| Author | Message | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 358 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art...... Ok....I am perfectly clear on where you are coming from. But before I make my rather lengthy and perhaps complex point, I promised I would answer a couple of your other issues first. Please let me know if I missed anything if you feel it is appropriate. With respect to the "natural cowards" issue, that will be addressed in my main rebuttal as it is the general principle behind what I wish to project. Again, it was not meant as an insult to you and I believe you did not take it as such. In your post 2762 you refer to Patton and McArthur.....I agree that Patton was wrong "at the time" merely because the world did not have a full and comprehensive understanding of what the Soviet Union was really all about as we did in later years. As to McArthur.....Truman was wrong....McArthur was correct and I beleive, but hate to say, you are wrong also IMHO, for if Doug had his way and nuked NK and some of China there would not even be a NK issue to have to deal with today and the Soviet Union, being militarily behind the US in nuclear weaponry would have stood idly by. Now, how can I say this with a straight face ? You'll see later in my main rebuttal. Now, while I have never been in combat, I was, unfortunately for my nerves, shot at with an AK-47 in the Sinai by an Egyptian border guard at 3am in the morning as I was traversing the desert to get back to Ismailia before sun up. Apparently, they had a checkpoint were there never was one before, and our white jeep flying at top speed scared the •••• out of them....and the rounds they fired at us scared the •••• out of me and my driver. Literally !!! I almost filled my pants and thought that I was going home in a box. We surrendered and managed to bribe our way thru with a bottle of Canadian Club whisky and some porno that we had bought on the black market in Tel Aviv. Because of this I can understand were you are coming from with your point. The thought that you are about to die is a very powerful force regardless of how many bombs and bullets are going off all around you. I willingly remained in the forces until late 1982 in a combat arms regiment. We were told as tankers that we had 45 seconds on first contact with WP forces before we were dead. I am glad that we didn't get a chance to test that theory, but I believe it takes more than "cowboy courage" as you inferred to wait and find out if in fact it is true. No one wants to die for their country.......only an idiot wants to die.......you hope and pray that it never gets to that stage where you have to go and test your mettle, but sooner or later you have to make the call. With regards top UN mandates, deadlines are just that, unforced deadlines are even worse. Again, please refer to my main rebuttal later on. Now if I have missed anything you asked me please let me know before I post my next set of comments that will hopefully support and show you why I advocate the position that I do. Cheers.... | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2776 Registered: 6-2001 |
Dave: Good irony, but the issue is: are they wrong? If so, tell me why, and where I can find the facts to refute same. Everyone spins, but are the facts false. kds: I'm confused, you want an answer as to whether we should enforce UN Security Council resolutions? We don't and we haven't. Examples: 242, requring Israel to withdraw from the land conquered in 67, the UN mandate regarding free elections in Kashmir so that the residents can decide which country they'd rather be affliated with. Have we insisted that India and Israel comply? I think not. What we do, is to enforce those security council resolutions which we like. What I'd do about N. Korea is to find out what they want. I'd then see if we could provide it to them. One of the smart things Bush has done is to find a way to provide them with assurances that we won't attack them, and use that assurance to see if he can get what he wants. The Iraq war in my humble opinion, was about money. We needed the war to give money to our friends, and we used it as such. Allegedly 4 billion is now missing. There'd be more, but the snot nosed Iraqis are keeping us from exporting any oil, but blowing up the pipelines which transport it out of Iraq. We can't police the entire world. If we start attacking everyone who poses a risk, where do we stop? I'd only attack those who pose an immediate threat to the US, or those who have killed Americans. I wouldn't attempt to attack people whose governments I don't like, or whose social policies I don't like. The bad thing about nukes is that its a science problem with realtively easy solutions. Given the technology available, these types of weapons, and far more serious types of weapons can be made by anyone with a few extra million, access to good machine tools, and 10 really smart, Ph.Ds in physics. Maybe the Muslins have it right, keep themn stupid, avoid the problem. Having said that, the problem isn't solvable in the manner we are now attempting to solve it. I hope that answers your question. Art | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 409 Registered: 12-2002 |
Ernesto, You got my intention wrong... I was trying to defend your post  I was not saying your post was as useless as Telsons, I was saying that to criticize you for not adding value to a Telson thread was silly, and I was suggesting that most of Telsons posts are so useless that we may as well have some fun with his threads, since they are not about to spark off any interesting discussion of serious issues. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 355 Registered: 5-2003 |
Bump for Art. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 154 Registered: 8-2003 |
Art, I really wouldn't waste time on our accomplished liar KDS any longer, he'll just spin you with nonsense and twisted facts until you're blue in the face. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 352 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art..... I want to apologize for not replying yesterday afternoon.....I ended up getting extremely busy at the dealership. -------------------- I think I understand your answer......but humor me for a minute.....in regards to the UN's rogue nations......you would rather do nothing, as opposed to enforcing valid deadlines and mandates with "unilateral" force....as long as these nations do not attack America. In other words.....it as OK to play games with Iraq and or NK as for decades as long as they do not attack us. Is that more or less...correct ? I'll reply to your other issues you raised also...but I have to nail you down here in black and white first on this point. I would like a "yes or no" answer if you would oblige. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3117 Registered: 1-2002 |
Definition of irony: Art, posting about our gov't "manipulating facts", and citing the Arab News as his source. Priceless! | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2767 Registered: 6-2001 |
I just ran across this little tid bit, which shows that our government is still playing games with the facts: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=33984&d=22&m=10&y=2003 Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2766 Registered: 6-2001 |
