2000 - Now dead

[theHawk]

But dude, we're not fighting terrorism anymore. We started-off fighting terrorist networks in Afghanistan and then we invaded Iraq. Now we're fighting ethnic Sunnis with a few terrorists sprinkled in who came to Iraq from other countries.

How many times do we have to go through this? Yes Afghanistan was about terrorists, Iraq was about removing a dictator that repeatedly broke cease fire agreements and appeared to be in pursuit of WMD. You are right about us not fighting the same war that we started in Iraq. In trying to set up a democracy in Iraq after the fall of Saddam, the terrorists brought a new war into Iraq, using racism and other right wing extremists methods to recruit people to blow shit up with car bombs. Sunni, Iranian, Jordanian, or Jamaican, these cowards are terrorists. To say that we are not fighting terrorism is at this point in Iraq is absurd. What do you call people who blow up children and police on purpose?

Nations such as Iran and Saudi Arabia are much more involved with terrorist groups than Iraq ever was, so why didn't we invade them? Or better yet, why invade a country when it is the terrorist cells you are after in the first place? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, there are major problems in Saudi Arabia such as their schools that teach their children to hate Jews and Americans. But the Saudi government does not have recent history of raping and pillaging its neighbors. Saudi is one fucked up country that does barbaric shit like public executions but I don't think all out war is the answer to that. I know that must shock you since we're supposed to be war-mongers, sorry to disappoint.

I think other actions could have been taken to fight terrorism that would not have resulted in a war with Sunni Arabs and the deaths of 2000+ Americans and an un-countable number of Iraqi men, women and children.

Elaborate please. Specifically what actions? You'd rather us not had invaded? Still patrolling a decade's old No Fly Zone with the Iraqis engaging our planes every other day? Still not able to freely inspect any site when we wanted and not knowing if Saddam was hiding something? Elaborate on all pros and cons.

Would it have mattered to you if you thought the cause was not righteous? Or would you have just accepted your possible fate and not questioned your leader's motives?

Well if the soldiers didn't feel the cause was a just one, why would the re-enlistment rate be so high?
What would matter to me is that if I had gone over there and died, I would certainly not want to be used as a NUMBER for some chickenshit attention whore to protest what I was doing.

 

[manu1959]

How many times do we have to go through this? Yes Afghanistan was about terrorists, Iraq was about removing a dictator that repeatedly broke cease fire agreements and appeared to be in pursuit of WMD. You are right about us not fighting the same war that we started in Iraq. In trying to set up a democracy in Iraq after the fall of Saddam, the terrorists brought a new war into Iraq, using racism and other right wing extremists methods to recruit people to blow shit up with car bombs. Sunni, Iranian, Jordanian, or Jamaican, these cowards are terrorists. To say that we are not fighting terrorism is at this point in Iraq is absurd. What do you call people who blow up children and police on purpose?

Yes, there are major problems in Saudi Arabia such as their schools that teach their children to hate Jews and Americans. But the Saudi government does not have recent history of raping and pillaging its neighbors. Saudi is one fucked up country that does barbaric shit like public executions but I don't think all out war is the answer to that. I know that must shock you since we're supposed to be war-mongers, sorry to disappoint.


Elaborate please. Specifically what actions? You'd rather us not had invaded? Still patrolling a decade's old No Fly Zone with the Iraqis engaging our planes every other day? Still not able to freely inspect any site when we wanted and not knowing if Saddam was hiding something? Elaborate on all pros and cons.

Well if the soldiers didn't feel the cause was a just one, why would the re-enlistment rate be so high?
What would matter to me is that if I had gone over there and died, I would certainly not want to be used as a NUMBER for some chickenshit attention whore to protest what I was doing.

what a great post......

 

[insein]

You'll have to excuse me for having other stuff to do.

But, I do find your evidence laughable at best.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-09-08-powell-iraq_x.htm
He later retracted his statements and issued an apology for his presentation to the UN.
"I'm the one who presented it to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It is painful now,"
He said he had never seen a connection between Baghdad and the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. "I can't think otherwise, because I'd never seen evidence to suggest there was one," he said.

LOL. You're using evidence that has been apologized for.

