...Forgive my lack of syntax, I am only going to make brief points, in tiny bites, as to spoon feed those of you who can not chew heavy portions...
By Rimnoj on Wednesday, July 07, 2004 - 05:39 pm

It truly is amusing to see someone present such a meandering and incoherent hodgepodge of rhetorical questions, misdirected attacks, fragmented supporting evidence, and inaccurate conclusions with painful grammer while at the same time suggesting himself to be more intelligent and better informed.

That's great news roadglide, I had heard that many local companies were bidding and thanks to the overcharging and incompetence of Halliburton pressure was building to toss 'em a bone. If we continue to give the Iraq people a chance to rebuild there own country and let the army do it's own laundry we may save a few billion and regain some crediblity\emoticon
{proud}

A new book is coming out next week for the Bush Administration and conservative media to attack. This one is unique because it was written by an official currently working in the CIA.

Here is an excerpt from a CNN article:
...In his book, the author labeled the invasion of Iraq a "Christmas gift" to Osama bin Laden and said the country has become a "Mujahadeen magnet" attracting Muslims from around the world to fight the occupying U.S. forces...The book charges that Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to the United States; that the war in Iraq undermined the overall war against terror and actually played into bin Laden's hands; and that the United States is losing that war on terror...

CIA insider slams Bush antiterror policies
Sunday, June 27, 2004

D'artagan....here is a reponse to your July 7 post.

Again you read and listen to what you want to hear and ignore any other facts. You made at least two references that the food for oil scandal in which the UN, France, Germany and Russia profited billions of dollars was not relevant in the decision to invade Iraq. You also say the UN represented a true coalition and that most counties listen to the UN and so hence there was a lack of a true coalition for the war.

Even though there was a coalition of over 2 dozen countries supporting the decision to invade Iraq..... and both the UN and the US Congress voted to authorize the use of force. Unlike Clinton .....Bush decided to enforce the YEARS of resoultions and now that we know that facts ....it shouldn't surprise anyone that the UN, France, Germany and Russia were not on board knowing the they would not be profiting billions of dollars that for YEARs they had been raking in. Talk about arrogance....... in your mind the only true coalition is one that included the UN, France, Germany and Russia.....the ones that had the most to lose with the invasion. Them being oppose to the invasion was self serving......study World history....it shows over and over again that countries that have look the other way while they have been bribed or appeased by a dictator in the mold of Saddam have always sooner or later had to pay a far greater price with human life than if they would have had the courage to stand up sooner. And in the last 100 years plus it has been alot of American lives.

Sometimes there is no easy way and the loss of life is the price to for freedom and our way of life. Europe was faced with an agressive Germany two different times in the last century and both times the countries of Europe appeased Germany and allowed Germany to build into a force that cost tens of millions of lives in two World Wars.

In both Korea and Vietnam even though tens of thousands of lives were lost......because the US took the position of containing the agrresion before those countries could grow in strength enough so that tens of millions lives were at risk again. The same with the COLD WAR.....the US made sure that we always were in a postion of strength were not afraid to use it forced to. World History proves over and over that appeasement results in failure....and when that failure finally happens we still have WAR......World Wars!!!!!

Kuhn mor

We learned a lot in WWII. The Marshall Plan financed France, Germany, England and Italy's rebuilding, but with largely U.S. goods and especially machinery. The guys mopping up were in no mood for PC shit. Our ally Russia didn't benefit as they were becoming the Evil Empire. The German's contributed by killing some 200,000 "peacekeepers " in the four years AFTER the war. Nice.
Friends benefited. We all benefited down the road. The same truth applies today.

And, why yes, Halliburton did ferry fuel in Nam!
And in Korea. And in WWII. They got started after WWI.

Clinton's administration used Halliburton to rebuild what we broke almost exclusively. This with Cheney answering the phone. Interesting, huh?

Accusations of these types have been flying at every administration in U.S. history. Mistakes are made and corrected. Halliburton was NOT busted, they indeed came forward with the fuel charges. We are in it long term, no need to get the axe permanent.

tjUncle

How would you react when a pier carelessly attacks your integrity? This was not official business here. How do you feel about Kerry's response to the Vietnam vet who questioned his integrity. He flipped the geezer off. Real nice. Some one there should still be in jail for that one!

Beachman: "a coalition of over 2 dozen countries supporting the decision to invade Iraq"

Well, it's interesting to note that most of those countries supporting the invasion didn't have weapons or manpower to lend to the effort. In fact, most of them were recruited through coercion, bullying, and bribery. The White House promised aid, loan guarantees, military assistance and other carrots to those who supported the war. The administration used a stick too. Threats to veto NATO membership applications, limit access to the US market, influence financial institutions (e.g. World Bank and the International Monetary Fund), other trade benefits and threats including where to buy oil (Mexico), etc.

You and Rimnoj make some good points about WWII, I'll give you guys that. Here's a question for you, *if* Haliburton (et. al.) were making billions of bucks from Iraq, do you really think there'd been a war?

Wombat88.....

All the things you pointed out happened in some cases and have been happening for years......that is World politics. The much bigger question is do we not learn from history and prevent a dicator whom had already started wars with Iran and invaded Kuwait. He had already had a history of trying to build nucluear weapons....... which Isreal raided and bombed years ago. Everyone has forgotton that!!!!! He fail to abide by the terms of surrender from the Gulf War. Tried to assasinate a former presisent of the US. It was no secret that he was funding sucide bombings in Isreal. And for years has laugh at and ignored the resoultions passed by the UN knowing that he had not only the UN leadership itself in his hip pocket......but three members of the Security Council(France, Germany & Russia) also in his hip pocket bribing them with billions of dollars.

If he didn't have or wasn't trying to aquire weapons of mass descruction......why did he continue not to let UN inspectors into Iraq?

If Haliburton was making billions of bucks from Iraq do you think we would have invaded.

First of all Haliburton is not a government of a country or a World Agency.....so you are really comparing apples and oranges.