ERnesto: Hindsight is 20/20. Of course if we had a crystal ball, we should have done all of those. But we didn't and at the time, who looked to be the biggest threat? Somebody who most probably hasn't done anything to us now, like China? Problem is, how do you define a threat? If you start from the position that everybody who is a threat deserves to be wacked, you end up at war with the world. Still better to wait, make sure you're right. Art | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1815 Registered: 2-2001 |
"I don't think we should do anything to anyone who hasn't hurt us, I don't think we should attack those who we think might pose a threat later." So by your philosophy, we should not have eliminated OBL five years ago because he had not yet hurt us? Or Hitler just after he invaded Austria (hey, he hasnt hurt us!)? Completely wrong... that is exactly the type of mentality that got us in this mess! All these people (Saddam, OBL) and other (inc. Saudi Arabia) should have been dealt with long ago. Ernesto | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Member Username: Wax Post Number: 658 Registered: 7-2003 |
"Besides, we do have 2004 to look forward to, when dignity and respect shall be restored to the White House." You spelled 2000 wrong. Telson - until you start writing 100% of your posts as opposed to the 2% now coupled with 98% Copy/Paste of someone else's viewpoint - you'll not be taken as seriously as you would/could/should be. Don't expect anyone to waste time and energy dealing with a lazy writer. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2765 Registered: 6-2001 |
kds: I just noticed that you believe the Iraq was about the UN mandates. Two points: 1. UN refused to authorize force, 2. March 16, 2003 letter provided to the UN from us, delivered by Negroponte stated the reason for the war was WMD, and only mentioned WMDs. As for N. Korea. The story is a little more complex than that. They are legal. They withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty prior to enrichening their fuel. That technically makes them legal. However, I have a far more important point: They say they will open up their stuff, stop the weapons developement, etc. if we will enter into a non-aggression treaty. We won't do that. Why not? Seems to me that because of the bluster, we've scared the crap out of everyone. Maybe time to cut the tone of our resident cowboy's comments? Newton: for every action, a reaction. This might be the classic example of that, what do you think? Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2764 Registered: 6-2001 |
kds: If people do things that cause American deaths the response should be appropriate, i.e., you don't nuke someone who has killed one American. Obviously I think that we didn't do enough to bin Laden, and far too much to Saddam. When you talk about miscreants, I don't think we should do anything to anyone who hasn't hurt us, I don't think we should attack those who we think might pose a threat later. Life is precious, and this crazy discussion regarding killing Muslims without regard to the value of their life is something that sickens me. I don't object to the use of force, but I certainly object to indiscriminate use of same, and think that there are a lot of cowboys who really don't understand what they advocate. I'd like to take some of them, put them where their life is at danger, force them into difficult situations, then see if they've changed their attitude. Art | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 348 Registered: 5-2003 |
OK, I'm back.....there's nothing like a little pasta to get your energy level up.....I imagine you'll be out soon as well, since you are one hour behind me...in any event, let's continue as it's interesting to talk with someone who can leave insult filled cut and pastes out of the picture. Anyways Art....I asked what your tolerance level was for the world's miscreants who continually defy the opinion and mandates of the world body so revered by liberals...namely the UN. You failed to answer........and I am perplexed because it is this very issue that is the crux of the argument. Please tell me your position on this and I will respond accordingly.....as well as reply to your last post with some interesting comments.....it all ties together....... Now...if I am to assume that your position is that we should always "do nothing but talk" then let me know and I'll continue with my reply. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 347 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art...I am having lunch now...I'll be back.... | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2762 Registered: 6-2001 |
KDS: What's interesting is the words chosen to refer to people: natural cowards is not a term that I would use to refer to myself or those with my feelings towards war. I've seen an awful lot of people with what you call courage, but I haven't seen a whole bunch of them who've been through combat, seen the results thereof. Those that have, have a very strong reluctance to engage in that sort of behavior again. To those that have seen it on TV, played video games with it, or have read about it, it doesn't seem so horrible. This is where we are going: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031022/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_436 Just think: if we'd listened to Patton, we'd probably still be at war with Russia, if we'd listened to McArthur, there might not be a world altogether. Yet time solved both of those problems without massive amounts of death, because we were patient. The facts clearly show that in most instances, if the people opposing our position are given time, they either fall from power, or change their tune. Combat, especially against "elective targets" has usually come back to bite us. Art | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 346 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art.... As a liberal, at what point do you draw the line regarding the situation with Saddam, Iran or NK and their complete and sometimes utter disregard for world opinion of those on your side of the fence ? In other words UN mandates. THAT is what the Iraq war was about. After another catastrophy happens or before ? It seems that liberals have no pretences about this which brings back the old saying......"evil exists because sometimes good people let it". I guess that is where people like us differ on this issue.....your side has the "natural cowards" and our side has those who have the moral courage to stand up to this kind of thing. Please do not take my comment as an insult BTW, I am basically above that kind of chat and am speaking generally. I do not know you well enough to insult you with something that would work anyways..... I've studied enough military and social history to make an educated guess as to what's ahead IMHO, (in fact I did a dissertation on this in 1980 as part of the CFR process to get my officer rank and gee...seems that I was right). While people may disagree with GWB on this point, they do so at the expense of repeating history. Thoughts ? | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2760 Registered: 6-2001 |
KDS & RALPH: Where I differ is attacking those who didn't have any part in 9/11, and making the claim that we "needed" to do this. We didn't, and we are ensuring that we will continue to have people after us for a long time. In my humble opinion, we should have gotten bin Laden, taken all of his money, and killed or imprisoned his followers. That is all that we should have done. No Iraq, no Iran, no North Korea, no further actions. Had we done that, we would have had the entire world supporting us, and we wouldn't be where we are in Iraq. And yes Ralph, we should make sure that the Saudis, who assisted bin Laden are properly punished. As to those, who like Mr. Wolfe, lack humanity and would destroy millions who have done us no harm, I can only express my condolences to their parents for their utter failure to produce human beings, rather than monsters. Art | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 138 Registered: 8-2003 |
