Reply to dellamorte dellamore's F911 post

[JCR]

Yeah yeah yeah, I know I'm tiresome but when I read this post I felt a reply was required, but the wolfman would not be happy with me doing it on that thread, so it get's it's own one here.


Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
So what he's saying is that Bush is responsable for the massacre at the World Trade Center ( genocide is what it is ) , and the attacks on the Pentagon ( everyone seems to forget about that part .


Bin Laden is of Saudi descent , but he denounced his family long ago around the time of the Afghan war with the former Soviet Union . He has no ties to them anymore , and his base of operations is now Afghanistan with the group of psychotics Al Queada . No reason to attack SA , when the hornet's nest is in another country , now that would be nonsensical . Iraq did have an alliance with Al Queada , but i know noone wants to accept that fact , and i have no doubt Hussein was partially funding terror attacks against the US and other countries . Yeah , so maybe he didn't personally give the funds to Bin laden , but they certianly found there way to his criminal organization , via Al Queada operatives . That would be in violation of one of the UN resolutions , he was forbidden to consort with or aid and abet known terrorists . That alone was enough to invade Iraq and knock him out of power .


He had weapons of destruction , and he constantly denied access to inspectors , the denial of access was another violation of the UN resolution , and it stipulated that force was to be used if he was in violation . He agreed to those resolutions , and then he violated them , and Clinton was too much of an incompetent to enforce them properly . He felt diplomacy would work , not so with psychotic terrorists , force is the only language they understand .


I'm still waiting for the doc about the men who had their hands cut off by Hussein's henchman for sedition or whatever the hell it was . Ask them how they feel about him , and how peaceful the country supposedly was before the war . It will take awhile , but i'm sure those poor souls who have been brutalized for 30 years by Hussein will be much better off , and will know what it's like to live in something resembling a free country .


It's never pretty , and i don't want to see any soldiers get killed , but like i said , they volunteered of their own free will , they knew there was a chance their lives would be in danger , that's what war is , ugly , and disgusting , but a soldier's responsability is to his country , and if he or she loses his life defending it , then that's the reality , that's the chance they took when they signed up . What did they think , they were going to be playing golf everyday and drinking themselves into a stupor at the bar every night ? It's never clean , it's not some movie where everything works out all nice , but it's necessary in certain situations . I say wipe out as many murderous , souless creatures as humanly possible , because they obviously have no regard for our lives .

What Bush is doing now is something that would have had to be done eventually , he is just speeding up the process , it's something , Hussein is someone , that had to be confronted sooner or later , he would only have gotten worse .


Now , i'm sorry for going off again , and i don't want this thread to get taken down , so i promise i will from now on , stick to the merits of Farenheit 911 , that is when i actually do see it ( still waiting for the free pass ) . I'll just sneak in after i watch Spiderman , rather Raimi gets my 9 dollars instead of Moore .


By the way , Kerry supported military force against Hussein when Clinton was president , now he's against it ? Talk about duplicity , and political bias .

Okay. There’s some interesting viewpoints there.

1. Moore has never said bush was solely responsible for 9/11. Equally Moore has never said we should attack SA; that’s ludicrous- he’s anti war!
2. Al Qaeda never had a relationship with Iraq pre war. There’s no proof of this, bush would be shouting it from the rooftops if there was. Saddam was way to decadent for bin laden. Even cstroman’s saying this on the other thread.
3. "UN resolutions"? Are you trying to make me laugh? Bush ignores the UN except when it suits him. And if we did follow UN resolutions to the letter we’d be at war with Israel because they’re in breach of several. Shall I list the reasons that won’t happen?
4. Saudi wasn’t funding Al Qaeda as much as the USA was in the 1980s when they were at war with the USSR. That didn’t work out to well in the end did it?
5. "He had weapons of destruction" Not recently he didn’t. Before the war, in March 2003, we were lead to believe Iraq had dangerous weapons then. The weapons were a threat then. And that was so much bullshit I can’t believe it. I draw you’re attention to the interview with the former head of the USA team searching for weapons in Iraq where he said bush should say sorry for his lies. I’m not holding my breath waiting for that to happen! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3778987.stm)
6. "and will know what it's like to live in something resembling a free country" I dunno what you’re definition of a free country is but I would assume you think free countries should be democratic and have elections and so on? You could not have elections in Iraq now. Al Qaeda would murder those running for office. I’d expect it to remain that way for quite some time. And we’ve had what, hundreds of civilian deaths in the past week alone? The only law in Iraq at the moment is the law of the AK47. What a wonderful world of freedom we’ve created!
7. I don’t think bitching about Clinton really has anything to do with these current events. He’s history, man.
8. Thank you for giving me something to do on a rather boring Sunday! :)

