Anybody hear Sen.Boxer and Condie Rice?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Steve Buckner, Jan 18, 2005.

  1. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,383
    Media:
    85
    Likes Received:
    922
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    Here I go... :ray1:

    Who gives a rats ass about the interview? Not me. Can Rice do the job? What is the job? So far no one, including Rice, has a plan to get out of Iraq.
    People are dying every day because of this stupid war, no one asked us to stick our nose in there. Iraqis had no coup planned to overthrow Saddam. The previous Bush administration knew what was waiting if they continued to invade Iraq. Seems Georgie Boy didn't listen.

    "Freedom" is not better off since this started, world unity has not backed this war, and global factions are probably split farther apart than ever.

    We need our representatives to find solutions not wage partisan pissing matches.
     
  2. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    The point is that when we invaded Iraq, 85% of Americans, and 95% of our elected officials WERE IN FAVOR of invading. You will now say that you were in dissent, obviously.

    The entire administration is responsible. We have a "check and balance" system in this country. It was followed and apparently, the easily duped Congress and Senate approved the invasion and appropriated the funds to fight.

    About the stats: I know the stats, deaths, money, and no results. Of course, I am disappointed in how this was handled. I, now, am more concerned with how we exit responsibily than I am in slinging mud. We are there by the power of the officials we elected. No scandal here. Move on!!!!

    The press: You bet they will be there. They were there when Seal Team III landed on the beaches of Somolia. Oh, I mean before they landed. The lights, cameras, and interview questions all seemed to affect the success of the soldiers mission. It was great news though!

    Questions: Better timing for questioning would have been before you voted to approve the invasion. Senator Boxer voted in favor of the Resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. Wait, I didn't do my homework, I cahnged my mind. I was, was ,was duped by the CIA and NSA. Those bastards are work for Bush.

    WMDs?:

    The picture belowwas taken in the aftermath of Saddam's attack using chemical weapons and cluster bombs on the Kurdish city of Halabja (population estimated at 70,000) on March 17, 1988. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. The attack, said to have involved mustard gas, nerve agent and possibly cyanide, killed an estimated 5,000 of the town's inhabitants. The attack on Halabja took place amidst the infamous al-Anfal campaign, in which Saddam brutally repressed yet another of the Kurdish revolts during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam is also said to have used chemical weapons in attacking up to 24 villages in Kurdish areas in April 1987.Of all the atrocities committed against the Kurds during the Anfal, Halabja has come to symbolize the worst of the repression of the Iraqi Kurds. Halabja was a town of 70,000 people located about 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. It became the target of conventional and chemical bomb attacks over three days in March of 1988.

    During those three days, the town and the surrounding district were unmercifully attacked with bombs, artillery fire, and chemicals. The chemical weapons were the most destructive of life. The chemicals used included mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun, and VX. At least 5,000 people died immediately as a result of the chemical attack and it is estimated that up to 12,000 people in all died during the course of those three days.

    I CALL THIS PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE. WHAT DO YOU THINK FELLOWS?
     

    Attached Files:

  3. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    197
    Location:
    .
    I call it pretty pathetic evidence - an event 14 years ago? Hey, if you're comfortable going to war on that, I can just say I'm glad you're not president.
     
  4. Roper

    Roper Idiot Savant

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,383
    Media:
    85
    Likes Received:
    922
    Location:
    Glenraven Ranch
    First, I never believed America should make a pre-emptive strike, period.

    Second, not to diminish what occurred there, but why is it any different than any other recent occurrence of genocide? Why not attack Rwanda? We'd be in roughly 6 different wars if genocide were a reason for attack.
     
  5. Mark Ellerbrook

    Mark Ellerbrook Metolius

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle.
    "I CALL THIS PRETTY GOOD EVIDENCE. WHAT DO YOU THINK FELLOWS?"

    I certainly agree that Hussein was a barbaric dictator - and I don't think anyone argues that he had WMD in the past. The issue, the the stated reason for war, was that sanctions were not working and that Iraq currently had WMDs - something that has now been discredited.
     