Kuhn mor, once more, said;
"BTW -- What DOES it take to get CGs to work in Iraq. Please tell us omniscient one."

Omniscient? No, just an ability to learn. 'Raq isn't a good spot to monger, Sadam did a better job in the brothel business than did Bremer. Green Zone p4p is for well connected lifers. I didn't qualify. Truth is, I am too much of a puss. Mother doesn't let us out alone after dark, and the locals can help but we really didn't have the time to explore. Plenty of pussy in the Army and Navy, however. (Stand down boys, not you!) You'll need a set of cool digi camies and hope she doesn't get pregnant(she IS trying), cause you will be held accountable. My thing was I have money at home, and was willing to go bareback. How I want kids, I say. Got fixed long ago.

With regard to the so-called coalition, I was present at a talk given by a Japanese diplomat a while back. I was surprised by his candor when he said Japan would back the U.S. in Iraq because Japan relies on the U.S. to provide it a nuclear umbrella to protect itself against any threats by North Korea. I strongly suspect the vast majority of the so-called coalition countries are similarly supporting the U.S. not because they agree with the Bush policies on Iraq, but because there is something in it for them.

My god this seems to be the thread to nowhere !!
So much verbiage -- all wasted on those to whom it is directed. It is clear that nothing which will ever be said here will change anyone's mind. This seems to be a subject where all have firmly entrenched opinions already.

I for one am getting tired and frustrated reading all this---- Fuck it -I'm gonnna go get me some pussy !!

Beachman,

Again you read and listen to what you want to hear and ignore any other facts.
And I've said the same of you, except that I've identifed and supported my conclusion. Your identification of the "liberal media" reveals bias itself towards conservative media. This is further enforced by your repetition of conservative talking points and focus on the conservative media interpretation of opposing viewpoints as opposed to points actually brought up in this thread.

The only reason Congress authorized the use of force was because Iraq was presented as an immediate threat to national security. The absence of an immediate threat as justification for the Iraqi war would have led to consideration of alternative solutions that weren't piggybacked onto 9/11 and the al Qaeda threat.

Your focus on the food for oil scandal changes none of this. Congress has not tried to justify the invasion with this scandal nor would the American people or other countries of the world.

History should certainly guide us in making decisions, but your applications are misguided. You still fail to identify the differences of our current situation. Your call to "remember 9/11" is a mistake because it was not perpetrated by Iraq. The identification of the Iraq War as a "pre-emptive war" was and continues to be a correct label and makes the situation significantly different than other wars you mention. Your application of solutions for imperial aggression to the problem of stateless terrorism is both misdirected and dangerous.

Wombat88,

As I identified to Beachman, history should be a guide but it must also be correctly applied. The WW2 example is incorrectly applied. There was no Iraqi equivalent to Germany's expansionist aggression. Furthermore, we already had Saddam and Iraq isolated, contained and weakened, demonstrated by the incredibly swift fall of Saddam's regime.

Khun_mor,

My god this seems to be the thread to nowhere!...

Not necessarily. If you view the debate as an attempt to change a participant's viewpoint or gauge its success by doing so, then yes it would probably be pointless.

However, keep in mind that a lot of people are paying closer attention to politics and wondering why we went to war with Iraq after the war in Afghanistan. At the very least, these people may be better informed as a result of this debate and will hopefully pay more attention and participate more in the political process in the future.

d'Artagnan, Right you are concerning the attention people are paying to politics. Holding the line, especially in a public forum like this one, is so important. For the first time many folks are going to vote and they are looking around and wondering what's really going on. It absolutely essential that every effort is made to help them see past the Crap.

The criminals in charge are hiding behind a curtain of mud, venom, smoke and lies and people of conscience have to do everything they can to tear it down again and again, not only for the greater good but for your own self interest.

The junior league hate mongers we see on this thread are the least of the problem but
whenever possible they have to have their deceits dismantled carefully, rationally and
in the cold light of day. Kudos to you and the patriots online who have done just
that. It's four months until the election and every vote count. Whatever it is that
persuades these trolls to act against their own best interests is right now irrelevant,
there is much more at stake

d'Artagnan,

The references to WWII are in regard to rebuilding alone. However..you said

"There was no Iraqi equivalent to Germany's expansionist aggression."

Except invading Kuwait. This led to a peace agreement that was violated by Saddam. If he only would have actually been as reasonable as you believe he'd was, war could have been avoided.


"We already had Saddam and Iraq isolated, contained and weakened, demonstrated by the incredibly swift fall of Saddam's regime."

This was a clever strategy by many of these cowards. The simply put down there arms and walked away. Now they hide in the shadows, and kill us and their own people. If they would be patient, we would leave and they could start their revolutionary war towards Islamic Fundamentalism. When strengthened, they will then bring those values here as they have in many, many places on the globe. All bow to Allah or die!



"The only reason Congress authorized the use of force was because Iraq was presented as an immediate threat to national security."

And this, of course, is King George's fault. He clearly should have ignored the evidence, or knew in his heart it was false. You certainly would have understood if it was correct.


Attacking Iraq was yet another necessary step in squelching the expansion of fundamental Islam. Kerry call for a "new America". What he really wants is for us to go back to 09/10/2001 and pretend this never happened. Forgetting, of course, this latest aggression began twenty years ago.

The invasion of Kuwait was addressed with the previous war in Iraq. There was no equivalent Iraqi expansionist activity in the current war.

This was a clever strategy by many of these cowards. The simply put down there arms and walked away. Now they hide in the shadows, and kill us and their own people. If they would be patient, we would leave and they could start their revolutionary war towards Islamic Fundamentalism. When strengthened, they will then bring those values here as they have in many, many places on the globe. All bow to Allah or die!