[Lynn7]

Hi,
Is this thread open to anyone or just Dellamorte? I'll just proceed to post and if it's a problem you can ignore me;)

I just have time to address one- number three.
I remember prewar I was getting really impatient with Bush. He kept waiting and waitng on the UN for their approval. He kept going to them over and over as if THEY should have any say over what we do here for the protection of our country!!! And then it turns out that the countries dissenting to our attack were getting rich off the Iraqi oil- how do you like that!!!

Up to the last minute Bush kept giving Sadamm the chance to comply- he was practically begging Sadamm to comply- it was almost embarrassing at how nice Bush was being to this guy. When Sadamm refused it was a matter of the US integrity. He never believed we would have the courage to invade!! The US was percieved as weak.

I lived thru all this as did all of you. I can't understand the criticism of Bush "rushing" to war- he really didn't. Sadaam has been thumbing his nose at us for YEEEAAARS. Time to show that the US won't be mocked or taken as weak.

They started it all when they invaded Kuwait- the reason we didn't finish them off was becasue they agreed to conditions. They renegged. Too bad.

[JCR]

No no the threads open to all of course, and you make some reasonable points. It's true to say the usa would have looked bloody stupid if they hadn't invaded after all bush's talk. But imo saying bush was "practically begging" to avoid the war is wrong. Bush, for whatever reasons, decided Iraq had to be invaded and that was that. He could have stopped it at any time, but instead he ignored Hans Blix's request for more time and those against him were made to look stupid (freedom fries anyone?). Iraq wasn't invaded after gulf war 1 for a good reason- you'd have to deal with the chaotic aftermath of regime change, which dubya has failed badly in doing, and I mean I don't honestly see how it's going to get better.

[ANavissi500]

A lot of this was stated already but it should be said again. Also, I have nothing against dd by any means - I just like debating politics.

1) This film shows that the ties with Osama and the other Bin Ladens were not severed. In fact, several of them were in joint attendance at a wedding the summer before the attacks.

2) There isn't proof of the Al Qeada/Iraq link.

3) Where are these weapons of mass destruction?

4) I keep hearing how Iraq was in violation of the United Nations, but if we get down to brass tacks we were too by going into Iraq despite the failure to pass the U.N. resolution.

5) A lot of the U.S. military deaths, most actually, have come in the many months since the end of major comabt operations.

6) This has been said, but Moore didn't say Bush was behind the attacks. He said that Saudi Arabia has a stranglehold on his family and the U.S. economy because of the money they have repeatedly funneled into the nation and displeasing them could make for some grave economic situations, as well as the loss of millions by Bush and his friends.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by JCR
No no the threads open to all of course, and you make some reasonable points. It's true to say the usa would have looked bloody stupid if they hadn't invaded after all bush's talk. But imo saying bush was "practically begging" to avoid the war is wrong. Bush, for whatever reasons, decided Iraq had to be invaded and that was that. He could have stopped it at any time, but instead he ignored Hans Blix's request for more time and those against him were made to look stupid (freedom fries anyone?). Iraq wasn't invaded after gulf war 1 for a good reason- you'd have to deal with the chaotic aftermath of regime change, which dubya has failed badly in doing, and I mean I don't honestly see how it's going to get better.

I agreed with the decision not to go into Iraq the first time. It would've been too messy and terrible and it seemed like a good idea to just contain him at the time. But IMO everything changed after 9/11. I agree with Bush's policy of calling this a war and getting involved in preemption. I hate the thought of just sitting and waiting helplessly for these guys to strike again.

As far as the begging goes, I wish I could replay all of those news casts- I am a serious news junkie- glued to it and I remember it vividly. Even at the end didn't he give him a 24 hour warning- we would still change our minds about going in- Sadaam called our bluff. We had to go.


