relatively lightly armed opponents. Israel is defending itself against destruction. If you are saying that by doing this Isreal is using terror you are using the Palistinian line. The Palistinians want the destuction of Isreal. Do you agree with this? It is a straightfoward question. Drawing conclusions from what you wrote is easy. When somebody refers to Israel as a terror nation they are usually coming from an anti_Zionist point of view. Oh did you look up the right of return? Do you know what it means to Isreal? You are a smart guy.............look it up.
Back to top
FOOTSOLDIER Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 1037 Location: Formerly 3333	Posted: Wed Jul 21, 2004 11:00 pm    Post subject:   sLEK... I'm curious about something... What do YOU think should be done with Saddam Hussein? Assuming he is tried and convicted, should he be...... a. Executed for crimes against humanity. b. Spend the rest of his life in prison without payroll. c. Serve some prison time with a future release date. d. Be released without serving jail time. e. Be restored to power because of how he was removed. If you would have an alternative to the 5 choices above, I'd be interested to hear what they are. FS
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 12:09 am    Post subject:   Quote: No where does this "disqualify" attacks by AQ in Afghanistan or insurgents in Iraq that occur against civilian targets...in fact it says they are included. I never suggested otherwise. Nevertheless, the report still remains meaningless within the context you are attempting to use it. That context being your suggestion that terrorist activity and attacks are in decline or at a constant or similar level as before the US invaded Iraq. Which, of course, is false. That the majority of attacks don't meet the US governments criteria for inclusion in a report does not diminish the fact that those attacks are the acts of terrorists. To suggest otherwise is to concede that suicide bombings by terrorist organizations that target military personal are a legitimate means of defense against an occupying force and thus the individuals committing such acts are not terrorists. So, if it's not terrorism that you're fighting in Iraq, what exactly is it? *** Quote: tell us the REAL reason we went to war. You say the REAL reason was well-documented. OMG! You really can't read! Can you? I never said anything about the "reason". I said that liberation was not the pretense for the invasion. And the pretense for the invasion is clear, obvious and well-documented. Quote: Quote: Nevertheless, successful attacks abroad, specifically within Iraq (which happens to be domestic terrorism if you're an Iraqi), have, as I stated, increased dramatically. Please give me the figures regarding terror in Iraq BEFORE the war. Do you have them? How many Iraqis were murdered and abducted in the night during Saddams regime? So unless you have the figures then how can you state such a fact? Secrecy was the watch word with the Baathists..... I don't need the figures BG. Your own governments publications support my assertion. And I quote, again: :roll: Quote: In June of 2004 the US General Accounting Office issued a report that quite clearly lays out the facts regarding increased attacks: Quote: Our analysis of information from the United Nations, nongovernmental organizations, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) indicates that the security situation in Iraq began to deteriorate during June 2003, with significant increases in attacks against the coalition and its partners—international and Iraqi—in October-November 2003 and again in April-May 2004. Moreover, since June 2003, the attacks have become more sophisticated, widespread, and effective. In May 2004, the Secretary of Defense and the Commander of U.S. Central Command projected that the level of violence could continue to increase as Iraq moves toward elections for a transitional government, currently scheduled to be held by the end of January 2005. You don't agree with the GAO report? Then take it up with them smart guy. Quote: I dont care about the reasons we went to war. Clearly. Clearly reprehensible, that is. Quote: The result will be better for the world. Really? Then you agree with Footsoldier that the increased threat of terrorist attacks around the world is an acceptable result of the "War on Terror". How utterly retarded! Quote: The US and its President and the Congress saw the same info and concluded as did the UN including the cowardly French that Saddam did indeed possess weapons that were not allowed by the UN. THESE ARE FACTS. It's a fact that the administration concluded that, that's for certain. However, they were wrong. Quote: Ever hear of UN resolution 1441? Yup. Have you ever read resolution 1441? Let's have a gander: Quote: Recognizing the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, "Proliferation"? This gem must have been based on the same faulty intelligence that your administration relied upon to make their case for the invasion. Quote: Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material, Hmm... proving a negative. A troublesome task to say the least. Especially considering the fact that Iraq had no programs, had no holdings and had no production facilities. Quote: Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, Whoopty-doo! Would you like me to go on? Or do you get the picture? Quote: but he did in the past supported terrorists groups. Who hasn't? Quote: The fear was that an Iraq governed by such a person that either had WMDs or the capability to produce them could just possibly give or sell such wepons to terrorist groups. Well, he never had the capability. Thus this bullshit fails spectacularly on two accounts: He never had the capability. "could", "possibly", "if", "but". Quote: It was based on the info we AND the UN had at the time. And... that info was false. Just as those opposed to the invasion suspected and, as a consequence of their suspicion, pushed for further inspections. Further inspections, of course, would have laid the fallacious WmD claims to waste but noooooo the truth of the matter wasn't on the administrations agenda. Don't let that stop you from perpetuating the myth though! *** Quote: What do YOU think should be done with Saddam Hussein? Assuming he is tried and convicted, should he be...... a. Executed for crimes against humanity. b. Spend the rest of his life in prison without payroll. c. Serve some prison time with a future release date. d. Be released without serving jail time. e. Be restored to power because of how he was removed. It depends upon what he is convicted for. If it can be shown, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he's responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity, I'd say kill the fucker - preferably on pay-per-vew 'cuz that's something I'd want to see. I have some doubts that he'll receive a fair trial however. The fact that Hussein's lawyer has, as of yet, been unable to counsel his client certainly suggests that the ideals of the American judicial system don't apply to American made boogy-men.
