Time Mag POTY 1938-Hitler 2004-Bush

[glyph]

seatbackfurther, thanks for having decent argument with me. It has been kept to logic and reasoning, and away from emotional reactions. Not often topics like this can be discussed rationally. A lot of people get heated really quick.

 

[seatbackfurther]

has he made a habit of it?

It's doesn't take habit for people to have a "tainted" opinion of you. Take Clinton as a prime example.

 

[seatbackfurther]

seatbackfurther, thanks for having decent argument with me. It has been kept to logic and reasoning, and away from emotional reactions. Not often topics like this can be discussed rationally. A lot of people get heated really quick.

(cool)
No problem. I only get heated when people start to talk sh*t, or if I percieve it. Perception can sometimes suck though. Also, I got the two definitions from dictionary.com

 

[glyph]

agreed about the opinion part. It seems to me we are supposed to be somewhat merciful with people. Take Clinton, he showed repeated occurrences of the same thing, and then he lied about it to cover it up, under oath. He ducked and dodged with the best of them. He took it way too far.

 

[glyph]

yep, perception is the big deal in all of this. It is colored by everything a person has experienced. That's why I push using rationale, logic, reasoning to combat the common trappings of perception.

 

[seatbackfurther]

agreed about the opinion part. It seems to me we are supposed to be somewhat merciful with people. Take Clinton, he showed repeated occurrences of the same thing, and then he lied about it to cover it up, under oath. He ducked and dodged with the best of them. He took it way too far.

I don't think it was merciful. I think it shows the "sign of the times." I think alot of people don't care. I think that is one problem we have in America, pessimism. Too many people with the I can't do anything about it attitude, so they sit back and complain. I was at a Rally in D.C., which was very cool. Although nothing came about, I did get to exercise my rights. I did take part in something, and if more people came to the same rational thinking, that they can play a part, then they probably would. It would show that your voice and opinion do matter. I remember getting alot of flack at the time, and people saying leave the country if you don't like how it is being run. It's just funny to see how people want their rights, but they don't want you to have rights if you express a different view. What would have happened ~230 years ago? Where would we be?

 

[glyph]

true true. ignorance goes a long way.

 

[slug420]

that is hard to say. How many attacks would there have been if we didn't start this campaign? Increased historically, maybe, but without knowledge of an alternate dimension where there was no war on terror....

but how is it that they came to the conclusion that we would have fewer terror attacks after we invaded iraq, than if all the money spent on the iraq war was instead spent on beefing up actual homeland security, like increased police forces and emergency services. Or the resources, if we spent all the manpower to increase patrols on our borders if that is a concern or on guarding airports or other targets where we made private industry pick up the tab......what if we blew however many billion dollars we have spent on the iraq war on actually reducing our dependency on foreign oil by providing incentives for automakers to actually produce cars that dont use gas, or by inventing/refining the technology ourselves? Think of the more than a thousand americans that would still be alive, the tens of thousands of americans that wouldnt be mamed or injured, and the tens of thousands of iraqis that would be alive. What about the international community and the image the US got by invading iraq without support from the UN and by the abu gharib prison scandal and everything in between?

How, after being attacked by al qaeda members from saudi arabia, al qaeda being an organization with no ties to saddam hussein, very few ties to iraq, at a time when we had the support of the entire world after what had heppened to us on 9/11, after making note of the many aspects of homeland security that were lacking that were going to take a lot of money and manpower to fix, how then can you POSSIBLY rationalize invading iraq? It is SO out of left field it is ridiculous. In my opinion you dont NEED a view into an alternate universe to see how many attacks there would have been if we had gone the route i just mentoined instead of invading iraq. How could it have gotten worse? With all those additoinal resources being spent on actually securing our country and not just talking about it and creating bureaus to talk about it and departments (DHS) to talk about it, with all of those resources actually DOING it, and with all those resources being spent reducing our dependency on foreign oil so we do not HAVE interests in the middle east so we have no reason to force democracy and our american ways on them, thus pissing them off and making them want to join al qaeda and just brewing anti-american sentiment in general... do you honestly think that there would have been another attack on the US that killed 1000 people and injured 10,000? Even if there was would that then justify the war and in doing so say that as long as we can make sure the americans are dying in iraq instead of the US and taking lots of innocent non-american people with them that that is any better???


i do NOT understand how anyone can defend this administration, especially on the whole terrorism and iraq issues.

focus on any one part of this and pick it apart if you will, its the concept that is important here. the very basic concept. How was invading iraq the right thing to do? How was it the absolute BEST use of our resources? How has it proven to be worth the COST. And why is no one held responsible for this mess.

