"chico" wrote:
"Dutch" wrote:
"chico" wrote:
"Dutch" wrote:
"the 2nd coming of christ" wrote:
"Dutch" wrote:
"the 2nd coming of christ" wrote:
if i was easy to read then you would have avoided talking about
the iraq war altogether but now at least you're somewhat
involved in the conversation... aren't you...
There's not much to say about the Iraqi war that hasn't been said.
Yeah there is.
It's an illegitimate military action being carried out by a bunch of
amoral thugs in control of the world's most powerful army.
The people of the United States.
9/11
was a convenient excuse for the US military-industrial complex to
go on a rampage.
So abandon all the rules. Forget every treaty you ever signed. Be
like a looter in a riot. Nice way to behave.
The US military have needed a full-time dance
partner since the Soviet threat evaporated and now they have one
in "the terrorists".
Soviet threat is still there.
except that the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, one of our
biggest partners...yet we didn't invade them...
It goes much deeper, the Bush-ites provided safe passage to the Bin
Laden family immediately after 9/11 with no evidence of a thorough
interrogation of them.
And allowed to fly when no American person could. The skies were
under lock-down.
As they were already on record as having disowned him and
disagreeing with his tactics, why should they have been detained in
this country where they didn't want to stay and where many people
may have tried to harm them?
National Emergency? For their own safety? Simple policy procedure?
To be thoroughly interrogated by all the applicable security forces in
case one of them might have useful information about Osama or any of
the attackers, or the attack, DESPITE their protestations. If the US is
taking the word of foreigners at face value now, why didn't they believe
Iraq about WMDs?
And why do they believe kim jung il now and not before. Did he
like turn good all of a sudden? And is Iran turning good too all
of a sudden?
Saddam had a long, uninterrupted track record of breaking UN sanctions
and defiance against the UN. The Binladens had always been cooperative
with investigators.
Yet the UN was not consulted to get approval for the invasion.
Or how about simple perception that is left when the
family of the perpetrator are whisked away in this fashion?
We'll leave the Michael Moores of this world deal with that
aspect.
I haven't sensed much concern about that except from the black
helicopter crowd.
Yeah, they only worry about non-existent stuff.
Surely the great US of A can protect a group of people long enough to
question them.
Maybe one of the Bin Ladens was Osama wearing a mustache or what
not, or maybe they hid him in a suitcase or something.
They'd already been investigated over the two previous years. They were
clean. We don't hold people responsible for crimes committed by their
family members in this country.
But we do expect them to visit.
They have plenty of folks sitting in Guantanamo without charges.
And for many (if not all) of them, rightly so.
But that doesn't excuse the Abu Ghraib abuse.
It's one thing to support troops, and to despise the enemy, but that
should not translate to granting carte blanche for a corrupt and stupid
administration.
Translation: to one controlled by the Jews.
I differ with your opinion of the administration. The decisions they
made were reached concurrently with your own government's, and other
governments',
The entire world stood by and watched therefore are complicit.
agreement that Saddam had WMD and needed to be
reigned in once and for all. The only difference was, our administration
chose to not wait for another 3000 citizens to be killed
another 3000? Saddam had nothing to do with the first time.
to find out how
far along Iraq's WMD program was,
how about less far than either North Korea's or Iran's.
and your government thought Saddam would come clean even though he
hadn't over the previous 12 years and previous 16 or 17 UN Sec Council
resolutions.
But never got permission from the UN for this invasion. They
decided to ignore the UN and not wait for a vote. Russia might
have vetoed.
As far as WMD go, we found
- 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium
- 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons
- Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas
- 1,000 radioactive materials
- 17 chemical warheads including several containing cyclosarin.
(Richard Miniter, NY Times, _Disinformation_)
All of that was in violation of Saddam's agreement to end the Gulf War,
UN Sec Council resolutions, etc.
bla bla…
at least let's get the countries which support terror right, they
are: iran, saudi arabia, pakistan, syria, lebanon, egypt, united
arab emirates (which still practices slavery)...
i probably missed one or two but you get the point, they are all
our friends supposedly... the US has its head up its ***** when it
comes to fighting terror...
"Terrorists" are not a nation-specific problem. Attacking any country
they might come from with a conventional army is an exercise in
futility, and terrorism itself.
Or if you're going to go after the most dangerous, then start off
with North Korea followed by Iran.
Even when certain nations are known to harbor and fund them?
Because it's not something that's checked by anybody. Does the US
harbor the crips and the bloods?