A clever strategy indeed. Perhaps the only thing that prevented this revolutionary war in Iraq was Saddam's iron grip on power. Osama bin Laden is probably delighted that the Bush Administration invaded a sovereign Iraq in a "pre-emptive" war under false pretenses. al Qaeda, the perpetraters of 9/11, are swelling in ranks across the Middle East at the injustice they perceive, further emphasized by civilian casualties and the hostage scandal. Countries around the globe, included respected allies, distrust our motives and our administration, many bitter because they felt they've been lied to. Our credibility and standing is diminished, making it more difficult and more expensive to fight the true war on terror. American forces are tied up in Iraq, over-extended to the point where we are calling up reserves and circulating rumors about bringing back the draft.

And this, of course, is King George's fault. He clearly should have ignored the evidence, or knew in his heart it was false.
The alternative appears to be the acceptance that practically the entire community of intelligence professionals bears all the blame. I personally believe that the Bush Administration had a strong influence on the direction the CIA went and how their conclusions were obtained. I also know that those who have already formed an opinion on this will probably not be convinved otherwise, but for anyone that has not formed a solid opinion, I think the following article presents both sides rather well.
Senate: Iraq intelligence was faulty, By Hannah K. Strange, United Press International, Published 7/9/2004 7:35 PM

Attacking Iraq was yet another necessary step in squelching the expansion of fundamental Islam.
No, attacking Iraq without adequate planning nor support has accelerated the expansion. Arab countries are more angry and distrustful than ever. Our cost economically and in human lives is enormous and growing, and we are still far from stabilizing Iraq and preventing it from becoming a new home and breeding ground for a new generation of stateless terrorists.

What he really wants is for us to go back to 09/10/2001 and pretend this never happened.
You are still confused. 9/11 = al Qaeda/bin Laden. The correct response was the Afghanistan War. We are now discussing the Iraq War.

d'Artagnan...

It looks like Rimnoj has responded to you comments......Thank you Rimnoj.


Again I ask....if Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or was not trying to aquire them......Why did he continue not to allow inspectors into the country?

We know from history that he had tried to build nuculear weapons in the past .....but thanks to Isreal..... they raided and bombed that threat years ago that nobody seems to want to remember.

Clinton and Kerry both were claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction way before Bush was president........were they wrong too?

With Saddam's history and intentions and the lack of the UN to enforce any resoultions.....do we wait until he actually used WMD?

Anyway what has.... when or where has the UN made a real difference in preventing or keeping peace in any part of the World without turning to the United States to provide the bulk of the military and financing to achieve an acceptable result.

The UN couldn't control what was happening in Bosnia until they basically turned over control to the United States.

The UN has had no real effect in Rwanda,Sudan and other parts of Africa where mass killings,rapes and slavery are a much bigger scale than they ever where in Bosnia.

Why in the past 100+ years does the World always turn to the United States when things get out of control to bail their asses out.....but when the US wants to prevent things before from getting out of control we are the bad guys?

Do you know how long it took Hitler to to invade and control France in World War II......ONLY 39 DAYS. They gave up their freedom in 39 DAYS and you expect us to trust our freedom and our way of life based on their opinion.....especially in light of they were taking bribes from Saddam of billions of dollars in the oil for food scandal.

The US doesn't need to apoligize to anyone for invading IRAQ. Saddam lost the Gulf War....which he started. (The funny thing about that is that some people claim that the only reason we care at all about Iraq is because of oil....and behind all the bullshit.....that is the very reason Saddam invaded Kuwait...was for their oil.) He lost the War signed a surrender and fail to abide by those terms and had ignored years of UN resolutions demanding he comply with the resolution. When you lose a WAR...especially one you started and sign a surrender.....you abide by those terms..... or suffer the consquences of losing another War! And throw in in tried to assasinate a former President of the United States.

It was long over due......9\11 woke us up .......Saddam didn't have to have a hand in it. Germany and Japan basically didn't have anything to do with each other in the 1930's while they both built up forces and power to achieve their evil agendas.....and then they joined forces.

Germany didn't attack Pearl Harbor....but in fact it was decided to declared War on Germany, in addition to Japan...... and to focus most of the resources on defeating Hitler and Germany first..... because they were consider a far greater threat to the United States Homeland because of their work on the V rockets and their race to build the atomic bomb.

History has so much to teach us....if we want to learn from it. Yes....it is not exactly the same....but there are many parallels.

Do we ignore that that both Bin Laden and Saddam had stated intentions.....to kill Americans and attack American interests. And do we wait until either or both.....regardles of if they were working together or not ....to obtain weapons of mass destruction......when their behaviour showed us that was their ultimate goal?

Beachman, you are mostly repeating yourself and still fail to rebut or address issues that I have brought up. You complain about other people not remembering history, yet you cannot remember points from a few days ago.

You seem unable to differentiate between state-sponsored terrorism and stateless terrorism. It is the same mistake that the Bush Administration was making before 9/11 when they began to focus on missile defense as a response to state-sponsored terrorism instead of the kind of stateless terrorism the Clinton and Clarke emphasized as the true threat with the likes of al Qaeda.

I hardly expect you to read the following article because it is part of the so-called vast "liberal media" conspiracy, but if you think you are informed enough and resistant to brainwashing, I challenge you to rebut the arguments made in this article.

How the war in Iraq has damaged the war on terrorism
Subscription site, but you can get a free day pass by watching a short advertisement.