  6. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Are you kidding? 12,000 people die and it's pathetic evidence? What's pathetic is that we didn't stay the cousre in '91 when this issue was current.
    Will you call the evidence of the World Trade Center Destruction in 2015 pathetic? All is forgiven, prove to me that they are bad today! No bombings this year, ah ha, I told you so. YOUR REPLY IS PATHETIC, WEAK, AND FRANKLY HARD TO STOMACH.

    You know what, I am you're not the President as well. You don't have the backbone for it!

    You remember those kids who got their asses kicked on the playground, right? (You may have been one of them?)
    Hint: Sooner or later, you have to stand up to those who do you harm.

    Hussein was a cruel, sinister dictator. The world is better without him. WMDs or not! So now, let's finish this thing so our kids or their kids don't have to.

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

    John Stuart Mill
     
  7. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,350
    Media:
    45
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    I found a printed transcript of Boxer vs. Rice in yesterday's hearings. It is available through the LA Times :http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ext_wr,0,7859017.story?coll=la-home-headlines

    Continuing on with this discussion, my first question is "Were we justified in invading another country?"

    2. If we were justified, what were the reasons?

    3. If we were not justified, who should be held accountable?

    4. If a communist country had invaded Iraq and imposed Communism just as we have imposed "democracy" (and I use the term very loosely), would the US have an issue with that?

    Jason, where did you get the numbers that 85% of americans approved the invasion?

    When Iraq used chemical weapons, the US did not express any concern over their use, in fact, the US was one of Iraq's best allies at the time.

    So who is accountable? Well, I'd say it was congress to some extent, they turned over their power the the GWB. However, ultimately, at the point where GWB now had the power, it was ultimately his administration that is accountable.

    Nixon was impeached due to his roll in Watergate. Clinton was impeached because of a BJ from Monica. When GWB invades another country, kills tens of thousands of innocent people, he'll go through it without so much as a slap on the wrist, pathetic. So how is it that the US can be in such an uproar about Saddam's using WMD's on his people, when we have done much more damage in the last two years?

    This topic is an emotional one, we each have our points of view and varying amounts of information, which in itself, may be somewhat questionable. However our opinions divide us, we still need to be civil in these discussions.
     
  8. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Bosnia = we were there and still are
    Somilia = did that
    Rwanda = deployed troops
    Haiti = got the t-shirt
    WW II = heard something about that

    We may not always step up, but our track record looks pretty good.

    Never a preemptive strike? Interesting? You sound like a good guy to box with?
     
  9. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    197
    Location:
    .
    Yes, pathetic evidence that Iraq was an imminent threat. If that was all it took to send us to war, the CIA wouldn't have had to do any intelligence gathering on what had happened to Iraq's WMD capabilities since the Gulf War. For crying out loud, not even Bush would have tried to sell the American people that Iraq was an imminent threat to our security solely because Saddam gassed his own people more than a decade earlier. After the Halabja incident, we'd blasted the hell out of the country's suspected weapons production facilities and had U.N. (including U.S.) weapons inspectors traipsing all over the country looking at things. The point is, even the administration has concluded there were no WMD at the time we invaded, despite what may have happened in '88. (That playground pansy dig was a real stinger. Oh, that hurt.)
     
  10. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    To compare our intentions with Saddam's intentions in gasing ethnic Kurds is down right ridiculous. Take breath my friend and reflect. This direction of your debate is just, for lack of a better term, STUPID! We killed a lot of Germans, Steve, does that make us terrible? Sometimes the end justify the means. In this case only time will judge of involvement. George Bush = Saddam Hussein. Shame on you!
     
  11. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Bad formatting, sorry....