If we didn't do anything about Iraq-ever-after 9-11- and treated it totally separately- you can beleive that Sadaam would've been assisting any haters of the US in any way possble. These guys are out to kill us-the more the merrier. Warnings about them hitting us hard this summer are pretty hard to ignore-also, the threats to our shopping malls so taking aim at middle America is their goal. Remember the turmoil those two snipers caused? We are in for hard times. Bush is my guy.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by ANavissi500
A lot of this was stated already but it should be said again. Also, I have nothing against dd by any means - I just like debating politics.

1) This film shows that the ties with Osama and the other Bin Ladens were not severed. In fact, several of them were in joint attendance at a wedding the summer before the attacks.

2) There isn't proof of the Al Qeada/Iraq link.

3) Where are these weapons of mass destruction?

4) I keep hearing how Iraq was in violation of the United Nations, but if we get down to brass tacks we were too by going into Iraq despite the failure to pass the U.N. resolution.

5) A lot of the U.S. military deaths, most actually, have come in the many months since the end of major comabt operations.


6) This has been said, but Moore didn't say Bush was behind the attacks. He said that Saudi Arabia has a stranglehold on his family and the U.S. economy because of the money they have repeatedly funneled into the nation and displeasing them could make for some grave economic situations, as well as the loss of millions by Bush and his friends.


I agree that the US and Saudi Arabia are very financially tied up. Look at all of the commotion over the increasing price of gas. People talk big about taking the high road and not letting oil rule the day but without our gas it would affect every bit of our society. If you can't get the gas you can't deliver the groceries. Are you ready to start planting veggies in your back yard? How would anyone get to work and make money to survive? REmember how everything fell apart after 9/11 when the travel industry suffered- that was just recreational for the most part- what if we really had to go without gas? Scary thought.

I've always been aware that our civilization is thinly held together. The lights go out in a city blackout and all hell breaks loose-looting and rioting in the streets. If there were a food shortage people would be killing each other over loaves of bread. This terrorism stuff is serious. It is no longer a debate over human rights it is the fight for the survival of civilized society.

A lot of Moore's arguments are intellectual excercises that do not provide any practical solutions. I'm sure glad he is not running our country.

[SLAW]

These guys are out to kill us-the more the merrier. Warnings about them hitting us hard this summer are pretty hard to ignore-also, the threats to our shopping malls so taking aim at middle America is their goal.


Mike actually has some funny stuff in the movie regarding that mentality. I know there's not really a point in debating you in anykind of way, Lynn, but C'mon! C'mon! C'mon! :p nah. :D

[Lynn7]

OK I give- what is the funny stuff. Plus, you can always debate me- I've changed sides many times becasue of debates although I am pretty convinced of my position at this point :D but I'm always open to hearing the other side.

[Thrizzle]

I think Bush's ulitmate goal was to start a war with Saddam. That's why after 9/11 he told Dick Clark to find a link between 9/11 and Saddam.

He wasn't giving more time to Saddam to "disarm", he was giving the CIA more time to find evidence to build a case for war.

[Jim H]

He kept going to them over and over as if THEY should have any say over what we do here for the protection of our country!!!

You don't see a problem with this? So, if the entire Middle East decided the USA was a threat to their security and invaded us, the UN should just stay out of it? What is the point of having an international government, if they don't have any involvement in international issues?

I guess I'm answering my own question. The UN is too weak to do anything about that sort of thing anyways, especially when five countries can veto whatever the hell they feel like.

[flowrchild]

I agree with everything that ANavissi500 said.

In my opinion, we had no legit or moral reason for going into Iraq and blowing them up. There was no proof between an Al Qeada/Iraq link, no evidence of Weapons of mass destruction, and no rationalization in good conscience for us to allow our men and women to go there and die for a bullshit cause, and kill other innocent civilians in the process. It's morally reprehensible and I have not seen the Bush administration offer any proof that we're there for any purpose other than an 'assumption'.

I live in NY and I saw how horribly the 9/11 attacks impacted the city and the country, and of course I would want the people who did it to suffer the way we suffered. But launching war and killing the people who never even hurt us because we need a scapegoat, is completely unjustifiable.