I do not believe that Saudi Arabia has not funded Al Qaeda
al qaeda is a myth, it simply means 'the base'. That's where they
registered when they were fighting Russia so if someone died they
could mark him off the list. The US funded the Taliban so they
would defeat Russia, which they did.
Any evidence that the Saudis knowingly fund Al-Qaeda?
``…Saudi businessman, Yassin al-Kadi - who has been designated by
the United States, the United Nations, and the European Union as a
financier of al-Qaeda''
[source: http://emperors-clothes.com/yr/babic.htm#II]
I had in mind in this example Syria, since groups like Hamas have
offices in plain view in Damascus and Syria has done far worse things in
Lebanon than we've done in Iraq.
In Lebanon Hezbollah has people INSIDE of the government. They
flag the Hezbollah flag and the UN flag together. Hamas governs
Palestine. That's the price of democracy: the evil guys may win.
Whom would
you hold responsible in cases where groups committing genocide have
offices in foreign capitals where terror leaders are close to and
operate with the permission of state government?
The entire world that sits by and allows it.
I'd say in general that the US administration cannot be trusted to
derive such information honestly and objectively and use it wisely.
Translation: the Jews are in control.
They had the same intel countries like yours, France, and the UK had.
The assessment of the UN Sec Council was that Saddam had WMD, had a
functioning WMD program, and that he had plans to use WMD. The whole
world was unanimous that there was a problem with Saddam running >Iraq.
But there wasn't time for an actual vote (from the UN) because the
weather was gonna get too hot, so they (the generals) had to right
away not wait and just invade to guarantee a successful invasion.
The only difference is our government, and the governments of a few
allies, decided to act before Saddam could. And fwiw, your government
had already been deliberating about how far to go BEFORE 9/11 in
removing Saddam from power, continuing sanctions, etc.
but will not act before North Korea or Iran act.
They
have forfeited any benefit of the doubt they had after 9/11.
Although no evidence exists of any connection to it.
I understand your point of view. I just disagree with you that this
administration acted improperly or with suspect motivations. They had --
and they acted upon -- the same information the rest of the world had,
but they also had to deal with the fall out from 9/11 that no other
government had to deal with. They chose to take action rather than
passively wait for another act of terrorism or for Saddam to finally
comply with UN mandates. He hadn't for over a decade, and the threat of
further sanctions didn't cause him to bat a lash.
Or didn't wait to be proven wrong on the WMD issue and so thereby
finding the Invasion to be illegitimate. Shoot first ask questions
later.
A group(s)
of fanatics has devoted itself to attacking US targets, it makes more
sense to figure out how to go after those fanatics in a more surgical
fashion, not trump up excuses to bomb countries from space.
Or at least go after the more dangerous ones, not the weakest link
of the three of the axis-of-evil.
Those fanatics had a stranglehold in Afghanistan, and the Taliban had
refused to turn them over.
Even if they are connected to the people they are not connected to
the 9/11 event itself. It would be like blaming a relative for
your own actions.
We took them out pretty precisely with
relatively few collateral casualties -- and those "bombs from space" are
a lot more surgical than sending in the 4th Infantry Division or the
Third Marines on the ground.
It went so well that the Afghanistan war is still ongoing, and is
back to being the world's top opium producer when the Taliban had
all but eradicated it according to UN figures.
As far as Iraq goes, we didn't carpet-bomb that country. If anything,
we've acted in a manner a lot more consistent with your sensitivities
than either you'll admit or what the situation has called for and, as a
result, we're in a bit of a protracted state of guerilla/civil warfare.
But had no actual legitimate right to invade. The end doesn't
justify the means.
Turning the
entire middle east into a war zone may be theraputic and profitable for
a select few industrialists (Cheney)
but don't touch Iran or North Korea.
How has he profited? How has it been "therapeutic" for him? And how
was the Middle East NOT a war zone before 9/11 and before the Iraq
invasion?
From the Sunni perspective.
but it's not the moral or most
effective way to combat this enemy.
Or even connected to it.
No, but sending candy and flowers to jihadists doesn't seem to work. We
did that in Kosovo and this is what we got for siding with Islamic
radicals like the KLA.
But will work with Iran.
octinomos
--
``Could it be that ... political theater is being staged, very much like the wrestling matches on TV, with the so-called neoconservatives and their so-called enemies, such as Pat Buchanan, loudly making public statements intended to convince the opponents of US foreign policy actions that these actions are the fault of 'the Jews'?'' --Jared Israel/Emperor's Clothes
.