So you sat there last night, read the whole post for 25 minutes and then disappeared only to bring this up now? You could have typed this last night. IT still doesnt refute the evidence presented. Just because Mr. Powell believes the evidence he presented was incomplete does not refute its nature.

I like how you presented Mr. powell's apology as a refution for his statements at the UN. If you would read before you spew, you'd have understood the quote. He had never seen evidence that there was a connection between IRaq and the attacks on 9/11. This is true. Most of the evidence that is brought on a DIRECT connection has not been proven, such as Saddam's personal files that detail a meeting between Al Queda members in Iraq for an undisclosed purpose which at the time were not available to Mr. Powell since this was pre-invasion. However, Mr Powell never refutes that Al Queda and Iraq never had any dealings with one another. He is careful to word his response as such.

Now i am sad because i was hoping that since it took you all day to respond you would have come up with a compelling argument. Instead you grabbed a quick headline and figured thatd be that. Again, how disappointing.

 

[Max Power]

So you sat there last night, read the whole post for 25 minutes and then disappeared only to bring this up now?

Again, I had something more important to do than argue on the internet - I'm sorry that you can't relate to that.

You could have typed this last night. IT still doesnt refute the evidence presented. Just because Mr. Powell believes the evidence he presented was incomplete does not refute its nature.

Well, in his words, it refutes exactly how "solid" the evidence was.

I like how you presented Mr. powell's apology as a refution for his statements at the UN. If you would read before you spew, you'd have understood the quote. He had never seen evidence that there was a connection between IRaq and the attacks on 9/11. This is true. Most of the evidence that is brought on a DIRECT connection has not been proven, such as Saddam's personal files that detail a meeting between Al Queda members in Iraq for an undisclosed purpose which at the time were not available to Mr. Powell since this was pre-invasion. However, Mr Powell never refutes that Al Queda and Iraq never had any dealings with one another. He is careful to word his response as such.

Now i am sad because i was hoping that since it took you all day to respond you would have come up with a compelling argument. Instead you grabbed a quick headline and figured thatd be that. Again, how disappointing.

IIRC, Bin Laden contacted Saddam, and Saddam never returned the contact. In fact, remember the whole "9-11 commission?" Yeah. That's what they said. If you'd rather believe some partisan nonsense that includes since-refuted evidence that was presented to justify a war, then be my guest. I'm guessing that the Bin Laden-Hussein evidence you want is hidden on the North Pole with Saddam's WMD's, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.

 

[insein]

Again, I had something more important to do than argue on the internet - I'm sorry that you can't relate to that.


Well, in his words, it refutes exactly how "solid" the evidence was.


IIRC, Bin Laden contacted Saddam, and Saddam never returned the contact. In fact, remember the whole "9-11 commission?" Yeah. That's what they said. If you'd rather believe some partisan nonsense that includes since-refuted evidence that was presented to justify a war, then be my guest. I'm guessing that the Bin Laden-Hussein evidence you want is hidden on the North Pole with Saddam's WMD's, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny.

If you want the WMD's goto syria, jordan, turkey even possibly europe. Just ask the UN.

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323

UN Confirms: WMDs Smuggled Out of Iraq

In a report which might alternately be termed “stunning” or “terrifying”, United Nations weapons inspectors confirmed last week not merely that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but that he smuggled them out of his country, before, during and after the war.

Late last week, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) briefed the Security Council on Saddam's lightning-fast dismantling of missile and WMD sites before and during the war. UNMOVIC executive chairman Demetrius Perricos detailed not only the export of thousands of tons of missile components, nuclear reactor vessels and fermenters for chemical and biological warheads, but also the discovery of many (but not most) of these items - with UN inspection tags still on them -- as far afield as Jordan, Turkey and even Holland.

Notably absent from that list is Iraq's western neighbor Syria, ruled by its own Baath Party just like Saddam's and closed to even the thought of an UNMOVIC inspection. Israeli intelligence has been reporting the large-scale smuggling of Saddam's WMD program across the Syrian border since at least two months before the war. Syria has long been the world's foremost state-sponsor of terrorism.

But of course im sure the UN is lieing as well.