 

[glyph]

but how is it that they came to the conclusion that we would have fewer terror attacks after we invaded iraq, than if all the money spent on the iraq war was instead spent on beefing up actual homeland security, like increased police forces and emergency services. Or the resources, if we spent all the manpower to increase patrols on our borders if that is a concern or on guarding airports or other targets where we made private industry pick up the tab......what if we blew however many billion dollars we have spent on the iraq war on actually reducing our dependency on foreign oil by providing incentives for automakers to actually produce cars that dont use gas, or by inventing/refining the technology ourselves? Think of the more than a thousand americans that would still be alive, the tens of thousands of americans that wouldnt be mamed or injured, and the tens of thousands of iraqis that would be alive. What about the international community and the image the US got by invading iraq without support from the UN and by the abu gharib prison scandal and everything in between?

Ever heard the saying, "We have to be right 100% of the time, they only have to be right once." ? The point is that we cannot defend against every possible way to be attacked. If we played that game, how many lives would be spent in the attempt at perfect defenses? How many people would be living in constant fear of attack, knowing that it could happen at an time? Over time, the number of lives would add up to many more than have been spent here. We spend many in a short period of time to prevent the long run. There is the additional side effect of the mistake of allowing terrorists to flourish. When potential terrorists see that terrorism is not stopped, more will choose that path, believing it to be effective. Why do you think there was the large sentiment about not letting terrorism affect us or change our way of life? Do you think that allowing terrorism to continue over the years would not have a negative effect on our way of live: that of constantly being under the fear of attack, like Israel?

What we can do is take away the ability of the enemy to attack. That requires going on the offensive, as we have done. That will put them on the defensive, and not us. Because they will then be busy being on the run instead of commencing their attacks, their operations are disrupted. Therefore there are less attacks by the group on the defensive. They would be too busy. Simple logic.

How then are there continuing attacks around the world? Simple. There are multiple terrorist groups. And multiple cells of Al Qaeda. Their system of organization, or disorganization if you will, is quite effective. While we are tied up with Al Qaeda and Iraq, the others have less attention put on them. In time, they will also be on the defensive. It could be they are simply attacking while they can. I am also interested in finding out just how much has occurred since 9/11. Of course, there will be no way to determine if the attack was already going to happen, or if it was caused by American activity.

From an American point of view, the best measure of the success of the war on terror is whether or not there have been attacks on our soil. There have not been. That is also one of the greatest pros of the campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush has successfully increased the security of this country by reducing the threats from without.

How, after being attacked by al qaeda members from saudi arabia, al qaeda being an organization with no ties to saddam hussein, very few ties to iraq, at a time when we had the support of the entire world after what had heppened to us on 9/11, after making note of the many aspects of homeland security that were lacking that were going to take a lot of money and manpower to fix, how then can you POSSIBLY rationalize invading iraq? It is SO out of left field it is ridiculous. In my opinion you dont NEED a view into an alternate universe to see how many attacks there would have been if we had gone the route i just mentoined instead of invading iraq. How could it have gotten worse? With all those additoinal resources being spent on actually securing our country and not just talking about it and creating bureaus to talk about it and departments (DHS) to talk about it, with all of those resources actually DOING it, and with all those resources being spent reducing our dependency on foreign oil so we do not HAVE interests in the middle east so we have no reason to force democracy and our american ways on them, thus pissing them off and making them want to join al qaeda and just brewing anti-american sentiment in general... do you honestly think that there would have been another attack on the US that killed 1000 people and injured 10,000? Even if there was would that then justify the war and in doing so say that as long as we can make sure the americans are dying in iraq instead of the US and taking lots of innocent non-american people with them that that is any better???

If they successfully accomplished 9/11, then why wouldn't they be successful do something just as tragic and destructive in the future? Who is to say they wouldn't start attacking our infrastructure? Power stations? Nuclear power plants? Railroads? Or use biological weapons to destroy our food supply? How many deaths would then occur and be attributable to the terrorism?

As for forcing democracy on them, it appears to be what they want. Did you not see the turnout? The thousands of people that risked their lives just for the opportunity to vote? Something almost half of Americans take for advantage? Do you think that was forced on them? Wow, what a twisted view you must have of what Iraqi people want. The ability to control the government of their own country is almost universal in humanity. This desire was beautifully expressed in our own Constitution. Do you not believe in the precepts laid out in the opening of that document?

How much loss of American life does it take to justify a war on a very distinct and clear enemy? An enemy who has constantly expressed their hostility with words, and with actions? We already had the World Trade Center bombing in '93, the USS Cole, and then the towers. What else does it take to convince you that these people want all of us, you and me and everyone who has posted in this forum, dead?! They hate us with everything they are, because they are taught to from the day they are born. It is quite similar to the deep racism that continues today in much of the South, only now it has gone quieter. Principles like these that are taught from parent to child are nearly unbreakable. No matter how twisted they are. I have no problem with people who believe these things, but when they act on them by harming innocent people, justice must take place. If there is no one else in the world willing to make that justice happen and to do what it takes to eliminate the threat to our way of life, and our sovereignty; then by all means it's time for us to act. The UN wasn't going to do it, and that leaves who else? Nobody. Just us. This is the train of logic that justifies Afghanistan and the invasion in Iraq. "How are they the same?", you may ask.