Excerpts:

Terrorist groups and rogue states should not be conflated, as military strategist Jeffrey Record argued in a report [link corrected] published by the Army War College. Terrorists -- especially suicidal ones -- have no return address and cannot be deterred, while rogue states have to worry about retaliation. The claim that rogue states are likely to be more easily deterred than terrorists has been argued by many academics, one of whom happens to be serving as the national security advisor. In her January 2000 article in Foreign Affairs, Condoleezza Rice argued that Iraq in particular could be deterred because any use of weapons of mass destruction would mean "national obliteration"...But the greatest threat America faces today does not stem from "rogue states" but from weak ones and the terrorist groups and purveyors of WMD that thrive within their borders. This has been clear to some of us who have dealt with terrorism for a decade or more. After 9/11, the fixation on enemy states as the most important threat to U.S. national security can no longer be seen as just quaintly old-fashioned. It is now a dangerous fixation.
...
Moreover, by attacking Iraq without sufficient preparations for creating a functioning state, we have created precisely what the Bush administration had identified as a major threat to world security: a weak state unable to police its borders or to maintain a monopoly on violence. Failed and failing states can no longer be viewed exclusively as humanitarian crises, but must be seen as threats to international security because of the opportunities they offer to terrorists.
...
The false idea that the United States is engaged in a crusade against the Islamic world is a critical component of the Islamist nihilists' worldview, and spreading this idea is critical to their success. The unprovoked attack on Iraq, followed by an occupation that is widely perceived as inept and arbitrary, even by our British ally, has confirmed this view among potential sympathizers. Every time American troops shoot into a crowd, even in self-defense, the image of America as a reckless, ruthless oppressor is highlighted. Televised pictures of American soldiers and their tanks in Iraq are a "deeply humiliating scene to Muslims," explained Saudi dissident Saad al-Faqih, who calls the war in Iraq a "gift" to Osama bin Laden. Unsurprisingly, terrorist recruiters are using the war and the continuing occupation to mobilize recruits -- not only inside Iraq but outside as well. Intelligence officials in the United States, Europe and Africa have reported that the new recruits they are seeing since the war became imminent are younger, with a more menacing attitude.
...
Even as the war is bringing various terrorist groups together, it is increasing tensions between the United States and its allies. The Polish president has suggested that he was deceived when his country agreed to participate in the coalition. The newly elected prime minister of Spain has announced he intends to withdraw his troops....The war in Iraq has split the allies, not the terrorists. It has turned Iraq into a Mecca for international terrorists, and mobilized local Shiite and Salafi jihadist groups that had previously posed a minimal threat. It has facilitated connections between terrorists and those with formal military experience in Saddam's army, the lethal nightmare that the invasion was supposed to have thwarted. Antipathy toward the United States, not only in Iraq and throughout the entire Islamic world, but in Europe as well, has become a dangerous trend exploited by terrorists. Even as we tout our successes in rounding up al-Qaida terrorists, the broader movement inspired by bin Laden and ignited by the invasion of Iraq is recruiting new nihilist minions throughout the world.

>>>if Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or was not trying to aquire them......Why did he continue not to allow inspectors into the country?<<<

This is anyone's guess but the answer is not necessarily because he had WMDs, or was trying to acquire them. Perhaps he calculated it would be in Iraq's (or at least his) interest to appear to be stronger militarily than Iraq actually was. Making it appear Iraq had such weapons by refusing to let inspectors in (while mis-calculating the U.S. would not invade without world support) made Hussein feel more secure and/or fed his need to be macho.

Iraq (substitute Hussein if you prefer) considered Iraq a sovereign nation and resented having inspectors in its territory (it is not a legitimate counter-argument to say Hussein had previously agreed to inspectors; I am only presenting a reason why Hussein might have refused to allow inspectors if Iraq did not have WMDs; I am not attributing to Hussein honor or great powers of analysis).

"if Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction or was not trying to aquire them......Why did he continue not to allow inspectors into the country?"

Are you telling me that you don't remember that inspectors (Hans Blix) were in Iraq and begging for more time to finish there task?


Published on Tuesday, April 6, 2004 by the Associated Press
Hans Blix
COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Iraq  is worse off now, after the U.S.-led invasion, than it was under Saddam Hussein, Hans Blix told a Danish newspaper Tuesday.

"What's positive is that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when figuring out the score, the negatives weigh more," the former chief U.N. weapons inspector was quoted as saying in the daily newspaper Jyllands Posten.

"That accounts for the many casualties during the war and the many people who still die because of the terrorism the war has nourished," he said. "The war has liberated the Iraqis from Saddam, but the costs have been too great."

Blix, whose inspection team didn't make any significant weapons finds during months of searching Iraq before the war, has sharply criticized the United States and Britain for their invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein's regime.

The primary reason given for the invasion was to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. None were found during or after the invasion.

The former Swedish foreign minister currently heads a newly created Stockholm-based independent commission on weapons of mass destruction.

"Germany didn't attack Pearl Harbor....but in fact it was decided to declared War on Germany, in addition to Japan."

We didn't declare war on Germany, They declared war on us

December 5th - Germans halt attack on Moscow.
December 7th - Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.
December 7th - Japanese declare war on USA.
December 7th - Japanese invade Siam and Malaya.
December 8th - Allies (except Soviets) declare war on Japan.
December 11th - Germany declares war on USA.
December 25th - Japanese capture Hong Kong.
December 25th - British Re-capture Benghazi.

Laguy said:

“This is anyone's guess”

We have found common ground! The fact is, his refusal to cooperate, in additional to Clark’s statement to the effect of “WMD’s are a slam dunk” made for tense times in the White house indeed.

Tjuncle said:

“We didn't declare war on Germany, They declared war on us”

More common ground! I hope. We did not respond to the Nazi’s until after the Japanese attack. Similar to today. It took a bloody nose to get us out of our chair and away from our babes.

Rimnoj: Please give the source for your statement that Clark said "WMD's are a slam dunk." I don't think it happened. OTOH another one of Bush's advisors did say this. I'll leave it to you to straighten out your facts.

Your statement that we found common ground is preposterous. Your rhetorical question suggested the only conceivable reason Hussein refused to let in inspectors was because he had WMD's. That is simply illogical thinking. If you agree, then and only then have we found common ground.

"We did not respond to the Nazi’s until after the Japanese attack. Similar to today. It took a bloody nose to get us out of our chair and away from our babes."

We never got a bloody nose from Iraq, our fight should have always been Afghanistan in conjunction with other international efforts and close cooperation with our friends, who currently won't
give us the time of day.