Let's say something of horrendous proportions happened in Iraq. A bunch of terrorists attacked their city and thousands of innocent lives were lost. They decided that the USA was to blame, without solid proof, and in return they sent their troops into our country and bombed our towns, as a way of retaliating against the Bush administration. In our eyes, they would be immoral evil monsters with no regard for human life and we'd be in an uproar for this kind of knee-jerk reaction.

But that is exactly what we are doing right now.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Jim H
You don't see a problem with this? So, if the entire Middle East decided the USA was a threat to their security and invaded us, the UN should just stay out of it? What is the point of having an international government, if they don't have any involvement in international issues?

I guess I'm answering my own question. The UN is too weak to do anything about that sort of thing anyways, especially when five countries can veto whatever the hell they feel like.

LOL! I agree. The thing about the UN is that it is a nice idea to have countries be able to meet and exchange ideas but ultimately each country is responsible for their own safety and security. I agree that the US tries to get the UN to buy into their ideas for their own purposes- if everyone buys into it you do not have to stand alone. But recently, it has become obvious that there was a lot of behind the scenes corruption at the UN that probably impacted any objectivity some thought they had.

We are the only superpower that would ever bother to try to be nice to everyone else. If China becomes the next superpower they will not be asking us for permission to act on anything. The US should never give its power away to anyone.

[Raymond Babbit]

You know, people seem to be forgetting that we basically supported Hussein up till The original Gulf War. We supported him even when he was committing genocide, for economic reasons. Then, he invades Kuwait, putting our oil in jeopardy, and he's a bad guy? Anyone else see anything wrong there?

Also, Iraq never attacked us. And with this whole pre-emptive strike thing, if this was made our official policy, we could, theoretically, start wars with innocent countries under the reasoning that they "might" attack us. Do you really think we can trust the government (not just Bush, but the government in general) not to do that? I wouldn't

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
Also, Iraq never attacked us. And with this whole pre-emptive strike thing, if this was made our official policy, we could, theoretically, start wars with innocent countries under the reasoning that they "might" attack us.

Which, if Bush steals another election , is where we're headed.

I would guess Iran, then Syria are next in line for "liberating."

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Raymond Babbit
You know, people seem to be forgetting that we basically supported Hussein up till The original Gulf War. We supported him even when he was committing genocide, for economic reasons. Then, he invades Kuwait, putting our oil in jeopardy, and he's a bad guy? Anyone else see anything wrong there?

Also, Iraq never attacked us. And with this whole pre-emptive strike thing, if this was made our official policy, we could, theoretically, start wars with innocent countries under the reasoning that they "might" attack us. Do you really think we can trust the government (not just Bush, but the government in general) not to do that? I wouldn't

I agree that the US has a nasty history of interfering in other governments who are less than savory. The government pre-Watergate was very closed up and secretive but now everything is investigated and exposed and criticized and polled.

But as I mentioned in an earlier post, oil is the foundation of our entire country's financial stability-that cannot be downplayed. If we begin to attack innocent countries it will be becasue our government has fallen apart and our internal problems will catasrophic.

Greb- I seem to remember a certain Mr Gore trying to steal the election.Bush was declared winner and Gore wanted to recount ONLY the 4 democratic counties (no more than that thank you very much!) and then they were counting votes that were not even indented as votes for Gore if the rest of the ticket was Democratically punched. anyway after the election the media went out and recounted every single vote in every single county and they all said Bush was the winner. By like 550 votes. The media is not in Bush's favor so I'm sure their declaration was grudging at best.

Plus Iran COULD use a little liberating before they start lobbing nukes at us. I kind of don't beleive they need nuclear power plants for energy since they are sitting on the world's energy-but I am a cynic.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Greb- I seem to remember a certain Mr Gore trying to steal the election.Bush was declared winner and Gore wanted to recount ONLY the 4 democratic counties (no more than that thank you very much!) and then they were counting votes that were not even indented as votes for Gore if the rest of the ticket was Democratically punched. anyway after the election the media went out and recounted every single vote in every single county and they all said Bush was the winner. By like 550 votes. The media is not in Bush's favor so I'm sure their declaration was grudging at best.

Plus Iran COULD use a little liberating before they start lobbing nukes at us. I kind of don't beleive they need nuclear power plants for energy since they are sitting on the world's energy-but I am a cynic.

Gore tried to steal the election?

HAHA.