As for your precious farse of a 9/11 commission, even they found a connection. ITs a PDF, so make sure you have Adobe if you wish to read it.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

9/11 Report page 61

"...In 2001, with Bin Ladin’s help, they reformed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may have even helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
With the Sudanese regime acting as an intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space involving training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to that request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections."

Pretty much speaks for itself. The 9/11 Commission was a politcal hack squad that was designed to harm an incumbant president during an election year. Even with that, they provide a connection between Bin Ladin and Iraq.

 

[Max Power]

If you want the WMD's goto syria, jordan, turkey even possibly europe. Just ask the UN.

http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/columns/040618.shtml?ID=13323
But of course im sure the UN is lieing as well.

WTF is thevanguard.org and why should I believe them?

there is no evidence that Iraq responded to that request

As Even with that, they provide a connection between Bin Ladin and Iraq.

You forget your reading glasses? There is no evidence that Iraq responded to their request.
So if I leave a message for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he never responds, does that mean that there's a connection between us? Are we best friends?

 

[Annie]

WTF is thevanguard.org and why should I believe them?


You forget your reading glasses? There is no evidence that Iraq responded to their request.
So if I leave a message for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he never responds, does that mean that there's a connection between us? Are we best friends?

Vanguard is usually used by the far right, that is usually in line with those that oppose Israel and the WOT, but perhaps this will strike you better:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...htm+UNMOVIC+baath+2004&hl=en&client=firefox-a

 

[insein]

WTF is thevanguard.org and why should I believe them?

Kathy handled that one.

You forget your reading glasses? There is no evidence that Iraq responded to their request.
So if I leave a message for Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he never responds, does that mean that there's a connection between us? Are we best friends?

I had a feeling you'd jump on that little tidbit. ITs not about leaving a message. ITs about having a meeting to discuss camps, weapons and collaboration. Just because we didnt see what happened afterwards doesnt mean it didnt happen. But i guess your willing to give the benefit of the doubt to 2 mass murderers who have made it know to the world that they hate America. Thats good for you but im glad that our president didnt.

 

[Max Power]

Kathy handled that one.

I don't buy it. If it were really true, Bush would have plastered banners everywhere saying "We found them," but he hasn't. I'd guess that the source for most of that information is the thoroughly discredited Jack Shaw. He was behind the WashTimes article on the same.

I had a feeling you'd jump on that little tidbit. ITs not about leaving a message. ITs about having a meeting to discuss camps, weapons and collaboration. Just because we didnt see what happened afterwards doesnt mean it didnt happen. But i guess your willing to give the benefit of the doubt to 2 mass murderers who have made it know to the world that they hate America. Thats good for you but im glad that our president didnt.

Right. Eight years (2003) after Bin Laden had contacted Iraq regarding training camps, nobody had yet responded. That's some great collaboration there.

Saddam posed absolutely no threat to the U.S. He wasn't retarded, he knew, just as you and I know, that if he ever blew up a chemical weapon in NY or DC (assuming that he HAD such weapons), that his regime would fall faster than George Bush can say "nucular." It's a policy known as deterrence.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I agree it is crazy. 1000/year is probably one of the least deadly wars in history.

1000 a year is a 1000 to many for a war that didn't need to be fought.

 

[Annie]

I don't buy it. If it were really true, Bush would have plastered banners everywhere saying "We found them," but he hasn't. I'd guess that the source for most of that information is the thoroughly discredited Jack Shaw. He was behind the WashTimes article on the same.


Right. Eight years (2003) after Bin Laden had contacted Iraq regarding training camps, nobody had yet responded. That's some great collaboration there.

Saddam posed absolutely no threat to the U.S. He wasn't retarded, he knew, just as you and I know, that if he ever blew up a chemical weapon in NY or DC (assuming that he HAD such weapons), that his regime would fall faster than George Bush can say "nucular." It's a policy known as deterrence.

Saddam's backing of those that wanted to hurt US and Israel was real. As for the first issue, why don't you search, since you refuse to keep an open mind? What's really funny, the libs 'call out' sources, others are provided, then they say, Fook that! On the other hand, when their sites are questioned, the first thing they say is 'you are calling us 'unamerican'!'