Afghanistan was a nation led by a group of people, the Taliban, who were friendly with the terrorists that effected 9/11. They were harboring a known major threat to this country. Iraq was only different in that the ruling body was not so much harboring terrorists, but WERE the terrorists. Saddam demonstrated willingness to use his WOMD on his own people, and the intelligence pointed to the willingness of the ruling body (Saddam and family?) to attack the U.S. He already proved his williingness to attack his neighbor in an attempt for resources. The last time the world let that kind of aggression continue unchecked, a large portion of Europe was no longer sovereign, and we had to send hundreds of thousands of troops to war. This then leads to the possibility that Iraq was a larger threat than Afghanistan. A very fine line between Afghanistan and Iraq, eh?

i do NOT understand how anyone can defend this administration, especially on the whole terrorism and iraq issues.

focus on any one part of this and pick it apart if you will, its the concept that is important here. the very basic concept. How was invading iraq the right thing to do? How was it the absolute BEST use of our resources? How has it proven to be worth the COST. And why is no one held responsible for this mess.

I have attempted to focus on all the parts.

There is someone held responsible, and that is Bush. However, it should be Bush AND Congress. But that is not the way the world works. It is much easier to blame the one person who stands up and pushes to do what is right, instead of what is popular. You should be able to see that in just about everyone's post here in this forum. You should see that in the somewhat successful attempts of the media to portray Bush as a liar and a tyrant. Congress made the decision (legislative branch) and Bush carried it out (executive branch). Granted, Bush was the largest proponent of the course of action we took. But it is amazing to what extent Congress has been left out of the "responsibility" (read: blame) the world is laying at Bush's feet.

 

[xelderx]

The ability to control the government of their own country is almost universal in humanity. This desire was beautifully expressed in our own Constitution. Do you not believe in the precepts laid out in the opening of that document?

I'm sure thats how the Indians felt. They were the native people of this country and they got ***** by our so called "free nation". History is written by the winners. Our democracy took 400 years to develop to where it is now and it is still not perfect. Iraq is not ready for what we are trying to do there. Look at all the other countries where the US has helped install (or throw out)a government. Iran, Panama, Nicoragua(sp), Afganistan...Everytime we do what we are doing right now in Iraq we have to go back there in 10-20 years and do it again.

 

[slug420]

Ever heard the saying, "We have to be right 100% of the time, they only have to be right once." ? The point is that we cannot defend against every possible way to be attacked. If we played that game, how many lives would be spent in the attempt at perfect defenses? How many people would be living in constant fear of attack, knowing that it could happen at an time? Over time, the number of lives would add up to many more than have been spent here. We spend many in a short period of time to prevent the long run. There is the additional side effect of the mistake of allowing terrorists to flourish. When potential terrorists see that terrorism is not stopped, more will choose that path, believing it to be effective. Why do you think there was the large sentiment about not letting terrorism affect us or change our way of life? Do you think that allowing terrorism to continue over the years would not have a negative effect on our way of live: that of constantly being under the fear of attack, like Israel?

HOW IS IRAQ PREVENTING ANYTHING? You seem to fall into that huge group of americans that actually believe there is any kind of connection between al qaeda, 9/11 and Iraq. They are completely seperate. The terrorists did not come from iraq, their terrorist organization was not based in iraq, and they were not trained in iraq. And why do you seem to be convinced that the alternative to going on an offensive and attacking another country for no valid reason is to do NOTHING. I clearly and repeatedly stated in my post that we should have spent those resources HERE, securing the homeland. Like it or not the war in iraq has changed NOTHING about our homeland security. Iraq had no WMDs to sell to terrorists but the other countries out there that DO have them....STILL HAVE THEM. I know first hand that most of those targets you listed (utilities, water supplies,

Do you think the fact that there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 is BECAUSE we went into iraq? No one is arguing the fact that we went into afghanistan because at that point, we actually were fighting terrorism. But how can you possibly think that the fact that we went into iraq has made us any more safe? Do you understand that the only part of iraq with any al qaeda activity was a small area in the far northeast of the country, a part of the country which saddam did not control??

I am in total disbelief that you think not invading IRAQ would have been the same as "allowing terrorism".

What we can do is take away the ability of the enemy to attack. That requires going on the offensive, as we have done. That will put them on the defensive, and not us. Because they will then be busy being on the run instead of commencing their attacks, their operations are disrupted. Therefore there are less attacks by the group on the defensive. They would be too busy. Simple logic.

omg......we have not attacked al qaeda, we have attacked IRAQ!!!!!!! get this through your head! this is why bush won the election, americans' ability to seperate the two....