Also it was Tenet that called Iraq a "slam dunk."
Clark, the leading expert on terrorism in this
administration strongly advised against any invasion of Iraq. He further made his point by resigning his post after over twenty-five years of serving every president since Reagan and wrote a book warning against this Administration ineptitude.

d'Artagnan
sigh
You insist on ignoring salient points.
I suppose one of the other two musketeers does the listening.

“The invasion of Kuwait was addressed with the previous war in Iraq. There was no equivalent Iraqi expansionist activity in the current war. “

Yes there was. 14 r-e-s-o-l-u-t-i-o-n-s. This is how it is done. When you ass is kicked, and you make a deal to stay alive, you are expected to honor that deal. I don’t really care if you find it rude, but this is about respect.



"Perhaps the only thing that prevented this revolutionary war in Iraq was Saddam's iron grip on power“

I agree completely with much of this paragraph. But he could not be trusted long term. If the war was prosecuted the way the next battle will be, Sadam would appear to be a little girl holding on to her cracked-up wild pony.


“American forces are tied up in Iraq,”

We aren’t, fortunately. We will leave if necessary. We won’t have far to go, either.


“No, attacking Iraq without adequate planning..”
“we are still far from stabilizing Iraq... “

Wrong, and wrong again. I do not understand what you expected. We are 16 months in. 16 months into WWII we had won no major battles, and land in Alaska flew the flag of Nippon. Europe was effectively lost. London was bleeding. Africa was Rommel’s.(or somebody in German tank) . Similar mess in Korea, Although the Japanese agreed to step aside formally -similar ti Lybia and Pakistan’s civility now. Our revolutionary war was all but lost a year and half in. (btw Only 30 percent of the people at the time were for that war! ). These things take time. Hey, Kenny Enron went down, some said that was not going to happen!




“You are still confused. 9/11 = al Qaeda/bin Laden. The correct response was the Afghanistan War. We are now discussing the Iraq War.”

They are both but the beginning. Kerry does want to imply we will wake up with him as president and it will all be a bad dream. I am surprised you concede Afghanistan so easily, There is no more proof of the need to hit here than any where else. It was based on the same information source, right? The problem remains Islamic Fundamentalism.



"You seem unable to differentiate between state-sponsored terrorism and stateless terrorism.”

“It is the same mistake that the Bush Administration was making before 9/11 when they began to focus on missile defense as a response to state-sponsored terrorism instead of the kind of stateless terrorism the Clinton and Clarke emphasized as the true threat with the likes of al Qaeda. “

Dead is dead. Does the color of the truck matter?
A mistake to follow more than one single threat at a time?
Clinton and Clarke are liars, and incompetent. You forget again this is the source of the mis information you easily hold GWB responsible for. Try and stay on track.



Thanks for the excerpts from Salon.com and the acknowledgment that they are indeed so left they can’t see right. More Dick Clark’s C.I.A. dribble.


"Moreover, by attacking Iraq without sufficient preparations for creating a functioning state, we have created precisely what the Bush administration had identified as a major threat to world security: a weak state unable to police its borders or to maintain a monopoly on violence"
"Televised pictures of American soldiers and their tanks in Iraq are a "deeply humiliating scene to Muslims," explained Saudi dissident Saad al-Faqih, who calls the war in Iraq a "gift" to Osama bin Laden."
"The war in Iraq has split the allies, not the terrorists."

These sympathetic comments remind me of a boxer who shakes his head to show he is not hurt, when we all know he can not continue to get pounded.


Beachman’s main point as you identified “ a few days ago” remains effectively un-rebutted. I’d love to explain the whole plan but this is long enough.

You know who you remind me of Rimnoj, Bagdad Bob.
You remember him, he was the Iraq mouth piece who
kept claiming victory as his whole country came
down around his ears.
He claimed the Iraqis we'e beating us back over the border just as we were poised to take Baghdad. your facts and your assesment of them can at best be called selective.
You offer half digested arguments as unassialable
and ignore what others carefully offer as
illrelevent. You are so much like Baghdad Bob,
sort of a chicken little in reverse, if I close my
eyes real tight and click my heels together three
times I can almost be amused

Laguy

I do agree with your post. I don’t see a question in the response. I don’t understand Sadam action’s other than the hypothesis you present. I tend to believe the machismo thing.


Tjuncle

I stand corrected on the Tenet quote, thanks, but Clark did not resign to make his point to GWB. He also did not make the case to not go to war. His book is full of contradictions.
Germany didn’t attack us, either. The fact we went to Afghanistan is actually a contrast, though a great idea. You would have believed Bagdad Bob. Do you have a point? Specifically? Thanks again for helping me out with Laguy’s question, is that all you got?


I need to go to T.J. (Being caught there now would not be good for me) before an over seas flight from LAX September. You guys could kick my ass but I bet I could still talk fast enough to make a point than this shit. Instead I want to offer why we did this for real.

We have a problem. It is identified by those that do the fighting (Not the president at the time) as Fundamental Islam. Saudi is perhaps the most valuable target but a dangerous one. They are a friend, control 16 percent of the oil flow, and actually have some pull in the Arab world, in addition to an army that could conquer France tomorrow. If the Royals fall, and they will, there will be a mess.
Taking Afganny was simple and true. The Russian’s loved it, though embarrassed by our ease! ( we set up in the old airfields they couldn’t hold ) Pakistan went, out of fucking fear, from advisary to tenuous ally. At least the government, as half of them do hate us. Libya has followed. This is good. We want small bites, not everyone at once.

The base this provides was key to Iraq. They were an easy next step due to the U.N. resolutions. If they had those weapons( and they did, do, or moved them) we would be rolling no pro.
We want Iran, no doubt. Not as in own, but as in a democracy no matter how green. (BTW, no true democracy has ever declared war on another). The bases in Iraq, as well as showing resolve to the world, are key as well. We can not be concerned Europe’s apparent disagreement, they will never contribute anyway. And its not like they all disagree, its really only a bit more than in the U.S., we are victims of sound bites and selective reporting.