And Lynn, you call yourself a cynic, yet swallow everything coming out of this administration?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Gore tried to steal the election?

HAHA.

And Lynn, you call yourself a cynic, yet swallow everything coming out of this administration?

Never!!! I watch very carefully...I am always weighing and measuring. :D

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Never!!! I watch very carefully...I am always weighing and measuring. :D

So, do you believe the case he's attempted to make between Al Qaeda and Saddam?

[JCR]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Which, if Bush steals another election , is where we're headed.

I would guess Iran, then Syria are next in line for "liberating."

I don't believe that. Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and therefore it would require considerably more manpower and investment than Iraq. It would be to much for bush, and I doubt he'd have much support, even if he wanted to do it.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by JCR
I don't believe that. Iran is 4 times bigger than Iraq and therefore it would require considerably more manpower and investment than Iraq. It would be to much for bush, and I doubt he'd have much support, even if he wanted to do it.

Support? Bush don't need no steeenkin support.

If god tells him that Iran is a danger (or a good oil target) then we're there.

There was not much support for Iraq. He still heard god tell him to go there.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Grebdron
I would guess Iran, then Syria are next in line for "liberating."



Don't forget Nigeria. There's oil there.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/07/07/nigeria.oil/


Damn liberal media - Always bringing up the truth and shit.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Did anyone see the interview with Stephen Hayes on The Daily Show this past week?

An excerpt:

****

SH: I think the idea behind the Bush Doctrine is that if you support or harbor terrorists, we are gonna come after you, we’ll consider you a hostile regime. I don’t think that, frankly, in the aftermath of September 11th, I really don’t think that’s an unreasonable doctrine.

JS: But here’s the problem. It’s not unreasonable, but it’s not the point. The point is, I’ll list you four things: developing weapons of mass destruction, inflammatory rhetoric against the United States, supporting and harboring terrorism, uh, and…uh, oppression of their own people. Now here’s the problem with your doctrine: You can’t tell me what country I just named. And that’s a problem, when you’re talking about war.

SH: That is a problem when you’re talking about war.

JS: I mean that’s- that seems like the issue. Because you don’t know if I’m talking about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Sudan

****

JS: I- I don’t know, it just, it strikes me as- I’m no pacifist and I’m no partisan, but this thing strikes me as a big clusterfuck. And I say that with all due respect to all the people that believe otherwise, but every time I read a book like this that shows me the evidence between al Qaeda and Saddam, it shows me so much more of the evidence between all those other countries.

SH: Let me just ask you this one question.

JS: Sagittarius. Oh. I’m sorry, no no no, go ahead.

SH: Don’t you think the same people who are being the most critical right now, if God forbid we would’ve had an attack in 2005 after President Bush was reelected, it came with chemical weapons that we could trace to Iraqi sources and it came via al Qaeda, just as a 1999 Congressional research service study predicted, don’t you think the same people would be ripping the Bush Administration and calling to impeach the president because he didn’t do so much given all of this information?

JS: But we had an attack with 15 Saudis and we haven’t really done anything to them, so I mean that…

SH: We could do more to Saudis, I’m with you.

JS: I'm just sayin’. So I don’t, you know what- it’s all speculation, but I think that in terms of the world credibility, we have to do a better job of making our case because we are, if I may say so, number 1.

****

Watch the full interview here (http://video.lisarein.com/dailyshow/june2004/stephenhayes/) if you haven't already.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron
So, do you believe the case he's attempted to make between Al Qaeda and Saddam?

I believe that he did not say that Saddam was connected with 9-11. I watched this stuff intently and do not remember this ever being said by him. He said that Sadaam needed to comply with the UN resolutions that he had been thumbing his nose at for years. Bush gave him plenty of chances to comply with what he agreed to-he did not. In fact he kept shooting at our planes over the nofly zone making a mockery of us. It's like a criminal breaking probation. He goes to jail. Sadaam was on probation. He needed to go to jail. We did not conquer Iraq. They are not the 51st state. We simply removed this creepy guy and his regime-as we said we would if he broke his agreement after Iraq 1. There was no suprise. We just stood by what we threatened when we let him remain in power. 9-11 was the impetus for that however. Otherwise we might have let it go on.