How then are there continuing attacks around the world? Simple. There are multiple terrorist groups. And multiple cells of Al Qaeda. Their system of organization, or disorganization if you will, is quite effective. While we are tied up with Al Qaeda and Iraq, the others have less attention put on them. In time, they will also be on the defensive. It could be they are simply attacking while they can. I am also interested in finding out just how much has occurred since 9/11. Of course, there will be no way to determine if the attack was already going to happen, or if it was caused by American activity.

so even if al qaeda WAS the same as iraq, which it is not, you have contradicted yourself, first saying that we were right because by going on the offensive we prevent them from going on the offensive, and then you say that while they are being pushed back on their heels, they are still able to attack because they are versatile etc etc.......soooo.........because they are versatile this entire tactic the us has employed is horse s*** since they could still easily attack us.........wake up. we are only slightly safer now than before 9/11, and that is because of increased airport security, going into afghanistan, and a quicker trigger finger when it comes to responding to intelligence.

From an American point of view, the best measure of the success of the war on terror is whether or not there have been attacks on our soil. There have not been. That is also one of the greatest pros of the campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush has successfully increased the security of this country by reducing the threats from without.

If they successfully accomplished 9/11, then why wouldn't they be successful do something just as tragic and destructive in the future? Who is to say they wouldn't start attacking our infrastructure? Power stations? Nuclear power plants? Railroads? Or use biological weapons to destroy our food supply? How many deaths would then occur and be attributable to the terrorism?

It has been almost 4 years now since 9/11....and because there have been no more attacks, you think bush has prevented them? There also hasnt been a 100 year flood during bush's administration, did he prevent that too? The dolphins havent won the superbowl since 2001, did bush prevent that? Your logic is insane if it even exists.....you act like al qaeda was either invented in 2001 and began with a strike on the US or like they were attacking US soil every month before then. Neither of which was true. There is NO reason to believe that al qaeda has not attacked the US since 2001 because it CANT. If you attribute the WTC bombings in 93 to al qaeda then they have a 8 year span historically speaking before they are due to strike again. If 2 of those intervals pass without a terrorist attack then you can make some claims about having stopped them, until then, you are blowing smoke. Thats like saying the patriots havent won a superbowl since last year, bush must have stopped them.....of course they havent, thats something that historically only happens once per year, thus you have to wait a year to see if ti will happen again.

As for forcing democracy on them, it appears to be what they want. Did you not see the turnout? The thousands of people that risked their lives just for the opportunity to vote? Something almost half of Americans take for advantage? Do you think that was forced on them? Wow, what a twisted view you must have of what Iraqi people want. The ability to control the government of their own country is almost universal in humanity. This desire was beautifully expressed in our own Constitution. Do you not believe in the precepts laid out in the opening of that document?

If they wanted it so bad, and if a majority of the people wanted it, they could have fought for it like the US did at one point, and im sure the world would have come to their aid. Keep in mind that if half the country is religious fanatics, radical shiites or muslims, then they may not WANT a democracy, and may be perfectly fine with a dictator who is on their side and will help irradicate the others. And by the "rules" of democracy if half the country wants a jackass who is going to cause problems with their country's foreign relations in power. Someone who is going to kill thousands of innocent civilians, by golly they can vote him right into office and he can do it then (cough, bush, cough)

How much loss of American life does it take to justify a war on a very distinct and clear enemy? An enemy who has constantly expressed their hostility with words, and with actions? We already had the World Trade Center bombing in '93, the USS Cole, and then the towers. What else does it take to convince you that these people want all of us, you and me and everyone who has posted in this forum, dead?! They hate us with everything they are, because they are taught to from the day they are born. It is quite similar to the deep racism that continues today in much of the South, only now it has gone quieter. Principles like these that are taught from parent to child are nearly unbreakable. No matter how twisted they are.

WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? We invaded IRAQ, NOT AL QAEDA.......

Iraq did not fly planes into the twin towers. Understand that.

And if there is unbreakable ant-american sentiment being taught from generation to generation in iraq now.......imagine how unbreakable that sentiment is when this next generation closes any window of possible open mindedness as the stereotypes and beliefs they have been taught are re-affirmed when the US invades their countries, stray missiles hit houses and kill their neighbors, kill innocent people they know, they hear abuot the prison scandals........come ON.......you have to see that hatred for america is only growing. And now that Iraq is just the kind of unstable, insecure, country that terrorism can flourish in al qaeda CAN create a base of operations there, and they CAN flourish there and all of these civilians who have never been involved with al qaeda who now hate americans will be easy recruits.

I have no problem with people who believe these things, but when they act on them by harming innocent people, justice must take place. If there is no one else in the world willing to make that justice happen and to do what it takes to eliminate the threat to our way of life, and our sovereignty; then by all means it's time for us to act. The UN wasn't going to do it, and that leaves who else? Nobody. Just us. This is the train of logic that justifies Afghanistan and the invasion in Iraq. "How are they the same?", you may ask.