    Source: Chicago Council on International Relations, 2003
    AMERICANS SHOW A READINESS TO USE MILITARY FORCE, ESPECIALLY TO
    FIGHT TERRORISM AND WHEN DONE MULTILATERALLY.
    AN INCREASED MAJORITY FAVORS ASSASSINATION OF TERRORIST LEADERS.
    Americans express a willingness to use military force, including ground troops, in a variety of
    situations. This is especially true of military action aimed directly at combating terrorism and
    of multilateral rather than unilateral action. If a multilateral approach is not specified,
    however, the survey found no majority in favor of using force in several key scenarios that
    might involve extensive casualties.
    In order to combat
    terrorism, an overwhelming
    majority of Americans
    (87%), favor U.S. air strikes
    against terrorist training
    camps (up 13 percentage
    points since 1998.) A hefty
    84% favor similar attacks by
    U.S. ground troops, up a
    remarkable 27 percentage
    points, perhaps because of
    the nearly casualty-free
    success of the war in
    Afghanistan. The use of
    military troops to “destroy a
    terrorist camp” is approved
    by fully 92% of the public.
    Smaller but still substantial
    majorities of the public also
    favor using U.S. troops to
    assist the Philippine
    government in fighting terrorism, to topple unfriendly regimes that support terrorist groups,
    and to help the government of Pakistan against a radical Islamic revolution. A solid 66% of
    Americans (up 12 points since 1998) favor the assassination of individual terrorist leaders.
    Percentage who favor the following military measures to

    Source: The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations and the German Marshall Fund of the United States, 2003
     
  12. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,350
    Media:
    45
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    Jay,
    This sounds like it hits pretty close to home for you, sorry, but please don't make this a personal attack on me or anyone else. Feel free to debate the topic and feel free to disagree but personal slams defeat your ability to be persuasive. Use your intellect, not your emotions.

    The main issue is that we were not justified in invading, a point I'm sure you'll still contend. But if we're doing such a great job there, then why is the american public so anxious for us to get out? Do they think our job is finished there? Likewise, why are the Iraqi people so anxious for us to get out? According to GWB, we're not occupying their country but somehow we're there without being asked to be. Furthermore, why does the rest of the world want us to get out? Why is it costing so many lives and so much money?

    Is it wrong to compare Saddam to GWB, maybe not line by line, but don't be too quick to judge the US as the good guys in this operation of "Good vs. Evil". Was our invasion of Iraq a humanitarian one, or did it just turn into that after the US could not justify it's reasons for the invasion? Is this invasion on par with the invasion of Nazi germany like you suggest?

    No one disputes that Saddam killed lots of innocent civilians but let's not also forget that GWB has done the same with his mandate to invade Iraq. Conservative estimates are that between 10,000 and 37,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed so far and we're far from seeing the end of this holocaust. The US has not done a good job of protecting the people of Iraq from the violence that has continued to ravage their country.

    Is Iraq a better place without Saddam? It remains to be seen. Is the world a safer place with Saddam gone? One of the experts on terrorism Peter Bergen, wrote this five months ago -

    "What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure bin Laden has long predicted was the U.S.'s long-term goal in the region. We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised, ignited Sunni and Shi'a fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a defensive jihad that has galvanized jihad- minded Muslims around the world. It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terror."

    According to Senator Boxer "This conclusion was reiterated last Thursday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank, which released a report saying that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of professionalized terrorists. That's your own administration's CIA. NIC chairman Robert Hutchings said Iraq is, quote, "a magnet for international terrorist activity."

    So, all that said, should someone like GWB, or more specifically, Condoleeza Rice, the new secretary of state, be held accountable for the gross use of misinformation? I certainly hope so and was greatful to hear Senator Boxer explain that to Condoleeza Rice in yesterday's testimony.
     
  13. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    I bet this kid, who'd be a teenager now might disagree?
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Why is the American public so anxious to get out? Well, why does Headline News have a story being reported, with another on the side, with another scrolling across the bottom. It's called a short attention span Steve.

    When the next attack hits our soil, we'll be waving those flags again. Fireman on stamps, NYPD caps everywhere, and Tim McGraw will belt out another tune titled something like, "This old flag or don't mess with the US." The polls will switch, the "causekids" will protest, ect....

    When it comes to emotion, my friend. You call the war a holocaust, state the CIA is from my country; not our country, and you are right; we shouldn't forgot the 10-37 thousand Iraqis who have died. You have obviously forgotten the 3,000+ that died here. The worlds got some bad guys in it Steve. Someone has to do something about it. Now or Later? That's really the only question.