We want Saudi to be stable and secure, but effectively alone. After seeing how well Sadam controlled his people indeed, we have a great deal of concern for what may follow here. Like the picture on that last link, the desert there may look like the fused sand left over from MOABs ( I believe that what it is).

Turkey is helpful, though the recent government was late getting seated.

Syria, Yemen, others need to be advised, WE”RE FUCKING CRAZY.
Crazy as they are, anyway. We may just prove it in the Sudan. Lot’s of oil there! Michael Moore has another movie to make, if he only had a clue of what we are truly up to.

Yes there was. 14 r-e-s-o-l-u-t-i-o-n-s...
Have someone explain to you how "Iraqi expansionist activity" is not equivalent to "14 r-e-s-o-l-u-t-i-o-n-s".

I agree completely with much of this paragraph...
The paragraph you agree with states that the US invasion of Iraq, more specifically the manner in which the Bush Administration implemented it, has served the interests of bin Laden.

We aren’t, fortunately. We will leave if necessary.
If our troops leave, the threat of destabilization increases exponentionally.

Wrong, and wrong again...
Your comparison of the fighting of other wars to the poorly planned post-war period following Saddam's fall is the mistake.

They are both but the beginning....
They were the beginning by choice. The Iraq War was piggybacked on 9/11 and the Afghanistan War. Have someone explain to you why we invaded Afghanistan, then explain why we invaded Iraq. Take notes so you can remember. BTW...I do understand that there is an underlying neo-con plan which prompted the Bush Administration to mislead Congress and the American people.

Dead is dead. Does the color of the truck matter?
Look up the definitions so you can learn the differences between the types of terrorism.

A mistake to follow more than one single threat at a time?
When the actions strengthen the greater threat and lessen the possibility of handling all the threats...Yes.

Clinton and Clarke are liars, and incompetent.
Right...they should have been working working on a missile defense shield instead of trying to figure out how to deal with al Qaeda...like the Bush Administration was doing before 9/11 occured.
See Undelivered Rice speech scrutinized
Excerpt: "National security adviser Condoleeza Rice planned to deliver a speech on September 11, 2001, about national security that said nothing about Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalist groups."

Thanks for the excerpts from Salon.com and the acknowledgment that they are indeed so left they can’t see right.
Look up the definition of sarcasm.

These sympathetic comments remind me of a boxer who shakes his head to show he is not hurt, when we all know he can not continue to get pounded.
It's no surprise you lower yourself to typical hard-right attacks of identifying facts as treasonous comments sympathetic to terrorism. It might be easier for you than a literate and comprehensive debate, but it's still wrong.

Beachman’s main point as you identified “ a few days ago” remains effectively un-rebutted. I’d love to explain the whole plan but this is long enough.
Don't bother, it's obvious you are struggling enough. Perhaps later you should try reading through the thread again so you may identify the rebuttal to Beachman's argument.

Instead I want to offer why we did this for real...Syria, Yemen, others need to be advised, WE”RE FUCKING CRAZY.

And while we're implementing THE PLAN, let's lie to Congress, lie to the American people, and lie to the world about our justifications for going to war. None of them will mind, because we have established that we know best, and of course, we are right. Opposing viewpoints have no place when God is on our side. Our actions may piss off our allies and discourage them from cooperating or bailing us out if we need help, but who needs them? We've been able to provide 90% of the financial and human cost so far...we can do so indefinitely. That pesky free press might get in the way, but if we focus our message and identify them as terrorist sympathizers, we'll prevail. If that doesn't work, we can scare the people with terrorism warnings, then the public will fall in line.

Umm...if you didn't look up "sarcasm" yet, do so now then come back and reread this.

(Message edited by dartagnan on July 10, 2004)

Great post d'Artagnan, you've answered all of the dogma with carful and concise rebuttal.
If I were you I wouldn't expect our Baghdad Bob to admit defeat though. I predict he will shoot back with assurances that when "Syria, Yemen, others" have been dealt with China better watch the fuck out.

As probably one of just a few guys on this board who has lived in the Arabian Gulf area as civilian businessman and not as active duty military/dependant/contractor/civilian employee, I tend to take a, shall I say, amused stance when folks like Rimjob start talking out of their asses.

Point one - most Arabs in the GCC countries wanted Iraq invaded, because it would drive up the price of oil and thus line their own pockets. This is a common reaction, although in the GCC it comes with a twist. During Desert Fox in late 1998 and, really, the entire year, the old addage of the "public mouth" and the "private mouth" really hit home.

Yes, publicaly you would hear a lot about "we can't make war on our fellow Arabs, our fellow Muslims, yada yada yada." Privately, anyone with a stake in the game wanted Saddam crushed because that would lead to instability and instability is what drives up the cost of oil. This is simple shit, guys. The bottom line is almost always the bottom line, money and what it brings.

On another tangent, I just got back from Brasil this morning and am just reading through this thread from the past week. Here's a nugget of thought on my part, from the tech industry of all things.

I started out about 12 years ago, early on working for network infrastructure vendors and over the past 5 years focusing more on network security, monitoring and defense vendors. Basically, I'm the smart engineer guy who teams up with the dumb sales guy to get customers to spend very excessive sums of dollars on very technical products from whatever vendor I happen to work for (exact same job for 12 years, but with six companies).

Now, as you might expect, I tend to run into very very smart people on a daily basis and one thing I have seen, from PhDs from M.I.T. all the way down to community college dropouts, is that most people think that they are smarter than they really are. That's not so bad, but a second condition which can come with this is the perception that you're the only smart guy in the room. Not that you're smart, or even that you're the smartest in the room, but that you are the only smart guy and everyone else is dumb as dogshit.

Guess what? No one is that smart and although there are more than a few people who, if verfied by a non-partisan committee could be officially classified as "Dumb as Dogshit", with perhaps a certification to go with it, most of the time even idiots get lucky, a few brain cells fire at the same time and an interesting thought is created.