Afghanistan was a nation led by a group of people, the Taliban, who were friendly with the terrorists that effected 9/11. They were harboring a known major threat to this country. Iraq was only different in that the ruling body was not so much harboring terrorists, but WERE the terrorists. Saddam demonstrated willingness to use his WOMD on his own people, and the intelligence pointed to the willingness of the ruling body (Saddam and family?) to attack the U.S.

with what?
attack the US with what?

saddam was not "Friendly" with al qaeda. he provided them with nothing and there is no reason to believe he would have provided them with anything in the future. Saddam was a dictator and the mindset of a facist dictator is vastly different than a fanatical terrorist like osama bin laden. To the ignorant american they are both bad guys, but in reality they are very different people. Saddam would not have worked with, harbored, or helped bin laden because bin laden represented just the kind of unpredictable fanatical force that would mean that saddam was not in complete control of the situation. Control is what saddam was about, thats why he used WMDs on his own people to make them fear them so that he could control them.

He already proved his williingness to attack his neighbor in an attempt for resources. The last time the world let that kind of aggression continue unchecked, a large portion of Europe was no longer sovereign, and we had to send hundreds of thousands of troops to war. This then leads to the possibility that Iraq was a larger threat than Afghanistan. A very fine line between Afghanistan and Iraq, eh?

ok, he invaded kuwait and it didnt go unchecked. we went in and fixed it. dont pretend kuwait has any connection to our rationale for invading iraq now. You insinuation that he was a powerful force preparing to take over the middle east is absurd....he took one small country, got beaten back into his own country, withered for a number of years under sanctions and was just sitting there.

the use of WMDs on his own people also occured long before 9/11. Because in 2001 there is no reason to beleive he still had WMDs. He was not half the threat that his neighboring countries are. And if the WMD use on his own people is the issue then lets go into darfur or somewhere with far worse human attorcities are occuring NOW not 10 years ago. Human rights was not listed in any of the press conferenced when we were invading iraq as a reason for going so dont bring it up.

There is someone held responsible, and that is Bush. However, it should be Bush AND Congress. But that is not the way the world works. It is much easier to blame the one person who stands up and pushes to do what is right, instead of what is popular. You should be able to see that in just about everyone's post here in this forum. You should see that in the somewhat successful attempts of the media to portray Bush as a liar and a tyrant. Congress made the decision (legislative branch) and Bush carried it out (executive branch). Granted, Bush was the largest proponent of the course of action we took. But it is amazing to what extent Congress has been left out of the "responsibility" (read: blame) the world is laying at Bush's feet.

Bush was the one that pushed the entire movement to go into iraq. he sought out the desired intelligence. Not the intelligence, but the desired intelligence. He then twisted and contorted the intelligence to suit his needs and like an attorney defending a guilty suspect presented a case to try to convince the audience of something. Unfortnuately the audience was assuming the president would be objective in his decisions and that his administration would not try to twist or jade the truth in any way to achieve a separate goal. Point to the president and congress together if you want but if we had had a different president WE WOULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO IRAQ. It would not have been CONSIDERED because it was such a unrelated mission to the task at hand (fighting terrorism) and even if it somehow made it on the agenda, the REAL intelligence would have clearly shown anyone that did not already have their mind set on something that there was no connection between al qaeda and iraq, no reason to beleive that there were WMDs there and much better uses of our resources.

 

[glyph]

I'm sure thats how the Indians felt. They were the native people of this country and they got ***** by our so called "free nation". History is written by the winners. Our democracy took 400 years to develop to where it is now and it is still not perfect. Iraq is not ready for what we are trying to do there. Look at all the other countries where the US has helped install (or throw out)a government. Iran, Panama, Nicoragua(sp), Afganistan...Everytime we do what we are doing right now in Iraq we have to go back there in 10-20 years and do it again.

While that is true, it was happening for 3 hundred years before the constitution was put into effect. Human expansion over land masses is an entirely different subject. Iraq is not about expansion.

As for not being ready, we'll see if they are ready or not. That is also why we are holding their hand. They will set up something they are happy with that matches their culture and history.

While I am not up on those countries too well, I don't think anything has been as overtly done as Iraq. Different times, different policies.

I'll get to the other post after lunch...

 

[glyph]

Have to split up this reply, too long for one post, apparently (limit is 16000 characters, fyi)

First, hopefully we can continue this discussion without so much anger on your side. Let's keep this a simple, logical discussion.

Second, and this addresses most of your post, you continually discount the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. I mostly agree. I didn't say there was a direct link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, I said they are virtually the same in that they both present a terrorism based threat.

Our war on terror is not just a war on Al Qaeda. You make statements that leads me to believe you think Al Qaeda is our only target. That is definitely not the case. Do you remember the "Axis of Evil" speech? He listed Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. All of them have ties to terrorism. Saddam Hussein himself was basically the leader of a very obvious group of terrorists. So obvious most people don't even see it. Not only was there the actual threat that Saddam's threats and intentions provided, but Saddam was also funding suicide bombers around the world. This article shows the $25k payoff for families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

Oh, so that's a more "proper" connection between Iraq and terrorists for you. The direct threat from Iraq wasn't enough for you, eh? You had to have a "TERRORIST" threat, which you appear to think is synonymous with "Al Qaeda".