But... if Saddam was in power today, (or his two sadistic sons)I believe that he would be plotting and helping Al queda or any other Anti-American group. AlQaeda is religiously motivated against us (the infidels) while Sadaam was just in it for power. But these groups all hate America and would not be afraid to join forces from time to time.

This country loves movies like Terminator and Indiana Jones and Star Wars and Dirty Harry but when it comes to our country's security it seems like everyone wants to join hands and sing about peace. These people have no interest in making us their friends- they want to take us out. Actually,they are even killing other muslims and if they gained power it would be the Taliban like state all over again. Even the muslim people fear that. Iraqis want the government to remain secular (according to polls)

[SLAW]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But... if Saddam was in power today, (or his two sadistic sons)I believe that he would be plotting and helping Al queda or any other Anti-American group. AlQaeda is religiously motivated against us (the infidels) while Sadaam was just in it for power. But these groups all hate America and would not be afraid to join forces from time to time.

Right, only speculation, but you really have no idea. That is not reason enough to go to war.


This country loves movies like Terminator and Indiana Jones and Star Wars and Dirty Harry but when it comes to our country's security it seems like everyone wants to join hands and sing about peace. These people have no interest in making us their friends- they want to take us out. Actually,they are even killing other muslims and if they gained power it would be the Taliban like state all over again. Even the muslim people fear that. Iraqis want the government to remain secular (according to polls)


I don't expect anyone to be our friends, but at the same time we don't need to create more enemies. The Bush administration has us running on fear, these people cannot touch us and our chances of beng killed in a terrorist attack is extremely extremely slim.

[BubbaStrangelove]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lynn7
I believe that he did not say that Saddam was connected with 9-11.


Proclaiming victory over Saddam, May 1 2003:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001... We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th — the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."


Yeah, he didn't say there was a link, but tell me how you can't say that clearly states otherwise?




This country loves movies like Terminator and Indiana Jones and Star Wars and Dirty Harry but when it comes to our country's security it seems like everyone wants to join hands and sing about peace.

So? I also liked that movie where the mom died from cancer. That movie with the elderly being mistreated - I liked that movie too.

How can you compare the loss of thousands of people with what happens in movies?



Even the muslim people fear that. Iraqis want the government to remain secular (according to polls)


So? Polls say that 100% of the Iraqi people wanted Saddam to stay in power as of 2002.

[ANavissi500]

Originally posted by flowrchild
I agree with everything that ANavissi500 said.


If only the rest of the world thought like you did. ;)

[JCR]

You know the thing that strikes me about the whole thing is that trying to enforce democracy in Iraq is about as easy as enforcing an Islamic dictatorship on the USA. It can't happen without the Iraqi people. If they wanted democracy they should have risen up and taken it themselves. If you look at recent regime changes, like say the old USSR countries or South Africa in the early 90s it sure as shit didn't happen there because of a hamfisted US invasion, it happened because pressure was put on them and ultimately their people demanded change. Bush's actions have just lead to chaos and I suspect the largest religious leader in Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani, will end up as dictator in some form or other. Oh and Lynn I really cannot see any country launching major chemical or other weapons against the USA. I think everyone realises bush would reply by sending them a dear jane letter with a nuke attached. Goodnight. Osama might try it, because he's a fucking nutjob, but I think even the dictators in the middle east know better, and I think development of these weapons in the middle east comes not from some sinister desire to harm the USA, but to try to keep up with Israel, who have nuclear weapons. If Israel could be persuaded to get rid of em, I suspect there would be much less desire by the other countries in the region to have them as well. Of course that's never ever going to happen, but nevermind.

[Jim H]

In my opinion, we had no legit or moral reason for going into Iraq and blowing them up. There was no proof between an Al Qeada/Iraq link, no evidence of Weapons of mass destruction, and no rationalization in good conscience for us to allow our men and women to go there and die for a bullshit cause, and kill other innocent civilians in the process.

Moral reason there was. Saddam killed thousands of civilians every year. In the long run more lives will be saved, at least theoretically.

plus Iran COULD use a little liberating before they start lobbing nukes at us.