 Art: "That's the point. We don't need logic here. We got hurt, and we get to lash out. WRONG. Attack those who attaked us. Mixing people up is what will cause deaths that aren't deserved. If we'd gotten those who hurt us, I'd be more forgiving, but we haven't, and it looks like we won't. That in my book is failure. Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a stake? Because the incompetents didn't get him. He was responsible for 9/11, but since we didn't get him, let's get someone we can get." Art, that's it in a nut shell, the additional problem being that we'll reap what we sow! Refusing to accept the veracity of what you have written in the face of all the facts to have surfaced is nothing other than denial and cognitive dissonance, ie a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already believe, and new information or interpretation that doesn't fit in with what you desperately WANT to believe.  | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 343 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art... It's called the kds doctrine of "collective responsibility".......my reply to James sums it up.....I hope that they do not let it go that far either....but I hate repeating history. | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 342 Registered: 5-2003 |
James... It is "presently" out of context. What scares the excrement out of me is that it will be in context if the next successful full scale attack on US soil is greater than the scale of 9/11. At what point do you take of the gloves and get "MAD" ? (I am sure that you can decrypte those initials) I agree that starting a "real war" over the death of an Arch Duke (WW1) is outright stupid......and I state that WW2 happened because they did 70 years ago, what people like you and others want us to do today. Think about it. | ||
| Ralph Koslin (Ralfabco)
Member Username: Ralfabco Post Number: 972 Registered: 3-2002 |
Art: Greetings. You talk about getting Bin Laden the person responsible for 9/11 ? As you are perfectly already aware that will not solve the problems of (governments) in the M.E., that "want" our society to end. I would like to see special teams go after the financiers without any remorse or hesitation. The financiers should be hunted down like a pack of dogs. These people should be shot down while they are on their shopping trips in Europe. The other very important item is that the host nation must "pay" a severe price for promoting, financing, and providing save haven for terrorists. About a cycle of violence ? That is the fault of the spineless leaders of the West. It is there fault to look for political solutions "after" wearing down terrorists. What do you expect them to find a political solution after there has been repeated violence? I hear what they have to say. There ideas have not changed at all. There are no political solutions when it comes to exterminating roaches. You are not negotiating with people that are going to live up to there obligations. You are "not" negotiating with people that hold the very same ideas we hold as being important. Namely: ~ freedom, political reform, individualism, religious freedom, tolerance, advancement of society, and governments that are free and accountable to the people that elected them in a free and open election. There is nothing to negotiate with here ? It takes two to tango. There is NO FINISH LINE in the war on terrorism. The finish line will be forever "elusive" as long as you have societies that refuse to modernize and adapt to a free society. | ||
| Amir (Amir)
Member Username: Amir Post Number: 289 Registered: 2-2003 |
MFZ, per Faisal, use the ignore feature. Problem solved. | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 360 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jeffrey Wolfe's comments are one of the scariest things I have read these past few days. He sound like a more like an extremist to me. Examples: "4000 American lives outweight the entire Arab nation." and "They kill one American and we have the right to Carpet bomb the entire middle east and build a mall in it's place." BTW, as for the speech made in Malaysia during the OIC summit, did you read the entire speech? The quote was taken out of context by the Western-based media. In fact, up until that point, the Western-based media didn't even bother to cover the event. Sure got their attention now. | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 509 Registered: 5-2003 |
I can get behind that kind of logic. My main concern is the time factor and what happens while we are "looking into it". | ||
| Joe (Jts)
Junior Member Username: Jts Post Number: 175 Registered: 8-2003 |
Jeffrey, I started a thread a while back about "Saudis and their free pass" based on an article I read about the simply outrageous things that the Saudis get away with. I also mentioned the insanity of the freedom of speech laws in the UK that allow extremists to openly recruit in the streets while handing out postcards of the 9/11 bombers (!) as if they were heroes (instead of the pathetic cowards that they were). I hate their guts with every fiber in my body and I am all for terminating with extreme prejudice - I mean the scorched earth kind of extreme prejudice - BUT I can't make the leap to kill 'em all and let God sort them out. We have got to be smart enough to monitor them, infiltrate them, root them out and kill them. Put another way, I am all for the death penalty as long as we're sure we've got the right guy. I have faith in the CIA, the FBI, MI-5, MI-6, CSIS etc etc. I know they're on it 24/7. | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 508 Registered: 5-2003 |
Joe you open a door... how do we find them among the "peaceful" muslims? Can you look an arab in the face and say he is one or the other? So what to do... risk more attacks and err on that side or do the right thing and, to use an old saying,"Kill em all and let God sort it out". I work with Indians and even have a good friend that is a Turkish muslim. He agrees that the arabs are alot like the Viets....They change beliefs on a daily basis. Get rid of Saddam and they love you today. Don't give them what they want and they hate you tomorrow. | ||
| Joe (Jts)
Junior Member Username: Jts Post Number: 174 Registered: 8-2003 |
the key words are "extremists", "fundamentalists" "Wahhabists". The ones that have as their stated purpose, the destruction of the west. | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 507 Registered: 5-2003 |
Let's expand on this thought... our prison system is filled with black americans that have gone over to Allah. Now that we know that muslim extremeists are the core of these attacks should we not look to these inmates as the enemy also. If they embrace the same values as the others then they are part of the problem. | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 506 Registered: 5-2003 |