    Dr. Rice and GW are not being held accountable? George got sworn in today and Condi will get confirmed. If that's being held accountable for creating a "holocaust" and igniting "muslim fundamentalist fervor", I'm a little confused?????

    Are you????

    It seems the "fundamentalist fervor" was pretty well in place before the invasion. You might recall two airplanes slamming into two very large buildings? In New York?

    Lets see: Attacks on US soil before invasion: 2 (WTC twice). After invasion: 0. You're right, it's crazy out there! This administration sucks! If we have to bring the fight to them, rather than fighting it here, I'm on board. When it comes to soldiers vs. civilians dying. I'll take the soldiers. That's a risk they signed up willing to meet. I took that risk for ten years myself.

    I'm going to see if I can really screw something up here at work. My boss will hopefully hold me accountable! That's how to get that promotion darn it! I've been approaching this all wrong!!!


    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

    John Stuart Mill
     
  15. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,350
    Media:
    45
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    Jay,
    I think you're confused as to who initiated the 911 attacks. It wasn't Saddam, and we didn't invade Iraq because we thought they needed democracy. Have you been paying attention as to who the 911 perpetrators were? Well, it's no secret at this point...it's been in the papers for over 3 years now. It's a group called Al-Queda, it's an organization who is headed by Osama Bin Laden, maybe you've heard of him. He's been missing for almost 4 years now. He tried to unite the Islamic world against the US but it back fired after 911. It took the likes of GWB to do what Osama could not, to unite the Islamic world against us and other countries.

    GWB has successfully convinced you that there is a link between Al-Queda and Saddam, although investigations such as the 911 Commision proved otherwise. However, thanks to GWB, after our invasion, Al-Queda has moved successfully into Iraq and it has now become the breeding grounds for Islamic Terrorists according to the NIC.

    So you condem the killing of innocent people by Saddam but the US has played an equally grave roll in the killing of innocent civilians. Why is it better if the US kills innocent civilians? I'm a little confused, I thought killing innocent people was always bad...It sounds like it is acceptable for you that we just invaded another country that posed no real threat and in the process, the US killed a bunch of innocent people, all in a days work I suppose. I believe you said, "the end justifies the means". For me, I'd just as soon not have our government doing that sort of thing, call me old fashioned. I'd like to see our government pursue Bin Laden and blow that SOB into a gazillion pieces.

    And back to your reference to Halabja, here's something else you won't want to read but should. Just when you thought you could tell right from wrong, good from bad, and Osama from Saddma, it looks like the US may have played a roll in the deaths of those people.

    Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense July 3rd, 2004
    by Sanjay Suri

    LONDON - Evidence offered by a top CIA man could confirm the testimony given by Saddam Hussein at the opening of his trial in Baghdad Thursday that he knew of the Halabja massacre only from the newspapers.

    Thousands were reported killed in the gassing of Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in the north of Iraq in March 1988 towards the end of Iraq's eight-year war with Iran. The gassing of the Kurds has long been held to be the work of Ali Hassan al-Majid, named in the West because of that association as 'Chemical Ali'. Saddam Hussein is widely alleged to have ordered Ali to carry out the chemical attack.

    The Halabja massacre is now prominent among the charges read out against Saddam in the Baghdad court. When that charge was read out, Saddam replied that he had read about the massacre in a newspaper. Saddam has denied these allegations ever since they were made. But now with a trial on, he could summon a witness in his defense with the potential to blow apart the charge and create one of the greatest diplomatic disasters the United States has ever known.

    A report prepared by the top CIA official handling the matter says Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the massacre, and indicates that it was the work of Iranians. Further, the Scott inquiry on the role of the British government has gathered evidence that following the massacre the United States in fact armed Saddam Hussein to counter the Iranians chemicals for chemicals.

    Few believe that a CIA man would attend a court hearing in Baghdad in defense of Saddam. But in this case the CIA boss has gone public with his evidence, and this evidence has been in the public domain for more than a year.

    The CIA officer Stephen C. Pelletiere was the agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. As professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, he says he was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf.

    In addition, he says he headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States, and the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

    Pelletiere went public with his information on no less a platform than The New York Times in an article on January 31 last year titled 'A War Crime or an Act of War?' The article which challenged the case for war quoted U.S. President George W. Bush as saying: ”The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.”