For starters, how would they "lob" them? Last I checked they don't have ICBMs. Secondly, are you so sure most Iranians don't want the type of government they have? I don't honestly know, and don't pretend to. I do know they would be justifiably pissed off iif we came in there - last time we did that, we overthrew Mossadegh, who was basically just a relatively minor nationalist, and installed the Shah. The Shah and his CIA trained forces (well, 'allegedly' anyways) tortured and killed lots of people. It was the Shah's brutal tactics that paved the way for the modern regime, and modern day hatred of the USA in Iran.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lynn7
I believe that he did not say that Saddam was connected with 9-11.


Proclaiming victory over Saddam, May 1 2003:

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001... We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th — the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."


Yeah, he didn't say there was a link, but tell me how you can't say that clearly states otherwise?




This country loves movies like Terminator and Indiana Jones and Star Wars and Dirty Harry but when it comes to our country's security it seems like everyone wants to join hands and sing about peace.

So? I also liked that movie where the mom died from cancer. That movie with the elderly being mistreated - I liked that movie too.

How can you compare the loss of thousands of people with what happens in movies?



Even the muslim people fear that. Iraqis want the government to remain secular (according to polls)


So? Polls say that 100% of the Iraqi people wanted Saddam to stay in power as of 2002.

That quote form George Bush means that if 9-11 had never happened we probably would have let Saddam's antics continue- but after 9-11 we needed to show strenght to all who rose against us. I do not see that he is tying Sadaam to 9-11 but to the Spirit of those who would wish us harm.

The movies I listed becasue they are feel good movies about the strength of the American spirit and when it stands for good against evil. We feel good when evil is outsmarted or met with force. We do not feel good when the US is portrayed as a bunch of wimps.

I am not a great beleiver in polls but I know a lot of others beleive in them. That is why I used it.



JCR- the enemy is within. It is not that the foreign governments will launch a nuclear attack across the ocean but there has been talk of terrorsits using dirty bombs within our borders. Our borders are not sealed as you well know- who knows what is coming across the Mexican or Canadian border without being checked at customs. Remember the anthrax attacks-that was small scale but it killed. What about the poison gas released in the subway years back (can't remember the country-Japan-China?) They could even get ahold of a dangerous bacteria or virus that could wipe us all out in no time. They dont value their own lives so why would they care about anyone elses? They are even killing Muslim civilians. These guys are anarchists.

Why don't people rise up? Why didnt the slaves rise up? These are all people who have been brutalized and deliberately kept without any power. Look at what is happeneing now in the Sudan. It's just horrific. Anyway, it's hard to know when you rise up if anyone else will follow or if you will stand up alone. Those guys on the fourth flight who took down the airplane were very brave and everything came together for them but if you are on a high jacked airplane, you might try to get people motivated to stand with you and fail miserably. It's group dynamics.


Jim, I agree that our past governmental policies through the years have caused a lot of grief but I feel that we should not constantly try to berate ourselves over past mistakes- we should learn from them and try to move forward. Sometimes decisons have to be made on the lesser of two evils and things are not always clean when it comes to governements at work. Most other governments have been shown to have corruption too. it's really distressing to me to hear Americans constantly talking about how bad America is. I think we really do try to do the right thing most of the time. and the people do have the say over who they vote into office- not just presidential but on the state and local level. We are a represntative gov. If a leader displeases you just vote him or her out. We often vote the same scoundrels into office just casue their name is familiar to us.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
That quote form George Bush means that if 9-11 had never happened we probably would have let Saddam's antics continue- but after 9-11 we needed to show strenght to all who rose against us. I do not see that he is tying Sadaam to 9-11 but to the Spirit of those who would wish us harm.

So it's not really about liberating the Iraqi people then, right? We would have let Saddam run rampant through his people, until a bunch of SAUDIS killed 3000 of our people. So since the SAUDIS did that, we should show strength by invading Iraq, and liberating those people, thereby defeating terrorists in a country that it's been shown had no connection to the SAUDIS and Osama's Al Qaeda organization?

Makes sense to me.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron
So it's not really about liberating the Iraqi people then, right?


No- that was just a happy result of our preemptive action.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
No- that was just a happy result of our preemptive action.

Iraqi "liberation."

http://www.robert-fisk.com/bloodied_child_3.jpg

http://www.robert-fisk.com/1104raq8,0.jpg

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by Grebdron
I would guess Iran, then Syria are next in line for "liberating."

Then we'll take out those damned slanty-eyed commies in North Korea and China. And then Cuba. Go USA! Go USA! Go USA!

