Selective Pre-emption

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
comrade, you need to get over your obvious anti-liberal bullshit that completely fogs your dead brain over any rational thought other than to slam liberals.

Otherwise your posts just reek of anti-liberal sentiment and are therefore defunct of logic.

come back to me when you have thought that over.

So you actually have no alternative plan to the specifics we've debated?

How pathetic.

How typical.

See ya!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Comrade
So you actually have no alternative plan to the specifics we've debated?

How pathetic.

How typical.

See ya!

I see that you're not capable of doing anything I suggested either.

pathetic, typical, see ya

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
I see that you're not capable of doing anything I suggested either.

pathetic, typical, see ya

Listen sir, I chose this board for its quality of debate.

You have added nothing to but personal attacks to the postscript and I do indeed consider your input valuable, as do many in this board. Let's refrain from pissing each other off and get back to the subject matter, hey?

 

[DKSuddeth]

comrade, thats what I had attempted to do in the first place but encountered nothing but evasion of the specifics in question by both redirected questions or assumptions of something that had no relevance to the aforementions subject.

I'll be happy to get back to serious debate with you on my lunch break though and would very much like to do so without pissing each other off. things do work best that way.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
comrade, thats what I had attempted to do in the first place but encountered nothing but evasion of the specifics in question by both redirected questions or assumptions of something that had no relevance to the aforementions subject.

I'll be happy to get back to serious debate with you on my lunch break though and would very much like to do so without pissing each other off. things do work best that way.

Right on. So what is the plan, man!?! I'm open to new angles and I'll pick your brain until the cows come home. Just be sure to follow my last debatable points. That's all I humbly ask of you!

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Comrade
Right on. So what is the plan, man!?! I'm open to new angles and I'll pick your brain until the cows come home. Just be sure to follow my last debatable points. That's all I humbly ask of you!

Nothing. F*king shit. Pathetic.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Then where is the grand strategy based on your own liberal view?

when we had the bulk of AQ pinned between Afghanistan and Pakistan we should have pressed the offensive. Not by invading Pakistan, since they are supposed to be an ally, but helping fortify Musharaf's hold with loanable assets. We could have also used that opportunity to solidify the peace between India and Pakistan by helping to mold the alliance in the WOT.

But oil it is my friend.

and yet, at every opportunity, its slammed down as ludicrous.
I refuse to accept that the US initiated the War on Terror solely to marginalize our need for crude out of Saudi.

So why were over 100,000 military personnel deployed for 12 years in an ongoing “containment” policy? Isn’t that a problem?

The 'containment' was designed to protect a portion of Iraq's populace from genocide, or so its believed. It had nothing to do with 'removing US influence' as he was powerless to do so after his defeat in 91.

Just belt that out and expect me to assume you are talking of Iraq or Al-Qeada, right? Specifics matter. The Cold war mattered. The Iranian revolution mattered. But now since such conflicts are no longer a primary US security issue, your second guessing means NOTHING, without context.

As would your assumption that i'm referring to just Iraq and al-qaeda, but we've had this discussion in another thread and it didn't go anywhere other than to show we'll disagree.

Two assassination attempts on him since 9/11 and “right now” I would bet third is most certainly in the making.

and there have been a couple on Karzai since we overthrew the taliban and we're IN that country. I've said all along that we didn't put enough force into Afghanistan and keep it there. The Iraq war, at this particular time, is and always will be a mistake in timing.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
The operative word is "threat." We now know that Bush either exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq or was mistaken about the threat due to inaccurate intelligence. Either way, Three things are clear to all now.

Evidently you do not understand the meaning of pre-emption. At the time we believed Iraq was a threat, and we acted. That is what is called pre-emption. Pre-emption is not about acting on information one is going to know in the future.

At any rate, Dr. Kay has stated that not only was Iraq a threat, it was a greater threat than we had suspected, and that Iraq continued to maintain WMD programs. I'm sick of re-posting Dr. Kay's Senate Armed Service Committee testimony for every ignorant liberal newb who comes to this board so you can find it yourself.

One. Iraq did not represent a "real and immediate danger" to the US at the time of the invasion.

See above.

The most fundamental responsibility of the President is to "protect and defend" the US. Not bring democracy to Iraq. Bush fought the wrong war against the wrong enemy. Worse, invading Iraq was the best thing that could have happened to al-Qaeda.

The President believes that terrorism is a symptom inherent to current condition of the Islamic world, and believes that by helping to cultivate democracy in it's heart, terrorism will abate and the United States will be safer. To this end, the President has shown a monumental amount of leadership. Far more than we had in the previous administration.

Al-Qaeda fears our success in Iraq. It is ignorant to believe otherwise.