You do have it down to a science. But don't worry, from what I'm seeing of this administration, they are willing to play YOUR game...

 

[manu1959]

1000 a year is a 1000 to many for a war that didn't need to be fought.

no one needs to drive their car yet thousands die every year......there has never been a war that needed to be fought

 

[SpidermanTuba]

no one needs to drive their car yet thousands die every year.....

Yeah, they do. You see, most people don't live within walking distance from where they work, and many don't have good public transit - hence making a car a neccessity.





No invasion of another nation which was not at war was ever neccessary, that's for sure. Hitlers invasion of Poland, Sudetenland - not needed. Japans invasion of China - not needed. The Greeks seige of Troy - definitely not needed. Bush's invasion of Iraq - not needed. Unless of course your goal is conquest and empire.

 

[manu1959]

Yeah, they do. You see, most people don't live within walking distance from where they work, and many don't have good public transit - hence making a car a neccessity.

No invasion of another nation which was not at war was ever neccessary, that's for sure. Hitlers invasion of Poland, Sudetenland - not needed. Japans invasion of China - not needed. The Greeks seige of Troy - definitely not needed. Bush's invasion of Iraq - not needed. Unless of course your goal is conquest and empire.

the coose to work far from home and they choose to drive a car.....

how about england's invasion of germany?

if you are attacked first is it ok to retailate?

if one of your friends is attacked is it ok to help them and retaliate on their behalf?

 

[Max Power]

there has never been a war that needed to be fought

Every war of defense...

 

[insein]

Every war of defense...

So not WW2 then? I mean Germany never attacked us. Japan did so that was justified but Germany never attacked us. Who were we to invade their lands?

 

[Annie]

So not WW2 then? I mean Germany never attacked us. Japan did so that was justified but Germany never attacked us. Who were we to invade their lands?

Hitler was not 'gunning' for US, then, but he declared war on US, not the other way around:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...'s+plans+United+States&hl=en&client=firefox-a

...Hitler believed that he would eventually be forced to fight the United States but he wanted to make sure that he controlled Europe before that happened. He gave strict instructions that German submarines should avoid firing on ships that were likely to be carrying American passengers. He also attempted to persuade his Japanese allies to attack the Soviet Union and to leave the United States alone. They ignored Hitler's advice and on December 7, 1941, the Japanese Air Force attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the United States.

Hitler, who had not been told of Japanese plans, was furious at first that the United States had been dragged into the war. Hitler, who had previously called the Japanese "honorary Aryans" claimed that this is what happens what your allies are not Anglo-Saxons.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared war on Japan but did not mention Germany in his speech. It was still possible for Hitler to postpone the war with the United States but he decided to honour his treaty obligations with Japan, and on December 11 announced that Germany was at war with the United States. Once again he became a victim of his own prejudice. Hitler claimed that America had been "corrupted by Jewish and African blood" and would be no match for Aryans.

 

[insein]

Hitler was not 'gunning' for US, then, but he declared war on US, not the other way around:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache...'s+plans+United+States&hl=en&client=firefox-a

Well i mean Bin Ladin declared war on us for decade and we never responded so what does that mean, lol.

Hitler never attacked us. Sure he declared war on us but he never attacked us. Their werent any links between hi mand Japan. He was an ok guy to his people. We should have just left him alone. :blah2:

 

[Annie]

Well i mean Bin Ladin declared war on us for decade and we never responded so what does that mean, lol.

Hitler never attacked us. Sure he declared war on us but he never attacked us. Their werent any links between hi mand Japan. He was an ok guy to his people. We should have just left him alone. :blah2:

IMHO it means that we did ignore bin Laden through the 90's. It brought us 9/11. We as a country, not necessarily FDR, ignored Hitler or laughed him off, to our own peril.

 

[Annie]

Well i mean Bin Ladin declared war on us for decade and we never responded so what does that mean, lol.

Hitler never attacked us. Sure he declared war on us but he never attacked us. Their werent any links between hi mand Japan. He was an ok guy to his people. We should have just left him alone. :blah2:

Can't rep this...but I would...