    Pelletiere says the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report following the Halabja gassing, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need- to-know basis. ”That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas,” he wrote in The New York Times.

    The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja, he said. ”The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. ”The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.”

    Pelletiere writes that these facts have ”long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned.”

    Pelletiere wrote that Saddam Hussein has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. ”But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.”

    Pelletiere has maintained his position. All Saddam would have to do in court now is to cite The New York Times article even if the court would not summon Pelletiere. The issues raised in the article would themselves be sufficient to raise serious questions about the charges filed against Saddam - and in turn the justifications offered last year for invading Iraq.

    The Halabja killings were cited not just by Bush but by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to justify his case for going along with a U.S. invasion of Iraq. A British government dossier released to justify the war on Iraq says that ”Saddam has used chemical weapons, not only against an enemy state, but against his own people.” An inquiry report in 1996 by Lord Justice Scott in what came to be known as the arms-to-Iraq affair gave dramatic pointers to what followed after Halabja. After the use of poison gas in 1988 both the United States and Britain began to supply Saddam Hussein with even more chemical weapons.

    The Scott inquiry had been set up in 1992 following the collapse of the trial in the case of Matrix Churchill, a British firm exporting equipment to Iraq that could be put to military use.

    Three senior executives of Matrix Churchill said the government knew what Matrix Churchill was doing, and that its managing director Paul Henderson had been supplying information about Iraq to the British intelligence agencies on a regular basis.

    The inquiry revealed details of the British government's secret decision to supply Saddam with even more weapons-related equipment after the Halabja killings.

    Former British foreign secretary Geoffrey Howe was found to have written that the end of the Iraq-Iran war could mean ”major opportunities for British industry” in military exports, but he wanted to keep that proposal quiet.

    ”It could look very cynical if so soon after expressing outrage about the treatment of the Kurds, we adopt a more flexible approach to arms sales,” one of his officials told the Scott inquiry. Lord Scott condemned the government's decision to change its policy, while keeping MPs and the public in the dark.

    Soon after the attack, the United States approved the export to Iraq of virus cultures and a billion-dollar contract to design and build a petrochemical plant the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas.

    Saddam Hussein has appeared so far without a lawyer to defend him. A Jordanian firm is reported to be speaking up for him. But the real defense for him could be waiting for him in Washington and London.
     
  16. o mykiss

    o mykiss Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2001
    Messages:
    1,328
    Likes Received:
    197
    Location:
    .
    What exactly does that have to do with what we've been debating? Oh, I get it now, it doesn't have anything to do with the justification for the invasion that was proferred ahead of time: that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. No, in hindsight, I guess we were avenging the deaths of those killed in Halabja.

    Hey, I actually can appreciate stopping genocide as an argument for going to war. I think it's worth debating, and it might have been a more appealing argument to the rest of the world. But as repressive as he was, there was no intelligence that I'm aware of that he was involved in genocide recently. And more importantly, it's not what the administration sold the war on. No doubt he was a bad guy, but our economy is not big enough, and we do not have enough people to volunteer for a military that is big enough, to invade and occupy every country run by a repressive regime that doesn't like us. The preemptive strike doctrine actually has some intellectual appeal even to a liberal like me, but for it to work we need a lot better intelligence than we had. The fact is, we have a huge mess on our hands. I don't think it's wrong to want to know how we got into it, so we can avoid something like this in the future.

    You keep trying to suggest a link between Iraq and 9/11 and keep suggesting that critics of Bush's Iraq decisions and policies will have to shut up and apologize the next time terrorists attack us on U.S. soil. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet our own most recent National Intelligence Estimate seems to suggest that the chances of Iraq playing a role in another terrorist attack against the U.S. has actually gone up as a result of how this war has been prosecuted. The NIE wasn't put out by Democrats or peace-niks against the war. It was put out by people who ultimately work for this administration. Geez, even Condi finally admitted that mistakes had been made with our Iraq policy. Maybe you could too.
     