HOW IS IRAQ PREVENTING ANYTHING? You seem to fall into that huge group of americans that actually believe there is any kind of connection between al qaeda, 9/11 and Iraq. They are completely seperate. The terrorists did not come from iraq, their terrorist organization was not based in iraq, and they were not trained in iraq. And why do you seem to be convinced that the alternative to going on an offensive and attacking another country for no valid reason is to do NOTHING. I clearly and repeatedly stated in my post that we should have spent those resources HERE, securing the homeland. Like it or not the war in iraq has changed NOTHING about our homeland security. Iraq had no WMDs to sell to terrorists but the other countries out there that DO have them....STILL HAVE THEM. I know first hand that most of those targets you listed (utilities, water supplies,

For one thing, this didn't get finished... You just restate that defenses here should be our sole focus other than AL Qaeda, which I already refuted by pointing out that there is no perfect defense. The best solution, again, is to remove the threat, so that it doesn't exist in the first place. That is the best way to ensure security. Why would we need a massive defense, if there was no threat?

There is another element here. The war in Iraq was not so much about us, but about the world. As in that article, you see that Saddam had no compunctions about attacking others around the world, as well. The real benefit to Saddam no longer being in power is the entire world can breathe a little easier. Why do you think so many countries joined us, even without the UN? Notice how the UN then wanted to be in on the reconstruction? That shows the real aim of the UN, especially with what we are seeing now with Khofi Anan: money. Much criticism has been placed on Bush's ties with Halliburton, which has been awarded many of the contracts to rebuild Iraq. Granted, there are many questionable elements there. However, suddenly the UN wants to take part as well? Why the big deal? Simple. There is a LOT of money to be made in the reconstruction of Iraq. That is why the UN wanted in at the end. The US led Coalition had done the dirty work, and absorbed the human and monetary cost of removing Saddam from power. Now there is much more profit to be made.

If that is hard to believe, look at the UN Security Council's vote before the war. Read this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/17/russia.iraq.oil/
and you will see that two of the 5 UN security council members had huge monetary considerations to deal with if the UN authorized war on Iraq. Both would lose their footholds on Iraqi oil.

Instead, we went in with a coalition outside of the UN. The threat was real, and the 48 countries in the coalition also realized the many benefits of removing Iraq: one is the removal of the threat Iraq posed, and the other is the obvious oil reserves. I am sure most of the countries in the coalition will receive monetary benefits related to contracts in Iraq. A list of coalition countries. Notice that these are the PUBLICLY supportive countries. How many more privately support the effort? Which also snubs the idea that we had no/minimal international support.

Do you think the fact that there has not been a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 is BECAUSE we went into iraq? No one is arguing the fact that we went into afghanistan because at that point, we actually were fighting terrorism. But how can you possibly think that the fact that we went into iraq has made us any more safe? Do you understand that the only part of iraq with any al qaeda activity was a small area in the far northeast of the country, a part of the country which saddam did not control??

This is not about just about US soil, it is about world soil. Unless you support the isolationist view. In which case you should go live as a hermit in the wilderness and think only about the soil that affects just you. As for the rest of the world...

It's simple, a stated hostile individual, who happened to be a leader of a country, who was willing and demonstrated his willingness, to attack another country to gain what he wanted, is no longer able to threated other countries!

We know now, and only just recently, that he didn't really have the capabilities he was pretending to have. Instead of following the UN sanctions and opening his doors and proving to the world that he didn't have those capabilities, he pretended to be the tough guy and act as though he still had the strength he once did. Apparently it was a convincing performance. It convinced the intelligence community, it convinced Bush, and it convinced Congress. ONLY NOW, AFTER THE FACT, DO WE KNOW IT WAS A BLUFF. After we called the bluff. Here is the weird part. For Saddam, in a cutthroat region of the world that is the Middle East, it made some sense to continue the bluff. He could help prevent attack/invasion from the other hostile countries around him by bluffing to the world that he was still strong. Only, he took it too far, and it was his downfall. He was too convincing of a threat to us and the world.

Just like the traditional version of terrorism you are so locked on to, Saddam presented a real and tangible threat, again, AT THAT TIME.

 

[glyph]

so even if al qaeda WAS the same as iraq, which it is not, you have contradicted yourself, first saying that we were right because by going on the offensive we prevent them from going on the offensive, and then you say that while they are being pushed back on their heels, they are still able to attack because they are versatile etc etc.......soooo.........because they are versatile this entire tactic the us has employed is horse s*** since they could still easily attack us.........wake up. we are only slightly safer now than before 9/11, and that is because of increased airport security, going into afghanistan, and a quicker trigger finger when it comes to responding to intelligence.

You seem to think there are only two possibilities here. 100% success, or zero. And, you seem to expect immediate success. Obviously this is not the case. Any conflict has inherent uncertainty. We cannot ever be assured of 100% success in any operation. You should know this from just about any plan you make on a daily basis. Yes, we go on the offensive, and yes, that hampers their abilities. That doesn't mean they are permanently offline. The more success we have against them, the less effective they will become. Please don't forget that there are many terrorist groups.