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:03 am    Post subject:   I am glad you posted the quotes from 1441. You act like it was not passed by every single member of the UN security council........not just the US! You should take up your problems with the reasoning with more than just the US! You keep screeching about the intelligence was wrong.....ok so it was incorrect. We AND THE UN did not know it at the time. It was also a proven fact that Iraq had used WMDs in the past and had produced no evidence of thier distruction. And was stopping UN inspectors from looking for them......remember them being kicked out? So the facts and assumtions let to 1441. Quote: Well, he never had the capability. Thus this bullshit fails spectacularly on two accounts: YES HE DID It was a FACT that he had nerve gas and other WMDs as late as 1991 and had no evidence he had destroyed them. Why are you so ready to believe the reasons for the war were trumped up? Give us your enlightened opinion on why the war was fought? All reports now have shown that even though the intelligence was wrong, both Bush and Blair did NOT lie about the reasons for the war. They went with they had and made a decision they thought was right to preserve the safety of the region. You may try and dispute the facts of the matter but two large countries that provided friendly bases to terror have been turned into hostile territory to them. (Iraq and Afganistan). There may be attacks there but they sure dont get to sit around and smoke yak dung and cut womens heads off with the blessing of a friendly government. (Afganistan) So GOI Get Over It. The war was fought. Saddam will swing. Call up the UN and argue with the nations that voted for 1441. Quote: Really? Then you agree with Footsoldier that the increased threat of terrorist attacks around the world is an acceptable result of the "War on Terror". How utterly retarded! Of course I agree with it. Lets use your WWll analogy. When we finally declared war on Germany we suffered HUGE losses in the Atlantic due to the U boat threat. So by fighting the war we got our ass kicked for almost two more years in the Atlantic. It has only been a little more than a year now since the war ended in Iraq. There was bound to be an increase in terror before all of the dead enders were rounded up and/or killed. It is retarded to draw the conclusion that terror will only increase over time since we removed two huge enablers of terror........the Taliban and Saddam.
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 2:47 am    Post subject:   Quote: I am glad you posted the quotes from 1441. You act like it was not passed by every single member of the UN security council. Every single member of the UN security council did NOT invade a sovereign nation dipshit! Quote: YES HE DID The key word there is "DID". Does he have them now? No. Did he have them when the US invaded? No. How many times are we going to go over this before you finally give that bullshit up? Or are you simply too stupid to comprehend that what Hussein possessed in the past and what he might do with stuff, should he aquire it, in the future, is not justification for an invasion. Quote: Why are you so ready to believe the reasons for the war were trumped up? "Believe"? Sorry pal, no beliefs necessary. There are no WmD's in Iraq. Quote: Quote: Really? Then you agree with Footsoldier that the increased threat of terrorist attacks around the world is an acceptable result of the "War on Terror". How utterly retarded! Of course I agree with it. That's nice. So, when the US is attacked again, as your government constantly reports that another attack in inevitable, I'll rightfully expect that you'll shrug and say "Well, with my blessings and a complete understanding of the consequences, we did stir up a lot of shit in the Middle East, so, although I don't like it, it's our own damn fault.". Quote: we removed two huge enablers of terror........the Taliban and Saddam. :roll: For the KAJILLIONTH time: there are no credible or meaningful ties between Hussein and terrorists and, the last time I checked, Bin Laden is still a free man and AQ is still operating. But you go ahead and keep fooling yourself if it helps you sleep better at night.