Agreed rich... but the problem is that "they" spread. First it was the Taliban and al queaida. then we find out the Saudi's were invloved. Where should we stop. It is not like saying it was people from Indiana... that we could attack and deal with. This illness spreads throughout a belief system. Today we could be hated by muslims from iraq... but tomorrow it is muslims from iran... then turkey... then..????? where do we stop. When you attack an enemy you have to kill them all or it never ends. So if the 911 crew was made up of Saudis and iranians do we attack both states..? Or do we look at the common thread... extreme muslims and kill them? | ||
| rich stephens (Dino2400)
Member Username: Dino2400 Post Number: 640 Registered: 10-2001 |
Jeffrey, the reason many of us (thank god) can't agree with you is that we don't agree with your use of the word "they". To you, "they" means every arab alive. However, there is no need to cast such a wide net. we know specifically who "they" were that flew the planes on 911. We know who supported them financially and who trained them and who taught them to believe what they did. And since we know who this "they" is, we can go after them specifically. There is no need to carpet bomb the whole middle east and kill lots of innocent, uninvolved people because of the actions a few people who originated in the middle east. | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 503 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art... don't assume that all in the military are "with you". And also don't assume that those in favor never served. AS for the rather weak comparison to the Jewish state... we are not in that spot. We have one advantage... We can bomb ANY country into dust in a matter of days. We will never be in the position of the jews. IF bombs were to start going off in clubs in New York we would not •••••.... we would find out what country was at fault and within 6 months bomb them into yesterday. You hate that idea and seem to use an endless list of reasons... killing is bad.... they will hurt me and mine..... we were lied to..... tell the truth... you are just a bitter ex viet nam vet that can't deal with real soldiers that know how to kill an enemy. As I have said in the past... the peaceniks here need to be forced to spend time in a room with families from WTC and the COLE. See if they are willing to live and let live with the arabs. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2759 Registered: 6-2001 |
That's the point. We don't need logic here. We got hurt, and we get to lash out. WRONG. Attack those who attaked us. Mixing people up is what will cause deaths that aren't deserved. If we'd gotten those who hurt us, I'd be more forgiving, but we haven't, and it looks like we won't. That in my book is failure. Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a stake? Because the incompetents didn't get him. He was responsible for 9/11, but since we didn't get him, let's get someone we can get. Unless and until those who are in favor of this can connect the two events (which by the way, none of the people charged with those duties has been able to do) the balance is that of a child who hurt himself, lashing out at anything in the area. That can have a detrimental effect on the kid lashing out. Sometimes people get even. That getting even could effect me and mine, and I don't like that one bit. Understand this: these people may not have our technology, but they aren't stupid. If there is a way for them to get "even", they will. This turns into a never ending cycle of violence, just like our friend the Israelis and the Palestinians. A great blue print for our future, don't you think? And you wonder why combat veterans are generally against this, and those who've never serve are in favor. Art | ||
| Jeffrey Wolfe (86mondial32)
Member Username: 86mondial32 Post Number: 502 Registered: 5-2003 |
James... You are being silly... Gee we were never in Dresden so we can't understand the concept... BS. The day that they decided to attack us as a nation by "knocking down a couple buildings" ( what a stupid and sick thing to say) they invited their own demise. 4000 American lives outweight the entire Arab nation. Perhaps you are of the same mentality as other liberals and believe that we should all "get past" such things as WTC and the COLE and look deeper at the reasons for their actions.... BULLS**t. They kill one American and we have the right to Carpet bomb the entire middle east and build a mall in it's place. | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 134 Registered: 6-2003 |
Kds, there are times when I wonder if the fact that the mainland USA has never been attacked is a bad thing. No offence, but to wish full scale war on the basis of a couple of buildings knocked down is ridiculous. Unless you were in Darwin, bom bed over 70 times by the Japanese or London bom bed hundreds of times during WW2 you have no idea what it is like to truly have your homeland under attack. I understand how you feel and I mean no disrespect but can we keep this in context. | ||
| Craig (Beachbum)
Junior Member Username: Beachbum Post Number: 215 Registered: 9-2002 |
Ernesto, your frustration is very understandable, the mistake your making is your trying to rationalize with irrational people | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1812 Registered: 2-2001 |
Oh... forgot about him! He IS my arch enemy!! LOL... Just kidding... Anyway, sorry about it guys... I just exploded... wont happen again. | ||
| Nick (True)
Junior Member Username: True Post Number: 63 Registered: 6-2002 |
Ernesto, sorry you misunderstood me, I was not talking about Telson. I was trying to infer that your post was along the lines of acting like your arch-enemy -- AllanLambo. Guess I didn't do a very good job..sorry about that. My apologies to everyone. I think I have caused more of a sidetrack then Ernesto's blank posts. No hard feelings Ernesto or anyone. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1810 Registered: 2-2001 |
Nick, please tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that Telson is my "arch enemy?" I have interacted at most three or five times with Telson on threads here on FChat. I dont have any "arch-enemies" here on Fchat (at least from my perspective). My problem here is that Telson is on this board SOLELY to spread political propaganda from questionable sources. He has about 120 posts, and all seem to be politically motivated, unlike most of us who participate on Ferrari and other matters, and also in OT threads. Constantly starting threads like this is a waste of time. Mike B, it is impossible to add value to Telsons meaningless cut-and-paste threads from the Mirror and other biased sources. A new thread every few days of this mindless crap serves absolutely no purpose. This is not an intelligent debate on the subject. Cutting and pasting articles is not debating. So what is the point of this? I am for invading Iraq and Afghanistan. I am for removing Saddam, who I feel was a HUGE threat to the area and the world (having invaded two neighboring coutries in a span of two decades). I am glad that a President finally has the courage to do the right thing instead of constantly following poll opinion statistics. No WMD? No ties to 911? I DONT CARE!! It was the right thing to do. Just like we should have removed the Taliban and OBL before we had any "proof." This would have saved thousands of American lives. The bottom line is that threats need to be removed, and there will always be people crying about it without realizing what could have happened. Its easy, because we never will know what catastrophies we avoided by removing these morons from power. Ernesto | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 337 Registered: 5-2003 |