 

[DKSuddeth]

The problem you face with pre-emption is having to prove you're right afterwards. You war stompers discounted dozens of people until you heard what you wanted to hear, THEN it was all fine and fucking dandy with you.

Kay's words aren't good enough, show the proof of WMD's. NOT programs.

The President believes that terrorism is a symptom inherent to current condition of the Islamic world, and believes that by helping to cultivate democracy in it's heart, terrorism will abate and the United States will be safer.

He also believes his scientists are smarter than half the free world when it comes to global warming, does that make him right?

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
The problem you face with pre-emption is having to prove you're right afterwards.

Nonsense. After going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1998 should Clinton have been forced to prove they were going to knock down WTC 1 and 2 three years later? Of course not. I promise you I would have applauded any action Clinton took against terrorists who had declared war against us.

You war stompers discounted dozens of people until you heard what you wanted to hear

Who thought Saddam wasn't a threat before 2002? Not Clinton, Kerry, or Albright.

Kay's words aren't good enough, show the proof of WMD's. NOT programs.

Perhaps not good enough for you, but it's enough for me. He continued programs to develop biological and chemical weapons and he supported and interacted with various terrorist groups. He was an avowed enemy of our country. Why is it neccessary for thousands of people to be gassed before you can just say, "you know what? saddam fucking sucks, let's get rid of him."

does that make him right?

In this instance, only history will tell for sure. I believe he will be vindicated years from now.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Nonsense. After going after al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in 1998 should Clinton have been forced to prove they were going to knock down WTC 1 and 2 three years later?

was that not in response to several terrorist attacks? and you dodge the issue anyway. Pre-emption was written after 9/11 to go after terrorists and the nations that harbored or supported them. It was claimed that Iraq had WMD's that could then be transferred to terrorists who wish to do harm to the US. WMD's were stressed more often than me having to tell my stepkids to stop fighting or to do their chores. So pre-emption was used to invade a country who had supposed ties to terrorism and WMD's. Every speech that came from the administration led the majority of americans to believe that hussein had a near direct hand in 9/11 as evidenced by a poll sometime last year.

Why do you think theres a credibility issue now with the WMD statement?

Who thought Saddam wasn't a threat before 2002? Not Clinton, Kerry, or Albright.

apparently alot of people did, but we were all wrong, were we not? If we're wrong then pre-emption was just proven to be a flawed directive.

Perhaps not good enough for you, but it's enough for me.

great, but is your opinion worth more than mine? I think not. Bush and his admin pushed the WMD issue to scare the bejesus out of most of america to garner support for his little foray into Iraq and callled those of us who objected 'a focus group'. He was wrong, his admin was wrong, and his intelligence was wrong but he doesn't care to fix it, he is only interested in misdirection so as to avoid having to claim responsibility for any of it.

Why is it neccessary for thousands of people to be gassed before you can just say, "you know what? saddam fucking sucks, let's get rid of him."

newsflash for you, Iraq was not our country. Do we have the right to tell other countries how they should be run? and if so, do those other countries then have the right to tell us how we should run ours? Those who think that might makes right are doomed to also die by the sword, what really sucks about that is you're ignorant enough to take the rest of us with your sorry asses.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
was that not in response to several terrorist attacks? and you dodge the issue anyway. Pre-emption was written after 9/11 to go after terrorists and the nations that harbored or supported them. It was claimed that Iraq had WMD's that could then be transferred to terrorists who wish to do harm to the US.

First of all, Iraq did harbor and support terrorists. Second of all, you are only concerned about stockpiles. For some reason, the fact that Saddam continued efforts to advance his chemical/biological weapons programs doesn't bother you. How difficult would it be to pass along a biological sample no bigger than a petri dish to some terrorist? How difficult would it be to destroy that petri dish?

apparently alot of people did, but we were all wrong, were we not?

That's difficult to answer, and it's why the administration has not. Perhaps they are buried in the desert, perhaps they are in Syria. I personally doubt he destroyed them, and chose not to tell anyone.

but is your opinion worth more than mine?

No, nor is yours worth more than mine.

his intelligence was wrong but he doesn't care to fix it

How do you know he isn't take steps to fix it? I doubt very seriously he is completely ignoring the embarrassment caused him by intelligence failures.

Do we have the right to tell other countries how they should be run? and if so, do those other countries then have the right to tell us how we should run ours?

We can, and they do.

Those who think that might makes right are doomed to also die by the sword, what really sucks about that is you're ignorant enough to take the rest of us with your sorry asses.

Might does not make right, but it provides the ability to enforce one's desires. I believe we are right, and I'm thankfull of our might.

 

[DKSuddeth]

That's difficult to answer, and it's why the administration has not. Perhaps they are buried in the desert, perhaps they are in Syria. I personally doubt he destroyed them, and chose not to tell anyone.

so is kay lying or telling the truth?