  17. Jason Baker

    Jason Baker Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    776
    Media:
    324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ft. Mill, SC
    Steve & O my kiss:

    I understand, as do most by now, who was responsible for the attack on the WTC. My point is that the same extreme muslim fundamentalism that spurred those attacks exists in Iraq as well. Some argue Iraq as a "great base" in which to bring democracy to the Middle East. Clearly, you can see the dangers of countries with the wealth of Iraq in establishing programs that would enable them to kill thousands, if not millions of people. Clearly, we must fear depth of their hatred and willingness to die to avenge it! We've begun a scary path for sure. We've camped in the backyard of the countries that hate us and taken a stand. This unfortunely, will probably be the first of many we will have to take. The wealth of the Arab world makes them dangerous as they have the means (money) to hurt us and they preach to hate. Expert have deducted the WTC attacks took billions of dollars to plan and accomplish. Two choices are clear: develop greater control of what makes them powerful: oil or wean our dependence from fossil fuels. I'd prefer the later, but in the mean time we better keep our eye on the ball. They hate us more now, but surey, they hated us enough before the war to kill thousands of innocent people. We cannot be complacent. We have to be diligent in our watch. What else would you suggest? Education, aid, food? We are doing these things now for Muslims in Indonesia while Egyptian TV and websites explain that the US caused the earthquake with a nuclear weapons test. They are implored NOT donate money as the infidels will seize it and use it against us. The time for diplomacy may well have passed. We have to take a stand. What else is left? This is not going away. Iraq occupation or not.

    I have enjoyed this healthy discussion with you both. It's great to see that others educate themselves on the issues. Steve's last post was very informative. Like Johnny Carson used to say, "I did not know that." Emotional? On this issue I am. You two are as well. It's great to see others with the passions, convictions, and independent thought. I may not agree with you two, but I can respect you. Good Fishing....
     
  18. Steve Buckner

    Steve Buckner Mother Nature's Son

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,350
    Media:
    45
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Toledo, Wa. on the banks of the Cowlitz
    Home Page:
    Jason, I'd go fishing with you any time!!! Thank you for the lively debate. It's ok to disagree but in the end, we're all just trying to make sense of it. :thumb:
     
  19. Bright Rivers

    Bright Rivers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2004
    Messages:
    513
    Media:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bellevue, WA, USA.
    The notion that we are “imposing democracy” on Iraq is an interesting one. Kind of like how we imposed emancipation on the slaves? Or how we imposed liberation on France, South Korea, Kuwait, etc.?

    You realize, of course, that if Communism is imposed upon you, you’re stuck. But Iraq, if they so choose, will be free to throw off the shackles of liberty and embrace the tyranny you seem to think they’re longing for. But I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. Liberty tends to be addictive. They’re learning that in Afghanistan.
     
  20. Nailknot

    Nailknot Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Media:
    38
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Cascadia
    "In World War II, it was mostly up to Americans to fund the Allied war effort. Imagine if we had been obliged to fund the Axis effort, too. Actually, that shouldn't be hard to imagine because right now we are indeed funding both sides in the War on Terrorism. We finance the defense of the Free World against its sworn enemies through our tax dollars. And we support the terrorists every time we go to a gas station and fill up the tanks of our cars." - Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=198041

    # "Islamism is a totalitarian movement masquerading as a religion."
    # "If not for the power of oil, this movement would be a few thousand crazy people in the middle of the desert."
    # "The Wahhabis [of Saudi Arabia] are to Islam as Torquemada was to Christianity."
    # "It will not be possible to satisfy the grievances of Militant Islamism. This will not end with an al Qaeda Gorbachev. This is a war to the death, as was the war with the Nazis."
    # "This is not a clash of civilizations or even countries. It's freedom vs. tyranny."
    # "Had Saddam Hussein gone another 100 miles in 1990, he would have controlled over half of the world's proven reserves of oil."
    # "This war effort requires summoning the country to a common purpose - a 'long, hard slog' is exactly what lies ahead."
    # "Energy is a key component of this war; we simply must reduce our reliance on Middle East petroleum, on oil produced by vulnerable autocracies and pathological predators."

    http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=197851
     

Share This Page