My point? It is very, very important to keep an open mind. Yes, you may be right but even so, it pays to listen to other people. Maybe you'll realize you're wrong or maybe you'll just hear something that makes you think a little more and helps you refine your ideas.

This is what I consistantly fail to see from the Bush squad. They decided long ago that "we smart, you dumb" and that's been that. They don't fucking listen to what anybody has to say unless it reinforces what they've already decided on. I can't remember if was in Business Week or one of the newspapers I read last night on the way home, but a good point was made - the Bushies view other countries as either enemies or vassal states. I agree with that 100% That is precisely what "you're either with us or against us" means. This pisses me off to no end, and it should piss everyone off.

So, the next time you're certain that WMDs are in Iraq, or that Iraq was going to attack the US, or whatever the issue may be, take 10 fucking seconds and think through it.

I don't get it. The movie sucked, and yet the Republicans where I live still think it's unAmerican. How can it be unAmerican if it sucks?

d'Artagnan on Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 10:09 pm:
said:



Nothing

Catocony,

I agree we must keep an open mind. Evaluate the situation and formulate a plan, so I have been taught. Bush's problem is that he did make a decision based on poor consultation, and must see it through.
Both sides tend to hear what they want. It is all about political control. Most of the discussion on the war is really beside the main point.


“Point one - most Arabs in the GCC countries wanted Iraq invaded, because it would drive up the price of oil and thus line their own pockets.”

“This is simple shit, guys. The bottom line is almost always the bottom line, money and what it brings. “

No doubt. I would only add a distinction between the Governments and the peoples’s ambition’s.
Iraq did not pass the wealth on , as I saw, and we are not liked.
As you saw, Saudi passes wealth on to the people, where I understand we are still not liked.
I honestly believe they misunderstand our intentions. Like wise I honestly believe we do not mis-understand fundlemental Islam’s intentions.

I guess you do not agree on the spread of influence that is not is the best interest of the U.S.
I don’t know your origin, but mine is outside of the U.S., and it still seems clear to me.

Saudi Arabia has probably 15-20% unemployment of Saudi citizens, because the true wealth is passed on via guest worker visa permit charges, percentages on apartments used to house guest workers, things along those lines. One day I will post my GCC economic explanation but the government does not just pass money on directly to most people. There is a distinct pecking order, a true trickle-down system. The end result? Saudis at the bottom get jack shit because one, they feel that most jobs are beneath them because that's what guest workers do, and two, the major source of money is from guest workers. It's the closest thing to modern indentured servitude there is and there is no incentive to convince unemployed Saudis to take jobs at stores, hotels, factories and so on because then nobody would make $1500 a year per guest worker, which is what visas used to cost.

Simple - a Saudi is given 100 guest worker visa permits, which are sold for $1,500 each per year. The Saudi is also given 25 apartments at very cheap, subsidized prices, which he then rents to the 100 guest workers he is sponsoring. Say, a markup of $500 per apartment per month. So, on an annual basis, thats $150,000 for the visas ($1,500 x 100) plus another $150,000 for apartment rentals ($500 x 25 x 12 months). Through in the profits from the corner grocery the the Saudi owns for free, which is where the 100 guest workers buy all of their food and such, plus the interest in the local utilities and at the end, you have a nice $325,000 or so per year, tax free, and all the Saudi is left to do is sit around all day smoking, drinking coffee, talking on a cell phone, driving around and such.

So where does the oil wealth go? To pay for infrastructure, all of those apartment buildings and shopping centers and other things which are then more-or-less given away and are built and run by the guest workers, and to pay for the massive public sector jobs which are all most Saudis will do.

A comment about the Russian 'failure' in Afganistan, cited above. Actually, the Russians successfully invaded Afganistan, within 3 weeks of their entry into Afganistan, they had booted the local government, set up air bases, and were in control of the country. The problem was holding the country, they found that the only areas that they really controlled was Kabul and their bases. In the rest of the country, local war lords or rebels held the power. Sound familiar?

The difference between the Soviet invasion and the American invasion is that the Russkies sent out soldiers to try to gain control of the countryside, and they were picked off like we are losing guys in Iraq. After about 10 years of that, they decided it wasn't worth the cost, and they pulled out. They never lost control of Kabul or the bases, they just bugged out.

I predict that if the US ever decides to try to gain actual control of the whole country, we will suffer the same fate.

The real difference is that we crushed the locals, not just took control of Bagrum, Kandahar, and Ghazni valleys. We also cruised mountains at will! I have stacks of pics of caves (in the mountains) filled with once Taliban munitions, much of it there thru-out the soviet campaign. We destroyed the Resistance, and much of the nooks and crannies they hide in. We could drive the country side, shop in bazaars, fraternize with locals. The Soviets could not venture safely about largely due to our STINGER missiles, etc. , in spite of attempting a heavier hand. They were 6 months in before any real control was established, and continued to grow forces from 50 to 100,000 over the years.

We did work with some Afganny war lords, not Taliban or Mujahedeen , to control some areas, kind of like a states rights thing. Huge difference was cooperation from Pakistan, and no support from an outside source. (Us against the USSR), as well as superior planning and execution.

I agree we do not want to attempt to control the country, we restored order and put it back the hands of who we can get along with, good or bad. Sound familiar?

Has anyone notice that Bush's approval rating of handling the War in Iraq has gone up since Fahrenheit 911 was released!

(Message edited by beachman on July 14, 2004)

Has anyone notice that Bush's approval rating of handling the War in Iraq has gone up since "Fahrenheit 911" was released!

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released two weeks ago showed George W Bush's approval rating of only 45 percent. Historically, no incumbent president with an overall approval rating of less than 51 percent has bee re-elected in the past five decades.
The World News July 15th

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has gained in his race against President George W. Bush by picking North Carolina Senator John Edwards as his running mate, a poll for Newsweek magazine found.