Might does not make right, but it provides the ability to enforce one's desires. I believe we are right, and I'm thankfull of our might.

so said egypt, so said rome, so said greece, so said britain.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so is kay lying or telling the truth?

Kay doesn't believe we'll find stockpiles in Iraq. He has also stated that many documents concerning Iraq's WMD programs were frantically destroyed as US troops approached Baghdad.

so said egypt, so said rome, so said greece, so said britain.

We are part of history, not seperate from it. We must do what we feel is best for the survival of our country. Stemming the growing violence and hatred endemic to the Middle East now, before it get's anymore out of hand, is the only sane course of action. To leave these coutries alone to develop terrible weapons while dominating their citizens and indoctrinating them to hate us is the most dangerous and insane thing we could do.

Will it work? I don't know, but we don't have much of a choice. It's fight or wait to die.

 

[Avatar4321]

Kay's words aren't good enough, show the proof of WMD's. NOT programs.

I dont know what your thinking, but id rather not see the WMDs. if we listened to the libs and waited to see the WMD before we acted, Saddam and Al Queda would have shown us the WMD alright. In New York, Los Angeles, San Fran, Atlanta, Washington, Philadelphia etc.

Besides, like the President, i think we should deal with regimes that have weapons programs before they obtain WMD.

 

[Avatar4321]

newsflash for you, Iraq was not our country. Do we have the right to tell other countries how they should be run? and if so, do those other countries then have the right to tell us how we should run ours? Those who think that might makes right are doomed to also die by the sword, what really sucks about that is you're ignorant enough to take the rest of us with your sorry asses.

What kind of twisted logic is this? Should we have let Hitler take control of Europe. After all its not America, who cares if he gas millions or even billions. We have no right to tell them how to run their country.

There are two things you have to ignore to believe what your saying 1)We have no interest in the lives of our fellow man. 2)Iraqis had any control over how their country was run under Saddam. I mean hello! He was a dictator. The Iraqis didnt get together one day and say "Hey lets elect that Saddam guy as dictator, i like what he is saying about gassing other Iraqis and those who disagree with him" One of the main reasons we are in Iraq is so that the Iraqis will have a say in how their government is run.

As for living and dying by the sword. You are right. Saddam lived by the sword, and he will die by it. So will the rest of Al Queda. We wouldnt hunt them if they would leave us alone. But we cannot appease them now and expect to survive.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
I dont know what your thinking, but id rather not see the WMDs. if we listened to the libs and waited to see the WMD before we acted, Saddam and Al Queda would have shown us the WMD alright. In New York, Los Angeles, San Fran, Atlanta, Washington, Philadelphia etc.

Besides, like the President, i think we should deal with regimes that have weapons programs before they obtain WMD.

how the fuck were we going to see them in our cities if he didn't have them anymore?

What kind of twisted logic is this? Should we have let Hitler take control of Europe. After all its not America, who cares if he gas millions or even billions. We have no right to tell them how to run their country.

how the hell can you compare those two? nazi germany was already occupying several countries whereas we had already ran hussein out of kuwait.

the rest of your post is pretty much drivel.

 

[gaffer]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Many times over, Iraq was stated as a grave threat to america, its interests, and its allies.



That would be YOUR opinion, but not others. Its certainly not mine. when we invaded afghanistan we should have pressed pakistan and cornered the bastards there. what we have now is a hodgepodge of border jumpers to deal with and thats making security in afghanistan and pakistan worse. To top it all off, we're now experiencing an increase of terrorism in our northern ally, uzbekistan.



Its loaded with american military personnel, aka targets. This is how we lost vietnam, the slow attrition of our soldiers.

In the Tet Offensive of 1968, the Viet Cong were vertually eliminated. North Vietnam was looking at holding peace talks. They had lost everything in one big gamble. Tehn came Walter Cronkite and the rest of the liberal news media declaring the war was lost. The North Vietnamese were stunned and decided to continue the fight. The protestors and the media in the USA won the war for them. Not a slow attrition of soldiers.

The war in Iraq was big news and the media was carrying that exclusively. What wasn't noticed was that there was still a war going on in Afganistan. The al quada and taliban forces slipped into Pakistan which wouldn't allow our pursuit. They would sneak back over the border to attack and then run back into Pakistan. Shades of Cambodia where have we seen that strategy before?

You also failed to note the terror camps being run in northern Iraq that saddam either allowed to be there or was powerless to stop. Thats stilll undetermined. Also he had training camps with airliners that the terrorists used to practice hijacking planes. There is a wealth of information still coming out of Iraq.

Why were the four civilians killed and filmed being hung from a bridge. To get the liberal media here to show it and get everyone outraged and wanting us to pull out so the former saddam monsters could return to power. Its the Vietnam strategy. Use our media to influence opinion.