:rolleyes:

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Iraqi "liberation."

http://www.robert-fisk.com/bloodied_child_3.jpg

http://www.robert-fisk.com/1104raq8,0.jpg

Where are the pictures from our Civil war or from the Revolutionary war? Why not post pictures of Sadaam's tortures. No one wants to fight wars. The US has gone out of its way to reduce civilian casualties. We could have flattened Fallujah and saved a lot of American lives. Also, the terrorists deliberately position themselves near civilians so they can hide behind them. Sadaam was famous for using human shields. At least we don't set out to hurt innocents.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Lynn - FYI, I don't want you to feel ganged up on, so I'm going to try and keep things brief.

That quote form George Bush means that if 9-11 had never happened we probably would have let Saddam's antics continue- but after 9-11 we needed to show strenght to all who rose against us. I do not see that he is tying Sadaam to 9-11 but to the Spirit of those who would wish us harm.



That's the connection.




The movies I listed becasue they are feel good movies about the strength of the American spirit and when it stands for good against evil. We feel good when evil is outsmarted or met with force. We do not feel good when the US is portrayed as a bunch of wimps.


Yeah, the problem with your analogy is that this a movie board where there are fans of movies like Goodfellas, and Reservoir Dogs. We also root for the bad guys from time to time -- but in the end, it's just a movie, and not real life. None of us would want our family coming in contact with Mr. Blonde.

And many of us are expressig concern, because I, for one, think right now we have Brigade General Jack D. Ripper (dr. strangelove) as President

Okay, that was less brief than I hoped for.

[Jim H]

Why didnt the slaves rise up?

They did. But they were vastly outnumbered and when they did rise up, they were quashed. The Iraqis also rose up a few times, and George Bush Sr. said he would aid them, then he didn't.

Jim, I agree that our past governmental policies through the years have caused a lot of grief but I feel that we should not constantly try to berate ourselves over past mistakes- we should learn from them and try to move forward.

The problem is we haven't learned from them. The world is just different now, so we act differently.

Sometimes decisons have to be made on the lesser of two evils and things are not always clean when it comes to governemen

True enough. I just think what we did was often the greater of two evils, not the lesser. I can understand some of it considering the threat Russia posed though.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove

The movies I listed becasue they are feel good movies about the strength of the American spirit and when it stands for good against evil. We feel good when evil is outsmarted or met with force. We do not feel good when the US is portrayed as a bunch of wimps.


Yeah, the problem with your analogy is that this a movie board where there are fans of movies like Goodfellas, and Reservoir Dogs. We also root for the bad guys from time to time -- but in the end, it's just a movie, and not real life. None of us would want our family coming in contact with Mr. Blonde.


You're right- using that analogy ona movie board is not wise. :D

Jim
Looking back it seems horrible that we didn't help with that Iraqi uprising but look at all the grief that Bush Jr is getting for this- it wouldv'e been no different then. People didn't want to go into I Iraq- after Hussein was chased back inot his borders there was no will for it.

The slave analogy is meant in that the people who are in power have all the weapons and even if the slaves were the majority it would've been difficult. Look at all the problems in South Africa (apartheid) The whites were the minority but they had all the power.

Lots of intrigue in all governments but I feel the Bush admin is relatively transparent. Kerry's won't be if he is elected pres. He has been my senator since forever and I know next to nothing about him. I never even knew he had kids. We don't hear from him or see him. He is always reelected on name recognition. The only reason he defeated our Governor Weld was becasue everyone thought Weld was doing such a good job as Gov that they voted against him for senator. It had nothing to do with favorability of Kerry. unfortunately Weld resigned shortly after that. Having said that our current governor (Mitt Romney) will be the next president of the USA in the year 2008- get ready!!!!!

[Jim H]

People didn't want to go into I Iraq- after Hussein was chased back inot his borders there was no will for it.

It wasn't about sending in troops. We were giving financial aid and training, then political changes meant we completely cut them off despite promises to the contrary. Three Kings, relating this to movies, briefly talks of this.

Look at all the problems in South Africa (apartheid) The whites were the minority but they had all the power.

Yeah. And then when the blacks got power, they badly abused the whites in retribution, and the cycle continues. Joy.

Well, to be fair, the country as a whole is much better now.