Back to top
NAz Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 64 Location: Canada	Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:16 am    Post subject:   Sorry, don't mean to butt in here...Just want to add my 2 cents... Quote: You keep screeching about the intelligence was wrong.....ok so it was incorrect. We AND THE UN did not know it at the time. The main difference here, is that the UN chose NOT to go to war. The US didn't. Obviously a number of the member states were not satisfied with this "intelligence" and were more apt to let inspections continue. You are correct that there were weapons that were unnacounted for, but as Hans Blix noted, Quote: But long lists of items remained unaccounted for and “it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for”. Source: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7777.doc.htm Given time, the UNMOVIC team would have either confirmed their existence and destroyed the weapons, or as would have been the case, not found any. Having known this, the pretense given for war would not have been there, and could have ultimately saved thousands of lives. Not to mention the fact that terrorist attacks in the region would not have spiked as they have lately. Quote: All reports now have shown that even though the intelligence was wrong, both Bush and Blair did NOT lie about the reasons for the war. They went with they had and made a decision they thought was right to preserve the safety of the region. If one is not telling the truth, is that not a lie? Not knowing you are telliing a lie, does not mean you are telling the truth. Their intelligence would have ultimately been proven to be worthless, as it has already. -NAz
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 4:23 am    Post subject:   Quote: Every single member of the UN security council did NOT invade a sovereign nation dipshit! In case you have not noticed even though the US was the main force, there were several others involved......ahem..."dipshit" you will have to ban yourself if you keep that up. Oh and by the way did you look up "the right of return"? You seem reluctant to discuss that subject. Maybye another thread for that one? Quote: How many times are we going to go over this before you finally give that bullshit up? Or are you simply too stupid to comprehend that what Hussein possessed in the past and what he might do with stuff, should he aquire it, in the future, is not justification for an invasion. UM.......yes it was. Maybye you dont think Bush is a smart guy (Yale degree or not) but do you think Tony Blair is stupid? I bet you dont. Quote: That's nice. So, when the US is attacked again, as your government constantly reports that another attack in inevitable, I'll rightfully expect that you'll shrug and say "Well, with my blessings and a complete understanding of the consequences, we did stir up a lot of shit in the Middle East, so, although I don't like it, it's our own damn fault.". Hey oh guru of history (not)..........there has been shit going on in the middle east for two thousand years! And guess what???? There will always probably be! So again GOI. Quote: For the KAJILLIONTH time: there are no credible or meaningful ties between Hussein and terrorists and, the last time I checked, Bin Laden is still a free man and AQ is still operating. No direct link to the 911 attacts yes but there is no denying that Saddam was indeed a supporter of terror.......he gave aid money and shelter to them. Another good thing about kicking the shit out of nations that support terror is that countries like Libya say "oh shit I better get rid of that shit or George will drop a J-DAM on my ass." Or do you think that Kaddafe (sp) really just would have given all his WMDs up if we just sat on our ass and said pretty please? You are on the wrong side of history again and again. Evil only responds to FORCE. Unless you think the US is a force of evil and not good in the world. I would be interested in a yes or no answer to that question BTW. Oh and one more thing........you said something about sleeping better at night? You are the one that is fooling yourself about how safe Canada would be without us. Sleep warm in the knowledge that we protect this continent for you.
Back to top
sleK Administrator Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 1010 Location: over yonder	Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:03 am    Post subject:   Quote: even though the US was the main force, there were several others involved. That doesn't diminish my point. This was a US-led invasion taking place during a US-led "War on Terror". The number of countries involved in the passing of resolution 1441, a resolution, that itself suffers the same pitfalls as every other after-the-fact excuse you've trotted out, is absolutely irrelevant in determining who's really responsible for the actions and policies leading up to the invasion and the invasion itself. Despite resolution 1441 and the alleged "intelligence", the UN Security Council did not pass a resolution to authorize the use military force. Further to that, a number of UN Security Council members, including France, Germany, Russia, Cameroon, China, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, Angola and Pakistan either flat-out refused to support the invasion and/or supported further inspections. The list of supporting UN Security Council members positively pales in comparison: United Kindom, Spain and Bulgaria. To feign the support of the UN by citing a weakly-written resolution ("serious consequences" ring a bell? How more fucking vague can you get?) as justification for the invasion to spite the fact that the US actually had little, well... actually ZERO support from the UN is, to stick with the theme, wholly retarded. If, by "several others involved", you meant the illustrious "Coalition of the Willing", of which an estimated 80% are American, please describe to us how their involvement reasonably and successfully justifies the