The July 8-9 poll of 1,001 registered voters found the Kerry- Edwards ticket leading Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney by 51 percent to 45 percent. In a May 13-14 poll, Kerry had an edge of 46 percent to Bush's 45 percent. The new poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Bloomberg.com July 14th

President Bush's approval rating has declined three percentage points for every 100 US military personnel who have died in Iraq,
Atlanta Journal Constitution July 12th

In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, when asked whether the statement "he shares your values" applies more to Bush or Kerry, 46 percent said the president and 48 percent said Kerry.

"With President Bush's approval rating slipping as a result of setbacks in the Iraq war, lawmakers in both parties appear emboldened to defy the White House and the House GOP leadership."
washingtonpost.com
Friday, July 9, 2004; 10:59 AM

You may be ignorant Beachman, but I applaud you consistency

Anyone who applauds consistency could not possible vote for kerry/edwards, unless he wants to be inconsistent as well!

President Bush's approval has risen on nearly all polls.

The source of the polls is what is most important. A Newsweek poll leans one way as a Fox poll would another. Wall Street Journal/NBC News, strange bedfellows indeed. Zogby was the golden boy last year, and admittedly polls kerry fairly well. Washington post/ABC, Newsweek, New York Times do not sample well at all.

Has anyone notice that Bush's approval rating of handling the War in Iraq has gone up since Fahrenheit 911 was released!

The way people view of how Bush handled Iraq will always depend on a number of factors, so you are not demonstrating and cannot demonstrate much correlation here. The closest you could probably come is to specifically poll the question "Has seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 strengthened your view of how Bush has handled the War in Iraq?"

Those that are not drunk on conservative media's relentless propaganda should consider Bush inconsistent.

In September 2001, Bush said capturing bin Laden was “our number one priority.” By March 2002, he was claiming, “I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I really don’t care. It’s not that important.”

In October 2001, he was dead-set against the need for a Department of Homeland Security. Seven months later, he thought it was a great idea.

In May 2002, he opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Four months later, he supported it.

During the 2000 campaign, he said that gay marriage was a states’ rights issue: “The states can do what they want to do.” During the 2004 campaign, he called for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Dizzy yet? No? OK:

Bush supported CO2 caps, then opposed them. He opposed trade tariffs, then he didn’t. Then he did again. He was against nation building, then he was OK with it. We’d found WMD, then we hadn’t. Saddam was linked to Osama, then he wasn’t. Then he was … sorta. Chalabi was in, then he was out. Way out.

In fact, Bush’s entire Iraq misadventure has been one big costly, deadly flip-flop:

We didn’t need more troops, then we did. We didn’t need more money, then we did. Preemption was a great idea — on to Syria, Iran and North Korea! Then it wasn’t — hello, diplomacy! Baathists were the bad guys, then Baathists were our buds. We didn’t need the U.N., then we did.

Not mentioned in the article, but related to 9/11 commission:

Against Rice testifying in front of commission, then looking forward to her testifying.

Against testifying in front of commission, but then looking forward to it but only as long as it's not under oath and Cheney is present.

Bush has reversed course when forced to so many times in recent history that it's ridiculous.

Summary:

Now, God knows, I have no problem with changing your mind — so long as you admit that you have and can explain why. But Bush steadfastly — almost comically — refuses to admit that there’s been a change, even when the entire world can plainly see otherwise. He’s got his story and he’s sticking to it. But that darn Kerry, he keeps shifting his positions!


excerpts from George W. Bush: Presidential or Pathological?

Hey, if Bush's approval ratings rise, but at the same time so does Kerry's lead over Bush, all I can say is "Bring 'em on!" (or something like that).

"Has seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 strengthened your view of how Bush has handled the War in Iraq?"


76% Say "Fahrenheit 911" Helps Bush Campaign
Harris Interactive Poll ^


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161431/posts

“Those that are not drunk on conservative media's relentless propaganda should consider Bush inconsistent. “

Ridiculous! Don’t believe everything you read without checking up. Baa. Baa.

Kerry shifts on ideology. President Bush does not. The difference is enormous. Kerry rides the fence so much you can see the white pickets sticking out of his ass.
Bush had adapted to an changing environment. Much of his "protests" to an issue are a tact to bring out fence riders, like kerry. He is not above compromising on issues. He was forced to adapt to the tariff mess. I realize this can happen on both sides.
Arianna Huffington is quite far, far from a credible source!
George Washington University professor Dr. Justin Frank is even farther. Asinine even.

Fact check your “points” , there is very little truth here. Much of this post is drivel. It is not worth a cut and paste debunk. Some of it reflects Bush’s and ability to adapt, something you accuse him of not being able to do. Now that is inconsistent. Much of it are lies.

A couple to start with.
Where did Bush declare bin Laden the #1 priority ? Never happened.
Dead set against homeland security? Not.
He does believe in State’s rights, but the marriage thing affects other states as well. Kind of like your pursuit of happiness can’t result in bad things happening to my dog.

From the FreeRepublic web site: "The Weekly Poll is a voluntary survey for our website users [a bunch of right-wingers], and is not scientifically projectable to any other population. We present these surveys to give our website visitors [the same bunch of right-wingers] an opportunity to share their [right-wing] opinions on particular topics. These questions are often passed on by our members and are for entertainment purposes only."

Entertaining? Yes, I was quite amused!

Point is as I said, the source of the polls is meaningful.
How 'bout the photo of moore fallen?

Rimnoj:

You take a very interesting debating tact, that facts are not important, but interpretation of motives is.

We all can debate motivations. What cannot be argued are facts. You were given a post with such facts as the famous Bush assertion that "Bin Laden is our number one priority" followed by a complete turnaround a year later. Rather than dispute those facts, you went with ascribing motivations.

I would assert that changing the nation's policy from a search for Bin Laden to ousting Saddam Hussein was a policy shift of disasterous proportions, which is now virtually admitted by the Bush Administration as they struggle with preventing a terrorist act on US soil later this year.

My personal belief is that Bush views US casualties as acceptable collateral damage in the war to keep up oil prices, but that's just my view, not John Kerry's.