Art.... Here's why it doesn't matter..... "They already hate us anyways"........."Let's roll"........."bring em on".......if they want to die for their cause I would be only to happy to oblige them for they are about to face the most powerful killing machine on the planet if they continue down this road. Let's give them the "real war" in exchange, the one that they desire, not this little action in Afghanistan or Iraq....but "real war".....entire cities razed, hundreds of thousands....millions even, of dead and irradiated corpses, dogs, cats, goats, camels and the goldfish also....an entire civilization/country wiped from the face of the earth in 30 minutes or it's free...... I mean...what's it been anyways ??? 60 years or so since the last big knock down, drag 'em out slugfest....that's what these people want....so let them have their every dream fullfilled. Oh wait.....what's that....you were just kidding ? You wanted to murder 50,000 people and expect nothing to happen ? You figured we'd send a few cruise missiles into some tents and slink home ? Time to play your cards....and be forewarned....we do not bluff....because we do not have too. IMHO, swacking the bees nest with a broom is the right thing to do at "this" time in history. It's time to bring this whole thing to a head I believe....to the point where their is only ONE group left standing after the fact. I intend to be in that group...and I believe that for all the rhetoric and personal positions espoused by many on the left, they also do as well....don't you ? Electioneering aside...that is... Now we all know that the other points brought up by the OP in this thread are merely canards....GWB never claimed that Iraq was involved in any of what is said anyways, so I won't address the sham that is his post except to rebut the point about AQ we are discussing Let's get the entire Arab/Muslim world to play their cards........and from what I saw at the recent conference in Malaysia....they already have. (I'm not jewish BTW...I am athiest) A few hundred, or thousand, AQ recruits will be irrelevant if we "offer" to "gift" the arab/muslim world with a couple of hundred of "buckets of instant sunshine".......unfortunately, that's the path they seem to be choosing for themselves.....so as to few more AQ recruits.....it's not an issue at all.... | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2756 Registered: 6-2001 |
Have we forgotten the issue? Have the Iraqi invasion increased the recruits for Al Qaeda, and if so, does it place us more at risk? Telson brings something to the table: he researchs the issues, provides quotes, and outlines his position. kds provides the opposite point of view, and we have a discourse on those issues. I think we should set up a personal attack thread where each one of us can express our angst about each other. That would leave the balance of the "off topic" discussion to those who want to discuss the issues. Ernesto's blank point made a comment. He believes that Telson didn't say anything, he made fun of that. Satire is appropriate, however, I think Ernesto was off base, because Telson did make factual points, and to this point, only kds has made any factual points to contradict him. These are just my personal thoughts about this, any other comments, or should we start a seperate thread? Art | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Member Username: Kds Post Number: 336 Registered: 5-2003 |
Mike.... I called him as a "troll" along time ago too....but it's just so much fun to watch him contradict himself and get caught in his lies, that responding to his threads with logic and facts is kind of like having a beer or two....you get a cheap buzz. | ||
| Nick (True)
Junior Member Username: True Post Number: 62 Registered: 6-2002 |
Mike my post had nothing to do with who had more content, and yes I got his 'point'. You are not the only one who can see what Telson is all about. It's the fact that the board was abused that makes it close to impossible to just scan through this thread and hit back. Its more of a 'scan down...what the...up...down...text...down....more space...F this thread! I just would hate to see this pattern continue. Someone doesn't like a post and they procede to post tons of icon's or huge space gaps....come on. Looks like this software doesn't have any size limitations so it would be easy for anybody to wreck any thread. I believe this is the third thread like this in 2 days. Anyways, back to FC. | ||
| Mike B (Srt_mike)
Member Username: Srt_mike Post Number: 399 Registered: 12-2002 |
I think Ernesto added precisely as much value to this thread as Telson added! Ernestos post is as much a statement of his thoughts on this as Teslons stupid cutting and pasting. As for Telson, this had me cracking up: "Dave, I don't judge politicians by how nice or intelligent they are" And in the very same sentence: "I think that Bush comes over as a pretty dim witted and tacky used car salesman" He contradicts himself in the SAME sentence! Quite obviously not someone to be taken seriously. Pretty soon he will need to fall back on the personal attacks. From lack of thinking for one's self comes jumping on others bandwagons. From too much bias comes political propaganda. From lack of facts comes personal attacks, and from lack of ability to debate comes scuttling away from any thread asking real questions and posting more cut-and-paste BS. Come on guys - does anyone NOT see Telson for what he is yet? | ||
| Nick (True)
Junior Member Username: True Post Number: 61 Registered: 6-2002 |
Ernesto, please. It's pretty immature to make such a post and pretty funny to see you acting just as rediculous as a well known arch-enemy of yours. If you don't like to read Telson's threads, don't read or post in them. I lost 2 minutes of my life scrolling up and down trying to figure out whats up with the huge gap. I thought the board was messed up. No reason to just totally ruin this thread like that. Eventhough the majority doesn't agree with Telson, I still find it entertaining to read his critic's retorts. There were a few other threads posted with just space recently. What a waste of space. By the way, I have always enjoyed your posts untill now. Sorry if I am coming off sharp. | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1809 Registered: 2-2001 |
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 128 Registered: 8-2003 |
Just because the article was published by the Gardian doesn't make them untrue. Art, there really is absolutely nothing wrong with the highly respectable "The Guardian", one of the few objective sources of news before and during the war. Also, the Mirror had a similar story quite some while ago: "MPs' SHOCK REPORT: THE WARNINGS BLAIR IGNORED Sep 12 2003 By James Hardy, Political Editor TONY Blair ignored advice that terrorism posed a far greater threat than Saddam Hussein as he plotted war on Iraq, secret evidence revealed yesterday. Senior MPs said in a report spy chiefs believed "al-Qaeda and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq." Mr Blair led Britain to believe Iraq had large quantities of chemical and biological agents - some of which could be mobilised in 45 minutes - and could arm Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda. But, it was disclosed, he ignored information from the powerful Joint Intelligence Committee that: A STRIKE on Saddam could dramatically increase the risk of terrorists obtaining WMD. SPY chiefs had virtually no intelligence about alleged quantities of chemical or biological agents held by Iraq. THERE was no evidence Iraq provided terror agents to al-Qaeda. The Government also failed to mention that the claim Saddam could mobilise weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes referred only to battlefield rockets and shells, not strategic missiles. Mr Blair never admitted the spies' concerns. Instead he released a controversial intelligence dossier, questioned by defence experts, making the case for war. Last night furious critics of the conflict demanded a full explanation. Calling for a judicial inquiry into the intelligence against Saddam, Labour MP Alice Mahon said: "As every week passes, more and more evidence emerges of the extent to which the country was misled. This is another example of the misinformation pumped out from No10." Yesterday's damning disclosures came in a report of evidence to the Commons Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry into Iraqi WMD. The ISC, which took evidence from the heads of the JIC and MI6, said: "In their assessment dated February 10, 2003, the JIC reported there was no intelligence Iraq had provided chemical and biological (CB) materials to al-Qaeda, or of Iraqi intentions to conduct CB attacks using Iraqi intelligence officials or their agents. "However, it judged that in the event of imminent regime collapse there would be a risk of transfer of such material, whether or not as a deliberate Iraqi regime policy. "The JIC assessed that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists." The committee said the JIC should have made it clear the 45 minute claim - repeated four times in the intelligence dossier - did not refer to strategic missiles. Their report said: "The claim was always likely to attract attention because it was arresting detail the public had not seen before. "The fact it was assessed to refer to battlefield chemical and biological munitions and their movement on the battlefield, not to any other form of chemical or biological attack, should have been highlighted. "This was unhelpful to an understanding of the issue." The committee also criticised the Government for failing to spell out that spy chiefs had virtually no intelligence about alleged quantities of chemical or biological agents held by Iraq. The dossier had declared that Iraq "continued to produce chemical and biological weapons". But the committee said: "The absence of detail on amounts of agents produced could give the impression that Saddam was actively producing both chemical and biological weapons and significant amounts of agents. "However, the JIC did not know what had been produced and in what quantities. It had assessed, based on intelligence, that production had taken place. "We believe that this uncertainty should have been highlighted to give a balanced view of Saddam's chemical and biological capacity." The committee also said it was "unfortunate" a reference was removed from the final dossier which made it clear Saddam posed no threat to the UK mainland. In his evidence to the ISC, Mr Blair virtually shrugged off the terror warning saying only time would tell if he had made the right choice. He said: "One of the most difficult aspects of this is that there was obviously a danger that in attacking Iraq you ended up provoking the very thing you were trying to avoid. "On the other hand, I think you had to ask the question could you really, as a result of that fear, leave the possibility that in time this developed into a nexus between terrorism and WMD in any event? "This is my judgment and it remains my judgment. I suppose time will tell whether it's true or not." The ISC said it accepted that there had been no political interference in the production of the dossier. They said: "The dossier was not 'sexed up' by Alastair Campbell or anyone else." Joining calls for an inquiry, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said last night: "Before the war the Liberal Democrats and others from across the political spectrum warned that unilateral military action against Iraq risked stirring up even more terrorism and increased the likelihood of terrorists obtaining WMD. "It now transpires that intelligence chiefs gave the Prime Minister exactly the same warning privately, yet Tony Blair chose to overrule them." Former minister Glenda Jackson said: "The whole report gives the lie to claims that there was no political input into the decisions which led to the war." But Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said: "The JIC has not been subject to political pressure. Its independence has not been compromised in any way. The Government welcomes these findings." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_ objectid=13397997_method=full_siteid=50143_ headline=-MPs%2D%2DSHOCK%2DREPORT%2D%2DTHE%2 DWARNINGS%2DBLAIR%2DIGNORED-name_page.html Besides, Scowcroft come up with the exact same assessment: "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft, National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 And indeed General Clark said the same thing, I mean, it's only common sense after all, no? Clark:"Iraq distracts from the War on Terror I think the conflict with Iraq was elective. It was purely elective and it represented a big distraction from the War on Terror. It was not a reinforcement of it. It was a distraction from it. Source: WCGU-FM interview on "Sound Off With Sasha" Jun 27, 2003" | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2752 Registered: 6-2001 |
Tim: The issue is: did MI5 & 6 make those statements,s and secondarily, are the statements accurate? Just because the article was published by the Gardian doesn't make them untrue, the bais if any, only makes them suspect. I would check other sources regarding those statements. If the statements are true, coupled with the lack of WMDs, then despite Ernesto's thanks for being made safer, Mr. Bush may very well have, intentionally, or unintentionally placed all American citizens at a greater risk. Bush may not be an idiot, but clearly he and his team haven't thought through the consequences of their acts to a conclusion. An example of this sort of spotty review is that in early 2003, Dr. Rice read the analysis of the Weapons of Mass Destruction done by the National Security Administration. There was a dissent by the State Department. By her own testimony, she didn't bother to read the dissent. Turns out State was right, no weapons, egg on everyone's face. Was it a political ploy not to read the dissent, so that she could make a very strong case without any information which might interfer with her preconceived notions? If that is the case, idiot or not, massive damage done by those with an agenda. Art | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1808 Registered: 2-2001 |
God Bless our President Bush and our troops protecting this world of ours. Ernesto | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 127 Registered: 8-2003 |
Lets say that saddam was not behind 9/11, lets say that saddam did not have ties to al qaeda, lets say that saddam did not pose a huge and imminent threat, the fact still remains that he had to go. Saddam was NOT behind 9/11, did NOT have ties to al-qaeda, and did NOT pose a huge and imminent threat. Hence, no reason to attack him. We dont even know 1/10th of the horrible things he did to HIS people. Quite frankly, that had nothing to do with going to war. Besides, we never cared before about the fact that he was an evil leader, in spite of his horrendous crimes he was a very good and long term ally of the US: "Iraq, once a favoured American ally During the Reagan period, the US re-established diplomatic relations with Iraq, and considered Baghdad a bastion against �Islamic revolution�, by Alain Gresh "He's used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbours. He's invaded his neighbours. He's killed thousands of his own people." Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor to President George W Bush, lists the "compelling" arguments that, she says, are pushing the United States to intervene in Iraq and overthrow President Saddam Hussein (1). The allegations are irrefutable: in September 1980 the Iraqi regime attacked Iran, starting one of the most bloody conflicts since the second world war; in difficulty, it effectively used chemical weapons and then gassed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in Halabja in March 1988. Did the US make war on the tyrant then? The US press has confirmed that, at the time, about 60 US officers had secretly given the Iraqi army "detailed information on Iranian deployments" and were discussing battle plans. US advisors, told of the use of gas, did not object to it "because they considered Iraq to be struggling for its survival" (2). In 1984 the Reagan administration re-established diplomatic relations with Baghdad (interrupted by the 1967 war), deleted it from its list of countries supporting terrorism and promoted it to the rank of bastion against the "Islamic revolution". When George Bush Senior became president in January 1989, he made a statement both stupid and cynical: "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The United States government should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behaviour and to increase our influence." At this time US companies, with the backing of the State Department, were exporting to Iraq products that could be used to make biological weapons (3). The "international community", so keen during the 1990s to uncover the history of Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction, never investigated foreign companies that helped Iraq. Many western governments - including the US, Germany and France - had been involved. In the US there is now vigorous debate about the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But it is more about means than ends. The question is not should we do it? but how should we do it? The reluctance of the US' European and Arab allies - the Arabs troubled by the total impunity of the government of Ariel Sharon - will doubtless do no more than delay this "first preventative war" of the 21st century (see The hawk doctrine). Officially the operation would target Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. After all, United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 of 3 April 1991 insisted on the county's disarmament. Article 14 said these measures "represent steps towards the goal of establishing in the Middle East a zone free from weapons of mass destruction and all missiles for their delivery." Those regional steps never happened. All the attention was focused on Iraq, subjected to an embargo system that starved people and weakened society, and reinforced Saddam's regime. Between 1991 and 1998 UN inspectors did impressive work making sure that Iraq's nuclear programme, almost all its missiles and many of its chemical weapons were destroyed. They put in place a long-term control system, with surveillance cameras at dozens of sites. We were finally on the way to disarmament and the end of the embargo. But the US had other plans. Rolf Ekeus, who was in charge of the UN inspectors in Iraq between 1991 and 1997, has recently revealed that the US used the inspectors for espionage; it had also "pressed the inspection leadership to carry out inspections which were controversial from the Iraqis' view, and thereby created a blockage that could be used as the justification for a direct military action" (4). That is what happened in December 1998 when Washington decided to bomb Iraq, without the backing of the UN, forcing the inspectors to quit and leaving the Iraqi weapons programme without any form of control. The US is not seeking the return of the inspectors but rather a pretext for a military adventure which risks increasing the gap between the Muslim world and the West. Who can foresee the consequences of such an enterprise on a region shaken by the Israeli government's offensive against the Palestinians? President Bush Senior's former advisor, Brent Scowcroft, has warned that "Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing Armageddon in the Middle East" (5). (1) BBC, London, 15 August 2002. (2) The New York Times, 18 August 2002. (3) US Senate report quoted by William Blum, "What The New York Times Left Out", Counterpunch, 20 August 2002. (4) Financial Times, London, 30 July 2002. (5) The Wall Street Journal Europe, 15 August 2002." I, for one, believe that he was a threat and had weapons of mass destruction Believe? Based on what? Belief doesn't factor into starting wars, facts do. And no facts were ever forthcoming that proved Bushs allegations. Just think of Powells embarrassing last performance at the UN before the war where he humiliated us in front of the whole world when the world discovered that all we were basing the war on was nothing but a sad joke. In fact, MONTHS after the war "officially" ended, no WMD's have been found, if Saddam had had them, and was fighting the fight of his life, he would have used them, you don't survive for decades as dictator by being too stupid to defend yourself, but anyway, no WMD's have been found to this day, nor will any be found that would have justified this imbecilic and extremely counter-productive war. The "case" for war was a fraud perpetrated in Texas, as Senator Kennedy famously said, and Bushs head needs to roll for that. | ||
| Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member Username: Timn88 Post Number: 3499 Registered: 6-2001 |
"Telson", you are reading and strongly biased information. Would you believe anhything you read in a newspaper/tabloid? Lets say that saddam was not behind 9/11, lets say that saddam did not have ties to al qaeda, lets say that saddam did not pose a huge and imminent threat, the fact still remains that he had to go. We dont even know 1/10th of the horrible things he did to HIS people. what kind of a leader throws the people HE is responsible for into a meat grinder? Frankly, he was a shitty leader. He only cared about himself and those who were close to him and supported him. He didnt care about 99% of iraq's population. He did not take personal respoinsibility in protecting their welfare and safey. All too often dictators let their power go to their head and forget that they are servants to the state, not the other way around. did you see how happy the people of iraq were when they learned saddam was gone? sure, thousands of lives were taken, but tens of thousands were saved. some of the things saddam and his regime did to the iraqi people are just so terrible that he deserves to die. i wouldnt say what was done over there was all for nothing and counter productive. can you elaborate on why you still think this? I, for one, believe that he was a threat and had weapons of mass destruction, which the your post makes no mention of, except for that political cartoon, which only an idiot would accept as credible information. Last i heard in the spring, inspectors found chemicals which are used to make biological weapons and long range missles. I dont remember them finding any missles with WMD on them, but its obvious what his intentions were. Do you think he had some other plan for these things? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 126 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dave, I don't judge politicians by how nice or intelligent they are, although I think that Bush comes over as a pretty dim witted and tacky used car salesman in even that regard, no, I judge them by the results of their actions. And on that count Bush is the absolutely worst and most catastrophic president with the least respect for what the USA stands for in at least the last 100 years, more likely the worst and most dangerous president the USA has ever had. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3109 Registered: 1-2002 |