It has been almost 4 years now since 9/11....and because there have been no more attacks, you think bush has prevented them? There also hasnt been a 100 year flood during bush's administration, did he prevent that too? The dolphins havent won the superbowl since 2001, did bush prevent that? Your logic is insane if it even exists.....you act like al qaeda was either invented in 2001 and began with a strike on the US or like they were attacking US soil every month before then. Neither of which was true. There is NO reason to believe that al qaeda has not attacked the US since 2001 because it CANT. If you attribute the WTC bombings in 93 to al qaeda then they have a 8 year span historically speaking before they are due to strike again. If 2 of those intervals pass without a terrorist attack then you can make some claims about having stopped them, until then, you are blowing smoke. Thats like saying the patriots havent won a superbowl since last year, bush must have stopped them.....of course they havent, thats something that historically only happens once per year, thus you have to wait a year to see if ti will happen again.

Again, you keep saying Bush, bush, bush... Yes, Bush himself, walked over there and stopped them.

You are right, I may be absolutely wrong. However, by that reasoning, your alternative is just as unreliable: really and truly, we just don't know. It is possible that someone does know just how many attacks has been thwarted, but you and I don't. However, the logic supports my approach.
Besides, are you willing to bet your family's life on their inability to attack again if left alone for that nice run of statistics you just laid out? I can't believe that you would blind yourself so much as to think that terrorism only occurs on a fated historical timeline. I personally am not willing to gamble my child's (see her in my avatar?) life on the possibility that they won't attack again for a long time, and then roll the dice against the odds that the attack will occur where she is. Also, your analogy is flawed, as there is no logical connection between Bush and the patriots (although there just might be). There is a logical connection between an attacking force and a defending force. A defending force must focus their attention on the attacking force, thereby reducing the resources they have to apply to their own attacks. Notice the word reducing, not eliminating. A solid commander on the defending force would continue some attacks to help reduce the resources of the attacking force, thereby freeing up more of the defending forces resources. And it is certainly true that Bin Laden is no idiot. He is a quite capable commander.

If they wanted it so bad, and if a majority of the people wanted it, they could have fought for it like the US did at one point, and im sure the world would have come to their aid. Keep in mind that if half the country is religious fanatics, radical shiites or muslims, then they may not WANT a democracy, and may be perfectly fine with a dictator who is on their side and will help irradicate the others. And by the "rules" of democracy if half the country wants a jackass who is going to cause problems with their country's foreign relations in power. Someone who is going to kill thousands of innocent civilians, by golly they can vote him right into office and he can do it then (cough, bush, cough)

Please don't be offended by this next paragraph, but you are saying things that are either completely inhuman (you don't care about the lives of the Iraqis), or you just don't know what has really been going on there under Saddam's rule (you are ignorant about this). Do you have any idea what it was really like in that country under Saddam's rules? Have you lived in terror of your life? Of making a slight mistake that would lead to the death of your ENTIRE extended family? You obviously have no idea the stories those people have told. The daily horrors and atrocities. The best analogy I can think of is what life in Germany was like under Hitler. Hopefully you are not as ignorant about that. If you spoke out, you ended up in a concentration camp. You could be tortured, have your family killed, your wife and daughters *****. You name it, Saddam's "secret police" (for lack of a better term) did it. And you flippantly throw out the possibility that they should have fought for their freedom. Your callousness amazes me. Maybe it is just more ignorance. Besides, how do you know that they didn't fight for it, and were unsuccessful? We were able to fight an enemy from across the ocean by whom we were not already subjugated. They have been living like this for decades. Many people know nothing else.

WHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? We invaded IRAQ, NOT AL QAEDA.......

Iraq did not fly planes into the twin towers. Understand that.

no s***

And if there is unbreakable ant-american sentiment being taught from generation to generation in iraq now.......imagine how unbreakable that sentiment is when this next generation closes any window of possible open mindedness as the stereotypes and beliefs they have been taught are re-affirmed when the US invades their countries, stray missiles hit houses and kill their neighbors, kill innocent people they know, they hear abuot the prison scandals........come ON.......you have to see that hatred for america is only growing. And now that Iraq is just the kind of unstable, insecure, country that terrorism can flourish in al qaeda CAN create a base of operations there, and they CAN flourish there and all of these civilians who have never been involved with al qaeda who now hate americans will be easy recruits.

I said nearly unbreakable. I was referring not to Iraqis, but to those who are willing to give their lives just for a small chance at killing Americans.