invasion. Seriously, I could use the laugh. Quote: You seem reluctant to discuss that subject. Maybye another thread for that one? As I stated earlier, I refuse to address your pathetic attempts to paint me as an "Hussein Sympathizer" (which you tried earlier in the thread) or, as you're attempting in this instance, an "anti-semite" as it's a really cheap, though common when you're involved, tactic to avoid addressing my points. As you're probably going to get all foamy and pull some "I ain't afraid of you!" stupid cowboy impression when you read that, let me spell it out for ya... pardner. On page one of this thread: I said... Quote: Freeing the people of Iraq was not the pretense for the invasion and constantly repeating this same rubbish isn't going to change that fact. Which is true on both accounts, the pretense was WmD's and repeating "I am a genius" over and over and over again isn't actually going to make you smarter. However, instead of acknowledging or disputing the truth of the proposition, you replied with this... Quote: So do do you think we should give back Iraq? And Saddam? Anyone else notice the canyon-sized leap in logic? I believe, and the facts support my belief, that the concept of "liberation" was not the pretense for the invasion. Yet, the acknowledgment and presentation of that simple, pretty much indisputable, fact somehow threatens your preconcieved notions to such a high degree that you must resort to loaded questions in a weak attempt to characterize me as a sympathizer which will consequently provide you with the opportunity to: Wrongly dismiss my arguments. Avoid addressing the point. Change the subject. Sleep good at night. On page two of this thread: I suggested that the US sell weapons to nations that sponsor terrorists or engage in terrorism. In support of this statement, I offered a number of short examples. Curiously, only one of the examples, garnered a foamy response from you: Israel. Quote: Israeli forces have used U.S. attack helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, tanks, and guided missiles to target Palestinian demonstrators, forces, and buildings, in what the State Department and human rights groups have called an excessive use of force against relatively lightly armed opponents. For the record, Israel is accused of violating several UN resolutions themselves and, lo & behold, Israel possesses nuclear weapons too, but I digress... Your response (this is funny): Quote: Your anti-semitic bias has just shown itself. Let's remember that the original assertion was the US sell weapons to nations that sponsor terrorists or engage in terrorism. Which is true. I need only one example to prove that (my preference is to use Indonesia as it's the most damning example IMO). Resorting to politically and emotionally charged name-calling while ignoring the point altogether is, once again, wholly retarded. Political bottom-feeder behaviour. Needless to say, my assertion remains unchallenged. So, if you're going to continue engaging in such cheap and transparent tactics in order to avoid addressing the points, I'm going to ignore your cheap and transparent tactics. It's really that simple. Quote: there is no denying that Saddam was indeed a supporter of terror.......he gave aid money and shelter to them. Prove it. Be sure to qualify the "credible" and "meaningful" aspects of it and, if you can, find a way to tie it all together with a "credible" and "meaningful" threat to your national security. Good luck.
Back to top
Bodyguard Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 1337 Location: The Collective	Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:14 pm    Post subject:   Since we have gone around and around on this subject on this and other threads AND will never agree, I have a different question. What should the US do now? Pull out? Stay? Start wringing our hands and say "We are so sorry"? Continue on the same course? Get more agressive? Lets hear what you think the answer is.......
Back to top
FOOTSOLDIER Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 1037 Location: Formerly 3333	Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:04 am    Post subject:   Excellent question BG. It does no good to sit and argue the point of going in or not. Fact is, we're already there. John Kerry, God forbid, if he wins will have to deal with this question. He's on record of stating he would NOT pull us out of there until things have stablized. I believe this. We don't bomb the hell out of a country, help install a democracy, then walk out. We (and that is a UN "we") owe it to Iraq to help rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed or they will certainly fail. If the people become demoralized, it will hurt us in the long term. They will become open to the next Saddam who comes along. No, as painful as it is to experience the loss of life (900 and growing), we need to stay until the government is stable. Our allies also need to have a significant stake in the matter too. This cannot be a US only effort. FS
Back to top
CSisback Joined: 04 Jul 2003 Posts: 829	Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:26 am    Post subject:   Do you suppose insurgency was part of the plan? It's easier to fight terrorists in one place then all over the middle east. And Iraq is very centrally located. What better place to get a foothold in this area. Sadaam just gave us the excuse we needed. This is a way to fight terrorism in one place. CS
Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

	Forum Index -> Politics Schmolitics	All times are GMT Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

Jump to: Select a forum The Newswire----------------Announcements & Information The Commons----------------Behind the BanterPolitics SchmoliticsFeedback & Support Crazy Earls Employee Emporium----------------Dollar GeneralHome DepotJCPenneyLowesMacy'sMisc' RetailRonaSears Holding Corporation / Sears CanadaStaplesTarget  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum