mickydoolittle
Nov 17th, 2004, 8:59 PM
removed for numerous reasons, number one being that MD "is not wanted around here".
View Full Version : Wonders never cease....where will the trail lead next?
Bigsky770
Nov 17th, 2004, 9:29 PM
:2thumbs: . . .Only thing left to say is THANK *GOD* it wasn't a news-item from "Newsmax" (or) "Fox". . .Then Who woulda believed it?
Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
VegasRonin
Nov 17th, 2004, 10:43 PM
. . .Only thing left to say is THANK *GOD* it wasn't a news-item from "Newsmax" (or) "Fox". . .Then Who woulda believed it? Uh, sorry Joe but I saw the story on Fox News last night. :smokin: Still believe it though.
humanhybrid
Nov 17th, 2004, 11:12 PM
YA YA! What was it that drew the UN to place sanctions on Saddam? It wasnt all those WMD was it! hahahahahah good day!
playmaker88
Nov 18th, 2004, 2:36 AM
All those lives for all that money...Isn't that pretty much what everyone's been saying all along?
Bigsky770
Nov 18th, 2004, 9:19 PM
. . .You are correct in your assertion, for I was referring to *YOUR* link (which showed it to be from CNN) I didn't check to see whether "Fox" was running the story as well. Shoulda figured *SOMEONE* would check-into that! Ah well, all the same, great post Micky! :D
No harm done. . .Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
No harm done. . .Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:
MetalMilitia
Nov 19th, 2004, 5:43 AM
Saddam Hussein's regime made more than $21.3 billion in illegal revenue by subverting the U.N. oil-for-food program -- more than double previous estimates, according to congressional investigators.
Ok,
...and you haters all claim the war was for nothing and illegal...
Im gonna just keep bashing your heads 'til you get it.
-no ties to 9/11. OBL, the one that perpetrated it, still hasnt been brought to justice.
-No WMD'd - no stock piles of any kinda EVER found. The found what, a few SARIN warheads that we SOLD to them in the 80's? Whew... that was a close one.
-no direct ties to al-quaida or the ones behind 911.
Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no 'smoking gun [or] concrete evidence' of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
This is UN corruption, and I can understand why some of the members in the UN were against the invasion, but it's hardly justifibale, or even CLOSE to the ACTUAL reasons we cited for going into Iraq. I'm sure every US politician has earned every cent of his money fair and sqaure... haha... keep digging, cause I know it bugs you to be wrong.
Iran is next - ka-fuckin-boom.
Ok,
...and you haters all claim the war was for nothing and illegal...
Im gonna just keep bashing your heads 'til you get it.
-no ties to 9/11. OBL, the one that perpetrated it, still hasnt been brought to justice.
-No WMD'd - no stock piles of any kinda EVER found. The found what, a few SARIN warheads that we SOLD to them in the 80's? Whew... that was a close one.
-no direct ties to al-quaida or the ones behind 911.
Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no 'smoking gun [or] concrete evidence' of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
This is UN corruption, and I can understand why some of the members in the UN were against the invasion, but it's hardly justifibale, or even CLOSE to the ACTUAL reasons we cited for going into Iraq. I'm sure every US politician has earned every cent of his money fair and sqaure... haha... keep digging, cause I know it bugs you to be wrong.
Iran is next - ka-fuckin-boom.
substand
Nov 23rd, 2004, 7:26 PM
Im gonna just keep bashing your heads 'til you get it.
Saddam's regime was in violation of resolutions that ended gulf war 1 and that "delayed" the start of gulf war 2.
No ties to 9/11? irrelevant.
No WMD? irrelevant.
What is relevant is that war was legal and justified- legally as well as strategically.
Just because a link between Saddam and 9/11 has not been found (nor asserted) does not diminish the fact that this is NOT a war on al qaeda. It is a war on terrorism, and Iraq was known to harbor and help terrorists, regardless of which group of terrorists they harbored.
What was it that drew the UN to place sanctions on Saddam? It wasnt all those WMD was it!
As a matter of fact, it was wmd and his invasion of kuwait, retard.
Saddam's regime was in violation of resolutions that ended gulf war 1 and that "delayed" the start of gulf war 2.
No ties to 9/11? irrelevant.
No WMD? irrelevant.
What is relevant is that war was legal and justified- legally as well as strategically.
Just because a link between Saddam and 9/11 has not been found (nor asserted) does not diminish the fact that this is NOT a war on al qaeda. It is a war on terrorism, and Iraq was known to harbor and help terrorists, regardless of which group of terrorists they harbored.
What was it that drew the UN to place sanctions on Saddam? It wasnt all those WMD was it!
As a matter of fact, it was wmd and his invasion of kuwait, retard.
MetalMilitia
Nov 23rd, 2004, 8:30 PM
It is a war on terrorism, and Iraq was known to harbor and help terrorists, regardless of which group of terrorists they harbored.
This "Al Quada" you speak of "operates" in over 60 countries. Ya wanna bomb em all and sort it out later, or would you like to capture kill the people that ACTUALLY ATTACKED US before we go off on another crusade? That's right, the Bush doctrine lays out this policy doesn't it?
Yes, the Bush doctrine. Holding regimes that harbor terrorists to account. The doctrine, of course, also carries the Bush asterisk, which simply states "doctrine not valid in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria and..."
Saddam's regime was in violation of resolutions that ended gulf war 1 and that "delayed" the start of gulf war 2.
By the way, The most extensive violator of Security Council resolutions is Israel - but remember, Im just a big 'ol nasty anti-semite.
This "Al Quada" you speak of "operates" in over 60 countries. Ya wanna bomb em all and sort it out later, or would you like to capture kill the people that ACTUALLY ATTACKED US before we go off on another crusade? That's right, the Bush doctrine lays out this policy doesn't it?
Yes, the Bush doctrine. Holding regimes that harbor terrorists to account. The doctrine, of course, also carries the Bush asterisk, which simply states "doctrine not valid in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria and..."
Saddam's regime was in violation of resolutions that ended gulf war 1 and that "delayed" the start of gulf war 2.
By the way, The most extensive violator of Security Council resolutions is Israel - but remember, Im just a big 'ol nasty anti-semite.
substand
Nov 23rd, 2004, 9:17 PM
This "Al Quada" you speak of "operates" in over 60 countries. Ya wanna bomb em all and sort it out later, or would you like to capture kill the people that ACTUALLY ATTACKED US before we go off on another crusade? That's right, the Bush doctrine lays out this policy doesn't it?
Yes, the Bush doctrine. Holding regimes that harbor terrorists to account. The doctrine, of course, also carries the Bush asterisk, which simply states "doctrine not valid in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria and..."
I dont want to bomb them all. They operate within our own country. There is a big difference between "operates in" and "is supported by," however. So I would not bomb all the countries they operate in, but I would like to do so to all those who support or harbor them.
I would like to capture and kill people who have actually attacked us and those terrorists who have yet to, and those others who have done so and who don't belong to al qaeda.
About all the other countries- we cannot be EVERYWHERE, no matter how much we'd like to. So we start militarily and diplomatically with those that are strategically important and legally/politically viable. Taliban and Saddam's govt was everything we hated in a regime, plus it was viable in all ways, so we start there. Others we will work diplomatically until we can get no further with them. Then we may start militarily, who knows.
By the way, The most extensive violator of Security Council resolutions is Israel - but remember, Im just a big 'ol nasty anti-semite.
Not only is it irrelevant to the discussion on Iraq, none of those resolutions were binding, and he was sugguesting that there was no reason for the santions in the first place.
Yes, the Bush doctrine. Holding regimes that harbor terrorists to account. The doctrine, of course, also carries the Bush asterisk, which simply states "doctrine not valid in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria and..."
I dont want to bomb them all. They operate within our own country. There is a big difference between "operates in" and "is supported by," however. So I would not bomb all the countries they operate in, but I would like to do so to all those who support or harbor them.
I would like to capture and kill people who have actually attacked us and those terrorists who have yet to, and those others who have done so and who don't belong to al qaeda.
About all the other countries- we cannot be EVERYWHERE, no matter how much we'd like to. So we start militarily and diplomatically with those that are strategically important and legally/politically viable. Taliban and Saddam's govt was everything we hated in a regime, plus it was viable in all ways, so we start there. Others we will work diplomatically until we can get no further with them. Then we may start militarily, who knows.
By the way, The most extensive violator of Security Council resolutions is Israel - but remember, Im just a big 'ol nasty anti-semite.
Not only is it irrelevant to the discussion on Iraq, none of those resolutions were binding, and he was sugguesting that there was no reason for the santions in the first place.
hotcher
Nov 24th, 2004, 12:58 AM
http://tvnewslies.org/html/george_w__bush_-_world_s_leadi.html
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - US Federal Bureau of Investigation
Read the sentence carefully. You didn’t hear it on any corporate media newscast since 9/11. It’s the official US FBI definition of terrorism. In its official definition, the FBI does not limit terrorism to stateless individuals or groups. In its official definition, the FBI does not suggest that terrorism cannot be perpetrated by the leader of a nation state. But even more amazing is that the official FBI definition of terrorism describes exactly what George Bush did in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11!
APPLYING THE DEFINITION
George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.
The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.
The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership. These motives were unquestionably political and social.
So, what part of the FBI definition of “terrorism” do the voters of the United States not understand? And what acts of terrorism as defined by the FBI do the voters of the United States not recognize? Is there any doubt at all that the Bush administration committed acts of terrorism when it unlawfully used force and violence against the nation of Iraq to intimidate and coerce its government and the civilian population, in furtherance of the Bush/PNAC political and social objectives.
Therefore, by any definition, if George W. Bush is guilty of terrorism, he can accurately be identified as a TERRORIST. And if he is truly a terrorist, it is only fitting that George W. Bush be scrutinized in terms of his success in that capacity. What is his standing among the other murderous terrorist activity in the world today? Is it possible that George W. Bush actually has claim to being the very BEST at something during his reign in office? Let’s look at the figures.
THE CONTEST
EVERYONE ELSE: Despite the protestations of George W. Bush to the contrary, we are NOT safer now by any stretch of the imagination. According to an NBC report at the beginning of September, 2004, there were roughly 2,929 terrorism related deaths around the world since the 9/11 attacks. Of these, 58 per cent of them – 1,709 – occurred in 2004 - this year!
Repeat: The total number of deaths in the entire world at the hands of terrorists since George W. Bush declared a War on Terror, amounts to around 3,000. Add the terrible losses in the United States on that fateful morning of September 11th, and we reach somewhere in the vicinity of 6,000 precious, innocent lives. Again: In only three years, terrorists around the world took the lives of approximately six thousand people.
GEORGE W. BUSH: In pursuit of his arrogant and PNAC-driven political and social objectives in Iraq, George W. Bush has the blood of thousands of innocent civilians on his hands. To cover his guilt, early in the war, the US government ordered the Iraqi Ministry of Health to stop counting civilian deaths, and forbade them from releasing any totals previously gathered. The image of a surgical war, dominated by smart bombs and resulting in very few civilian casualties was televised to the American public throughout the hostilities.
As a result, the number of civilian casualties in Iraq is probably vastly under-estimated. According to Human Rights Watch, many of the civilian deaths were the direct result of weapons that should never have been used in populated areas. Among these were nearly 2 million submunitions which fail to explode immediately and killed people long after the initial conflict had ended. In addition, the strategy of decapitation bombing killed many civilians while it failed to kill a single Iraqi military leader in 50 attempts.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, civilian losses in Iraq have been severe. They used the research results of a group of British and Americans who surveyed media reports of casualties as well as eyewitness accounts to conclude that between 8,789 and 10,638 Iraqi civilians have died since war began March 19, 2003. That puts George Bush in the lead for most successful terrorist, big time.
As of September, 2004, IraqBodyCount.net placed the Iraqi civilian death total at a minimum of 11,793 and a maximum of 13,802. On September 8th, 2004 the AP reported that no official, reliable figures existed for the whole country, but private estimates ranged from 10,000 to 30,000 killed since the United States invaded in March 2003. Whatever count you accept, George W. Bush wins, big time.
If we go with the lowball figure, - the very least estimate of Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of the unlawful invasion and occupation of the country, George W. Bush still wins the title of the LEADING TERRORIST alive today, big time.
If we go with the lowest estimate, then the number 8,789 stands for the total civilian deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq in LESS THAN A YEAR AND A HALF. Contrast that number to the 6,000 deaths caused AROUND THE WORLD in THREE YEARS, by other terrorists. No matter how you look at it, George W. Bush wins, big time.
And that doesn’t include the estimated 3,485 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, - the country to which we sent only 11,000 troops to fight the Taliban. George W. Bush claimed victory in Iraq in his acceptance speech. What utter nonsense. The country is dangerous and explosive, and in the hands of the same warlords and Taliban chieftains who ruled before 9/11. Revisionist history by this administration is never challenged by the media. The list of Big Lies prevails.
And it doesn’t include the military deaths on all sides, or the kidnappings, or the contractor deaths or the wounded or the dying. It doesn’t count the deaths to come from the depleted uranium shells or the permanently maimed and psychologically affected.
George W. Bush, his handlers and his administration can be proud. The dubious title of LEADING TERRORIST now belongs to the most powerful man in the world who seeks another term of office to continue what he has begun.
The American corporate media refuse to address the totals. Doing so might result in an accusation of being unpatriotic or un-American. Doing so would challenge directives from the WH such as those that keep the nation from seeing the draped coffins of our military dead. Doing so might even influence the outcome of this crucial election.
How utterly shameful that is for this wonderful country and how tragic for the world.
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - US Federal Bureau of Investigation
Read the sentence carefully. You didn’t hear it on any corporate media newscast since 9/11. It’s the official US FBI definition of terrorism. In its official definition, the FBI does not limit terrorism to stateless individuals or groups. In its official definition, the FBI does not suggest that terrorism cannot be perpetrated by the leader of a nation state. But even more amazing is that the official FBI definition of terrorism describes exactly what George Bush did in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11!
APPLYING THE DEFINITION
George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.
The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.
The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership. These motives were unquestionably political and social.
So, what part of the FBI definition of “terrorism” do the voters of the United States not understand? And what acts of terrorism as defined by the FBI do the voters of the United States not recognize? Is there any doubt at all that the Bush administration committed acts of terrorism when it unlawfully used force and violence against the nation of Iraq to intimidate and coerce its government and the civilian population, in furtherance of the Bush/PNAC political and social objectives.
Therefore, by any definition, if George W. Bush is guilty of terrorism, he can accurately be identified as a TERRORIST. And if he is truly a terrorist, it is only fitting that George W. Bush be scrutinized in terms of his success in that capacity. What is his standing among the other murderous terrorist activity in the world today? Is it possible that George W. Bush actually has claim to being the very BEST at something during his reign in office? Let’s look at the figures.
THE CONTEST
EVERYONE ELSE: Despite the protestations of George W. Bush to the contrary, we are NOT safer now by any stretch of the imagination. According to an NBC report at the beginning of September, 2004, there were roughly 2,929 terrorism related deaths around the world since the 9/11 attacks. Of these, 58 per cent of them – 1,709 – occurred in 2004 - this year!
Repeat: The total number of deaths in the entire world at the hands of terrorists since George W. Bush declared a War on Terror, amounts to around 3,000. Add the terrible losses in the United States on that fateful morning of September 11th, and we reach somewhere in the vicinity of 6,000 precious, innocent lives. Again: In only three years, terrorists around the world took the lives of approximately six thousand people.
GEORGE W. BUSH: In pursuit of his arrogant and PNAC-driven political and social objectives in Iraq, George W. Bush has the blood of thousands of innocent civilians on his hands. To cover his guilt, early in the war, the US government ordered the Iraqi Ministry of Health to stop counting civilian deaths, and forbade them from releasing any totals previously gathered. The image of a surgical war, dominated by smart bombs and resulting in very few civilian casualties was televised to the American public throughout the hostilities.
As a result, the number of civilian casualties in Iraq is probably vastly under-estimated. According to Human Rights Watch, many of the civilian deaths were the direct result of weapons that should never have been used in populated areas. Among these were nearly 2 million submunitions which fail to explode immediately and killed people long after the initial conflict had ended. In addition, the strategy of decapitation bombing killed many civilians while it failed to kill a single Iraqi military leader in 50 attempts.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, civilian losses in Iraq have been severe. They used the research results of a group of British and Americans who surveyed media reports of casualties as well as eyewitness accounts to conclude that between 8,789 and 10,638 Iraqi civilians have died since war began March 19, 2003. That puts George Bush in the lead for most successful terrorist, big time.
As of September, 2004, IraqBodyCount.net placed the Iraqi civilian death total at a minimum of 11,793 and a maximum of 13,802. On September 8th, 2004 the AP reported that no official, reliable figures existed for the whole country, but private estimates ranged from 10,000 to 30,000 killed since the United States invaded in March 2003. Whatever count you accept, George W. Bush wins, big time.
If we go with the lowball figure, - the very least estimate of Iraqi civilians killed as a direct result of the unlawful invasion and occupation of the country, George W. Bush still wins the title of the LEADING TERRORIST alive today, big time.
If we go with the lowest estimate, then the number 8,789 stands for the total civilian deaths caused by the invasion of Iraq in LESS THAN A YEAR AND A HALF. Contrast that number to the 6,000 deaths caused AROUND THE WORLD in THREE YEARS, by other terrorists. No matter how you look at it, George W. Bush wins, big time.
And that doesn’t include the estimated 3,485 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, - the country to which we sent only 11,000 troops to fight the Taliban. George W. Bush claimed victory in Iraq in his acceptance speech. What utter nonsense. The country is dangerous and explosive, and in the hands of the same warlords and Taliban chieftains who ruled before 9/11. Revisionist history by this administration is never challenged by the media. The list of Big Lies prevails.
And it doesn’t include the military deaths on all sides, or the kidnappings, or the contractor deaths or the wounded or the dying. It doesn’t count the deaths to come from the depleted uranium shells or the permanently maimed and psychologically affected.
George W. Bush, his handlers and his administration can be proud. The dubious title of LEADING TERRORIST now belongs to the most powerful man in the world who seeks another term of office to continue what he has begun.
The American corporate media refuse to address the totals. Doing so might result in an accusation of being unpatriotic or un-American. Doing so would challenge directives from the WH such as those that keep the nation from seeing the draped coffins of our military dead. Doing so might even influence the outcome of this crucial election.
How utterly shameful that is for this wonderful country and how tragic for the world.
dutchie
Nov 24th, 2004, 2:25 AM
Im gonna just keep bashing your heads 'til you get it.
-no ties to 9/11. OBL, the one that perpetrated it, still hasnt been brought to justice.
-No WMD'd - no stock piles of any kinda EVER found. The found what, a few SARIN warheads that we SOLD to them in the 80's? Whew... that was a close one.
-no direct ties to al-quaida or the ones behind 911.
This is UN corruption, and I can understand why some of the members in the UN were against the invasion, but it's hardly justifibale, or even CLOSE to the ACTUAL reasons we cited for going into Iraq. I'm sure every US politician has earned every cent of his money fair and sqaure... haha... keep digging, cause I know it bugs you to be wrong.
Iran is next - ka-fuckin-boom.
No ties to 9/11? irrelevant.
No WMD? irrelevant.
What is relevant is that war was legal and justified- legally as well as strategically
Telling lies about it - justifyable?
So resolutions against Israel are all non-binding? But when it's Iraq, it's different? Where's the consistency in that?
Oops, I forgot - I'm just an ignorant coward from Yurop.. :dork:
-no ties to 9/11. OBL, the one that perpetrated it, still hasnt been brought to justice.
-No WMD'd - no stock piles of any kinda EVER found. The found what, a few SARIN warheads that we SOLD to them in the 80's? Whew... that was a close one.
-no direct ties to al-quaida or the ones behind 911.
This is UN corruption, and I can understand why some of the members in the UN were against the invasion, but it's hardly justifibale, or even CLOSE to the ACTUAL reasons we cited for going into Iraq. I'm sure every US politician has earned every cent of his money fair and sqaure... haha... keep digging, cause I know it bugs you to be wrong.
Iran is next - ka-fuckin-boom.
No ties to 9/11? irrelevant.
No WMD? irrelevant.
What is relevant is that war was legal and justified- legally as well as strategically
Telling lies about it - justifyable?
So resolutions against Israel are all non-binding? But when it's Iraq, it's different? Where's the consistency in that?
Oops, I forgot - I'm just an ignorant coward from Yurop.. :dork:
MetalMilitia
Nov 24th, 2004, 7:30 AM
I dont want to bomb them all. They operate within our own country. There is a big difference between "operates in" and "is supported by," however. So I would not bomb all the countries they operate in, but I would like to do so to all those who support or harbor them.
Maybe you overlooked the fact that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda don't exist. Where have you been since June?
They found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, which in itself was the backup for the lack of WMD's we didnt find, also .... " there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation"...
Not only is it irrelevant to the discussion on Iraq, none of those resolutions were binding, and he was sugguesting that there was no reason for the santions in the first place.
Apparently sanctions were working jsut fine - he hadn't restarted his nuke program, his ties to al qaeda are non-existent, and he had nothing to do with 9/11. Sounds like he was pretty contained to me? Oh yeah - It seemed that way to Rice & Powell in 2001 (I know how much you love that Sam :P )
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
You mentioned the UN resolutions, just thought I'd point out that the country who receives nearly $15million per day from the US had the most resolutions against them. They have never acknowledged THEIR nuclear program, and by the definition of terrorism ( Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. ) they come away looking not too friendly.
So he was taking money from the Oil for food program? That's political corruption. using his position for his own benefit. Can you name one government that ISNT guilty of some for of Political corruption or another? Even so - this would have been a UN issue, hardly a "threat to the US" or any indication that he was gonna attack anyone.
After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003
Doesn't seem like that was the case.
And for anyone who says that I'm "just whining" - "Criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government."
Maybe you overlooked the fact that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda don't exist. Where have you been since June?
They found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, which in itself was the backup for the lack of WMD's we didnt find, also .... " there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation"...
Not only is it irrelevant to the discussion on Iraq, none of those resolutions were binding, and he was sugguesting that there was no reason for the santions in the first place.
Apparently sanctions were working jsut fine - he hadn't restarted his nuke program, his ties to al qaeda are non-existent, and he had nothing to do with 9/11. Sounds like he was pretty contained to me? Oh yeah - It seemed that way to Rice & Powell in 2001 (I know how much you love that Sam :P )
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm
You mentioned the UN resolutions, just thought I'd point out that the country who receives nearly $15million per day from the US had the most resolutions against them. They have never acknowledged THEIR nuclear program, and by the definition of terrorism ( Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience. ) they come away looking not too friendly.
So he was taking money from the Oil for food program? That's political corruption. using his position for his own benefit. Can you name one government that ISNT guilty of some for of Political corruption or another? Even so - this would have been a UN issue, hardly a "threat to the US" or any indication that he was gonna attack anyone.
After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein?s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: "Absolutely."
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003
Doesn't seem like that was the case.
And for anyone who says that I'm "just whining" - "Criticism in time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government."
substand
Nov 26th, 2004, 11:24 PM
George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory. The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.
Perhaps you should apply the definition more carefully and note the "legality" part of it. The war was legal by US and UN standards, and was not unprovoked, certainly- Saddam never fulfilled his obligations to cease hostilities after the 1st war, thus provoking a continuation of hostilities.
Perhaps you should apply the definition more carefully and note the "legality" part of it. The war was legal by US and UN standards, and was not unprovoked, certainly- Saddam never fulfilled his obligations to cease hostilities after the 1st war, thus provoking a continuation of hostilities.
substand
Nov 26th, 2004, 11:41 PM
Maybe you overlooked the fact that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda don't exist. Where have you been since June?
They found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, which in itself was the backup for the lack of WMD's we didnt find, also .... " there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation"...
They found no "collarborative relationship" but they did find a relationship. Regardless, al qaeda is not the only terrorist organization and Iraq was a supporter of international terrorism. This is a war on terrorism, not on alqaeda.
Apparently sanctions were working jsut fine - he hadn't restarted his nuke program, his ties to al qaeda are non-existent, and he had nothing to do with 9/11. Sounds like he was pretty contained to me? Oh yeah - It seemed that way to Rice & Powell in 2001 (I know how much you love that Sam :P )
Some of his ex-lackeys say otherwise. (such as Dr. Hamza). And it may have sounded like that to Rice and Powell in FEB 2001, but since that date (which was less than 1 month after they were officially in power) the CIA had told them otherwise, for instance, in the Oct 2002 intelligence estimate, which you can search for online and find the declassified parts. I could certainly see how they might change their minds.
You mentioned the UN resolutions
I mentioned legally binding UN Security Council Resolutions- none of which ever were passed against Israel. There are 2 ways to make legally binding resolutions in the UN- the security council must pass them by majority vote (and with all 5 permanent members voting in the affirmative) or they can bypass the security council with a 2/3 vote in the General Assembly. None of that happened with Israel.
And besides that, we are not speaking of Israel. We are speaking of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. If we were speaking of Israel and we had been at war with Israel and they had surrendered and agreed to terms of peace which were represented by UN security council resolutions (or by 2/3 vote in the GA) and then had broken those terms that ceased hostility, I would be saying the same thing. But we are not talking about them, and it did not happen, so why are you bringing it up?
They found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, which in itself was the backup for the lack of WMD's we didnt find, also .... " there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation"...
They found no "collarborative relationship" but they did find a relationship. Regardless, al qaeda is not the only terrorist organization and Iraq was a supporter of international terrorism. This is a war on terrorism, not on alqaeda.
Apparently sanctions were working jsut fine - he hadn't restarted his nuke program, his ties to al qaeda are non-existent, and he had nothing to do with 9/11. Sounds like he was pretty contained to me? Oh yeah - It seemed that way to Rice & Powell in 2001 (I know how much you love that Sam :P )
Some of his ex-lackeys say otherwise. (such as Dr. Hamza). And it may have sounded like that to Rice and Powell in FEB 2001, but since that date (which was less than 1 month after they were officially in power) the CIA had told them otherwise, for instance, in the Oct 2002 intelligence estimate, which you can search for online and find the declassified parts. I could certainly see how they might change their minds.
You mentioned the UN resolutions
I mentioned legally binding UN Security Council Resolutions- none of which ever were passed against Israel. There are 2 ways to make legally binding resolutions in the UN- the security council must pass them by majority vote (and with all 5 permanent members voting in the affirmative) or they can bypass the security council with a 2/3 vote in the General Assembly. None of that happened with Israel.
And besides that, we are not speaking of Israel. We are speaking of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. If we were speaking of Israel and we had been at war with Israel and they had surrendered and agreed to terms of peace which were represented by UN security council resolutions (or by 2/3 vote in the GA) and then had broken those terms that ceased hostility, I would be saying the same thing. But we are not talking about them, and it did not happen, so why are you bringing it up?
Defiant Noquisi
Nov 28th, 2004, 1:04 AM
They found no "collarborative relationship" but they did find a relationship. Regardless, al qaeda is not the only terrorist organization and Iraq was a supporter of international terrorism. This is a war on terrorism, not on alqaeda.If this is truly a war on terrorism, this would mean that we will be at "war" (diplomatically and possibly militarily) at some point in time with any country that has terrorist units as Bush swore to after 9/11. The problem with this is that the big picture, if looked at, is so vast there is no possible way we could ever "win" this war.
How does one go about proving who "supports" them(terrorists)? Additionally, how is it that we can stipulate to another country that we will possibly use force if they do not support us against terrorism? If the country views its "terrorist" (by our terms) inhabitants as just citizens who dont like the US, by what means diplomatically could we persue and possibly change their thinking?
Im posing these questions as food for thought. The Bush administration didnt have the support of as many countries as they would have liked in going to war against Iraq. Of the countries that did support us, the troops numbers just werent there. Sure, there was enough to get in but its obvious there arent enough to sustain the amount of time its taking and needed to make something positive out of it, if thats even possible.
Also obvious is the support from other countries is waning as well as among our own. Bush only has four more years in which to wage his seige upon world terrorism, and prove the administration isnt terrorist itself.
How does one go about proving who "supports" them(terrorists)? Additionally, how is it that we can stipulate to another country that we will possibly use force if they do not support us against terrorism? If the country views its "terrorist" (by our terms) inhabitants as just citizens who dont like the US, by what means diplomatically could we persue and possibly change their thinking?
Im posing these questions as food for thought. The Bush administration didnt have the support of as many countries as they would have liked in going to war against Iraq. Of the countries that did support us, the troops numbers just werent there. Sure, there was enough to get in but its obvious there arent enough to sustain the amount of time its taking and needed to make something positive out of it, if thats even possible.
Also obvious is the support from other countries is waning as well as among our own. Bush only has four more years in which to wage his seige upon world terrorism, and prove the administration isnt terrorist itself.
substand
Nov 28th, 2004, 9:43 PM
If this is truly a war on terrorism, this would mean that we will be at "war" (diplomatically and possibly militarily) at some point in time with any country that has terrorist units as Bush swore to after 9/11. The problem with this is that the big picture, if looked at, is so vast there is no possible way we could ever "win" this war.
Correct. Any country that has terrorist units and supports international terrorists in any way is an enemy. Simply because they do not wear a uniform that displays who they are funded/supported by does not mean they are unsupported. What is different if a country gives its official army support to attack us or they give terrorists support to attack us? Only the uniform (and that it is harder to tell who supported them).
Yes, it is impossible to "win" in that we cannot conceivably kill or capture every terrorist there ever was or will be. The idea is to cut off thier funding by governments especially so that they do not have a sanctuary for training/operations/safe base from which to operate, nor do they have the money to fund serious campaigns. By reducing thier help from governments we kill their ability to mount serious attacks. By implementing democracy in nations that support terrorism, we establish governments that will attack their terrorists and conditions that would make people ostracise terrorists. Just as the "war on racism" cannot be won, because we cannot force everyone to think alike, neither can the "war on terrorism" be won. What can happen is that we make it so unappealing to be a terrorist that terrorism ceases to be a great concern.
How does one go about proving who "supports" them(terrorists)?
I don't know how they do it all the time, but it has been done many times, often by money trails or knowing the location of terrorists and governments' support of them through allowing bases of operation. There could be and probably are other ways of identifying terrorist supporting nations.
Additionally, how is it that we can stipulate to another country that we will possibly use force if they do not support us against terrorism?
We don't ask countries to support us against terrorism, we simply ask them not to support terrorists. Giving terrorists free-reign in your country amounts to supporting them. However, disinclination to fight terrorists abroad is not support. I know Bush's "either you're with us or with the terrorists" line seems different. But you cannot take it literal that if Iceland does not fight terrorists with us in Afghanistan that we will invade them. It was a figure of speech, and IMO, explained by what I said above in this paragraph.
If the country views its "terrorist" (by our terms) inhabitants as just citizens who dont like the US, by what means diplomatically could we persue and possibly change their thinking?
If someone doesn't like the US, more power to them. If they commit acts of war or even crimes against the US (or its citizens) and that country does not do anything about it, then that country is fair game. We prosecute Americans who commit murder on visiting Saudis, and the Saudi government does the same. Likewise, we prosecute Americans who commit crimes on Afghans, but the Taliban did not do the same (in refusal to extradite a man who wasn't an Afghan, but who had committed crimes against America- in addition to their outright support of terrorists anyway).
Correct. Any country that has terrorist units and supports international terrorists in any way is an enemy. Simply because they do not wear a uniform that displays who they are funded/supported by does not mean they are unsupported. What is different if a country gives its official army support to attack us or they give terrorists support to attack us? Only the uniform (and that it is harder to tell who supported them).
Yes, it is impossible to "win" in that we cannot conceivably kill or capture every terrorist there ever was or will be. The idea is to cut off thier funding by governments especially so that they do not have a sanctuary for training/operations/safe base from which to operate, nor do they have the money to fund serious campaigns. By reducing thier help from governments we kill their ability to mount serious attacks. By implementing democracy in nations that support terrorism, we establish governments that will attack their terrorists and conditions that would make people ostracise terrorists. Just as the "war on racism" cannot be won, because we cannot force everyone to think alike, neither can the "war on terrorism" be won. What can happen is that we make it so unappealing to be a terrorist that terrorism ceases to be a great concern.
How does one go about proving who "supports" them(terrorists)?
I don't know how they do it all the time, but it has been done many times, often by money trails or knowing the location of terrorists and governments' support of them through allowing bases of operation. There could be and probably are other ways of identifying terrorist supporting nations.
Additionally, how is it that we can stipulate to another country that we will possibly use force if they do not support us against terrorism?
We don't ask countries to support us against terrorism, we simply ask them not to support terrorists. Giving terrorists free-reign in your country amounts to supporting them. However, disinclination to fight terrorists abroad is not support. I know Bush's "either you're with us or with the terrorists" line seems different. But you cannot take it literal that if Iceland does not fight terrorists with us in Afghanistan that we will invade them. It was a figure of speech, and IMO, explained by what I said above in this paragraph.
If the country views its "terrorist" (by our terms) inhabitants as just citizens who dont like the US, by what means diplomatically could we persue and possibly change their thinking?
If someone doesn't like the US, more power to them. If they commit acts of war or even crimes against the US (or its citizens) and that country does not do anything about it, then that country is fair game. We prosecute Americans who commit murder on visiting Saudis, and the Saudi government does the same. Likewise, we prosecute Americans who commit crimes on Afghans, but the Taliban did not do the same (in refusal to extradite a man who wasn't an Afghan, but who had committed crimes against America- in addition to their outright support of terrorists anyway).