As for their opinion of us, you are not on the ground with our troops. You have not seen the countless sentiments of thanks and honor to the U.S. and the troops. Did you not see the Iraqi Prime Minister (Allawi) came to the U.S. and gave a speech to Congress and thanked America for freeing his country. Here is an excerpt:
"Ladies and gentlemen, I particularly want to thank you in the United States Congress for your brave vote in 2002 to authorize American men and women to go to war to liberate my country, because you realized what was at stake. And I want to thank you for your continued commitment last year when you voted to grant Iraq a generous reconstruction and security funding package."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/23/allawi.transcript/

Yep, sure looks like he hates us. How about the people? Here is a nice collection of pictures. Scroll down a little ways to see them.

http://www.pbase.com/kburch/the_picture_from_iraq_you_wont_see_in_the_news

 

[glyph]

with what?
attack the US with what?

you're kidding right? answer your own question with a little bit of thought. what have they attacked us with so far? are they not masters of improvisation? jeez man, Don't limit yourself.

saddam was not "Friendly" with al qaeda. he provided them with nothing and there is no reason to believe he would have provided them with anything in the future. Saddam was a dictator and the mindset of a facist dictator is vastly different than a fanatical terrorist like osama bin laden. To the ignorant american they are both bad guys, but in reality they are very different people. Saddam would not have worked with, harbored, or helped bin laden because bin laden represented just the kind of unpredictable fanatical force that would mean that saddam was not in complete control of the situation. Control is what saddam was about, thats why he used WMDs on his own people to make them fear them so that he could control them.

educate yourself:
very recent - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp?pg=1
links reference by Clinton administration - http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm
read the entire article in this one, gives an interesting history - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16_2.html

ok, he invaded kuwait and it didnt go unchecked. we went in and fixed it. dont pretend kuwait has any connection to our rationale for invading iraq now. You insinuation that he was a powerful force preparing to take over the middle east is absurd....he took one small country, got beaten back into his own country, withered for a number of years under sanctions and was just sitting there.

There is no pretense here. I was using the invasion of Kuwait as a reference to what Saddam is capable of. Further, he obviously would not have been able to start conquering countries, but if actually had the weapons he was pretending to have, who says he wouldn't have used them just for the purpose of destablizing his rather hostile neighbors (iran?) or even other parts of the world. His payments to palestinian suicide bombers demonstrate his willingness to do so. No pretense there.

the use of WMDs on his own people also occured long before 9/11. Because in 2001 there is no reason to beleive he still had WMDs. He was not half the threat that his neighboring countries are. And if the WMD use on his own people is the issue then lets go into darfur or somewhere with far worse human attorcities are occuring NOW not 10 years ago. Human rights was not listed in any of the press conferenced when we were invading iraq as a reason for going so dont bring it up.

No, I did not bring it up as a human rights issue. How can you stop yourself from continuing to the logical conclusion? I will spell it out for you. If a man is willing to kill his own people, he is willing to kill other people. Whew, tough one, eh? Stay with me now, another one: if he has killed people in the past without remorse, he will kill people in the future, without remorse. Wait, I'm tired of all this heavy work.

Bush was the one that pushed the entire movement to go into iraq.

true

he sought out the desired intelligence.Not the intelligence, but the desired intelligence. He then twisted and contorted the intelligence to suit his needs and like an attorney defending a guilty suspect presented a case to try to convince the audience of something. Unfortnuately the audience was assuming the president would be objective in his decisions and that his administration would not try to twist or jade the truth in any way to achieve a separate goal.

So you think he has complete control over the intelligence agencies? Even so much as to complete control the evidence that was presented to the Intelligence Oversight Committee? Don't you think that the Democrats, if they could have found a hole in the intelligence, they would have done so using their own back channels? and would have done so immediately? Dude, you obviously don't understand the political side of the intelligence world.

Point to the president and congress together if you want but if we had had a different president WE WOULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO IRAQ.

Very likely. That is one reason I like Bush so much. He sees what is the right and necessary thing to do, and does it, no matter how hard it might be, or unpopular. That is integrity. Though if you are using this to point out that the President has the power to push the country into war all by himself, you are mistaken. Our gov't has been split up into separate branches to make sure there is a huge system of checks and balances. No one of those branches has enough power to do so unrestricted.

It would not have been CONSIDERED because it was such a unrelated mission to the task at hand (fighting terrorism) and even if it somehow made it on the agenda, the REAL intelligence would have clearly shown anyone that did not already have their mind set on something that there was no connection between al qaeda and iraq, no reason to beleive that there were WMDs there and much better uses of our resources.

reference all the above material.

 

[glyph]

wow, that took a very long time. Good thing I waited til after lunch, then after work, then after dinner... (plus I was watching Stargate SG1)

 

[glyph]

American Civil Liberties Union

Definitely disturbing. However, the ACLU seems to be the only source of this information. Every other article I can find says the "ACLU says..." but quotes no other source to back it up. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

Though my first thought is that the ACLU isn't exactly an unbiased organization. That's the main reason I am looking for information to support the claims.

 

[glyph]

http://media.***********.com/georgewbushdrunk.wmv

Checked (second)

finally watched this. I thought he was going to do something bad and embarrassing that pointed to him being stupid. Looks just like every other drunk person I have encountered. Sheesh.

 

[slug420]

you're an idiot.

 

[glyph]

(hand) you know what? I think you're right! you have solved all of my problems with a logical and intelligent response. Whew!

I think you win the debate! (second)

Oh well, I thought it could last.