Defiant Noquisi
Nov 28th, 2004, 10:30 PM
The problem with all of that is with our "I want it yesterday" type of society, if it doesnt produce results quick enough people become apathetic and/or negative such as I see happening now. The WMD's, misconceptions and what not didnt help and certainly dont allow much room in the people's general mind for continued long term support.
substand
Nov 28th, 2004, 11:56 PM
The problem with all of that is with our "I want it yesterday" type of society, if it doesnt produce results quick enough people become apathetic and/or negative such as I see happening now. The WMD's, misconceptions and what not didnt help and certainly dont allow much room in the people's general mind for continued long term support.
The reelection of Bush despite such a publicly pronouced "failed" presidency flies in the face of that.
Other than that, I see your point, but just because the public at large doesn't seem to let things pan out in most cases, does not mean we are not doing the right thing. For most of the US's entire existence, we have (IMO) pursued bad long term foreign (especially foreign) policies, probably because of the things you mention. That doesn't make it right to pursue bad FP, or any policy for that matter. For the first time I can think of regarding US Foreign Policy, the president is doing what is right for the long term without regard to political pressure to turn the other way. I greatly admire Bush for that, I think its the right thing to do, and I hope future presidents will disregard their reelection hopes in favor of good policy.
The reelection of Bush despite such a publicly pronouced "failed" presidency flies in the face of that.
Other than that, I see your point, but just because the public at large doesn't seem to let things pan out in most cases, does not mean we are not doing the right thing. For most of the US's entire existence, we have (IMO) pursued bad long term foreign (especially foreign) policies, probably because of the things you mention. That doesn't make it right to pursue bad FP, or any policy for that matter. For the first time I can think of regarding US Foreign Policy, the president is doing what is right for the long term without regard to political pressure to turn the other way. I greatly admire Bush for that, I think its the right thing to do, and I hope future presidents will disregard their reelection hopes in favor of good policy.
Havoc Angel
Dec 15th, 2004, 2:26 PM
The UN are politics. Politics are corrupt. So what's so shocking and surprising about the UN being corrupt? I'd be rather surprised if this was not the case. :dunno:
Skippy
Dec 15th, 2004, 5:29 PM
So there are some allegations in an American newspaper. Then it must be true. People will beleive anything they choose to and use the most dubious claims to support their beliefs all the while ignoring evidence that may contradict their beliefs. Funny how patriotic American atheists and agnotics look down on the religious for their blind faith.
Based on the logic in here then the German Army was completely justified in invading Poland in 1939.
No? Show me how it is different. Better make it a really good argument.
Based on the logic in here then the German Army was completely justified in invading Poland in 1939.
No? Show me how it is different. Better make it a really good argument.
Skippy
Dec 15th, 2004, 6:48 PM
Perhaps if you made sense once in a while you might be taken seriously. But, nah, you would rather attack anyone who disagrees with them rather than discuss. Hmm....no wonder you love Dubya so much, you might as well be twins.
Please don't bother responding, you've been added to my ignore list.
Please don't bother responding, you've been added to my ignore list.
MetalMilitia
Dec 15th, 2004, 7:37 PM
Now now, play nice. Skippy no personal attacks, consider this your first and only warning. MD already has been put on vacation for violation of our TOS (Terms of Service) in the past, and is lucky to be back.
If you don't like what somone has to say, just ignore them. Defending yourself is one thing, but inflammatory statements are equally as childish.
Everyone play nice now :2fu:
If you don't like what somone has to say, just ignore them. Defending yourself is one thing, but inflammatory statements are equally as childish.
Everyone play nice now :2fu:
dutchie
Dec 17th, 2004, 1:01 AM
Ahem.... Got anything against foreigners, Micky?!? BTW, foreign to WHAT? This forum is not the USA, as you yourself so eloquently pointed out earlier...
Defiant Noquisi
Dec 19th, 2004, 9:52 AM
Where the trail leads next....
Ever see that old sci/fi movie "Lifeforce" where that space vampyre starts sucking a few souls and it turns into a domino effect all over the world with people sucking the essence out of each other, with all that mayhem and chaos?
Thats what will happen only it will be all politically/religiously derived. People will be running rampant thru the streets killing those who dont agree with them until they get killed off and then their murderer runs off and starts doing the same...
until someone gets wise and stops the vampyre.
Ever see that old sci/fi movie "Lifeforce" where that space vampyre starts sucking a few souls and it turns into a domino effect all over the world with people sucking the essence out of each other, with all that mayhem and chaos?
Thats what will happen only it will be all politically/religiously derived. People will be running rampant thru the streets killing those who dont agree with them until they get killed off and then their murderer runs off and starts doing the same...
until someone gets wise and stops the vampyre.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.6 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.