Telson, have you ever met Mr. Bush? I have, several times. And while I definitely do not agree with all of his policies & approaches to things, I can ASSURE you with 100% certainty that he is no idiot. But your incessant cut & pasting of everything youcan find to slam him says the opposite about you, I'm afraid. | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 125 Registered: 8-2003 |
Bruce and Dave, while the symptoms may be similar, I somehow do not believe that Bush uses Crack. I think he's just a natural, who can and indeed regularly does produce all the symptoms of a psycho without any outside aids: "So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad? Psychologist Oliver James analyses the behaviour of the American president" Full Story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1033904,00.html Sad, I agree, but it pays to be a realist, much more effective tactic to see you through life than sticking ones head in the sand. Besides, we do have 2004 to look forward to, when dignity and respect shall be restored to the White House. | ||
| Dave (Maranelloman)
Advanced Member Username: Maranelloman Post Number: 3108 Registered: 1-2002 |
Ta-da! Telson,     | ||
| Bruce Wellington (Bws88tr)
Advanced Member Username: Bws88tr Post Number: 3399 Registered: 4-2002 |
HES ON CRACK...WHERES MARANELLO MAN???? | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 123 Registered: 8-2003 |
With Bush ? Yup. Totally agree. Lets hope we can retire him to his village in 2004 where he can get treatment.  | ||
| Ernesto (T88power)
Intermediate Member Username: T88power Post Number: 1807 Registered: 2-2001 |
What the hell is wrong with this guy? Ernesto | ||
| Telson (Pitbull_trader)
Junior Member Username: Pitbull_trader Post Number: 120 Registered: 8-2003 |
General Wesley Clark said it: "Iraq distracts from the War on Terror I think the conflict with Iraq was elective. It was purely elective and it represented a big distraction from the War on Terror. It was not a reinforcement of it. It was a distraction from it. Source: WCGU-FM interview on "Sound Off With Sasha" Jun 27, 2003"  The British Intelligence Agencies MI5 and MI6 plus the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance, said it: "Iraq war has swollen ranks of al-Qaida Richard Norton-Taylor Thursday October 16, 2003 The Guardian War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al-Qaida and "galvanised its will" by increasing radical passions among Muslims, an authoritative think-tank said yesterday. The warning, echoing earlier ones by MI5 and MI6, was made in the annual report of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance. It said US claims after the invasion of Iraq that al-Qaida was on the run, and that the "war on terror" had turned the corner, were "over-confident". John Chipman, the institute's director, warned that the full effect of the war might never be known, because of the chaos it had left behind. "Whatever one may or may not find in the next six months will not be proof of what may or may not have been there ... There will always be a degree of uncertainty," he said. The report notes that, according to the US, more than 3,000 suspected al-Qaida operatives have been arrested, including the third in command, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But it adds: "The counter-terrorism effort has also perversely impelled an already highly decentralised and evasive transnational terrorist network to become more 'virtual' and protean and, therefore, harder to identify and neutralise. If al-Qaida has been compromised since the Afghanistan intervention from an offensive point of view, from a defensive perspective it is better off." Al-Qaida's great advantage, the report says, is its operational flexibility as a result of it not having a state to defend. The institute believes the network is present in more than 60 countries, has a rump leadership intact, and that there are more than 18,000 potential terrorists at large, with recruitment continuing. Al-Qaida's cells are taking measures against increasing electronic surveillance, operating semi-autonomously, but "maintaining links through field commanders to [Osama] bin Laden and his shura [council] who can activate networks and give operational orders". The informal hawala banking system ensured a stream of unregulated cash from dias pora communities to local radical Muslim groups, as the investigation into five suicide bombings in Morocco in May demonstrated. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq will further increase al-Qaida's recruiting power, says the thinktank. The network wants to develop its own capability to use weapons of mass destruction, but it probably has not yet done so. Meanwhile, it is likely to keep hitting soft targets directed at Americans, Europeans and Israelis. The parliamentary intelligence and security committee reported last month that Tony Blair was warned by his intelligence chiefs on the eve of war that an invasion of Iraq would increase the danger of terrorist attacks. It disclosed that in February, a month before the invasion, Whitehall's joint intelligence committee said that "al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq". Though al-Qaida's leadership remains impervious to political compromise, the report says some local affiliates and large numbers of potential recruits are not. The most pressing matter is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Attempts by al-Qaida to penetrate Hamas have so far failed, mainly because Hamas's objectives are basically local. But "Hamas/al-Qaida links could materialise if Hamas became desperate and politically marginalised", says the report. Meanwhile a Pakistani minister has said that one of the men killed in an offensive against al-Qaida appears to have been a high-ranking member. Eight al-Qaida suspects and two Pakistani soldiers were killed in the October 2 raid, when army commandos attacked a suspected hideout in south Waziristan. "There is a probability that a man among those killed has a reward on his head," the information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, said." http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks /story/0,10538,1063761,00.html  And of course a good Republican like Scowcroft, who isn't a neoconservative extremist like our current incumbents, realized exactly the same: "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks. Indeed Saddam's goals have little in common with the terrorists who threaten us, and there is little incentive for him to make common cause with them. Don't attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts." Brent Scowcroft National Security Advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford & George Bush senior Wall Street Journal, 15 Aug 2002 Hmm. Now here is a question to ponder: Saddam was NOT behind 9/11. Saddam did NOT have ties to Al Qaeda. Saddam did NOT pose the HUGE and IMMINENT threat Bush kept promising us. But, attacking Iraq only served as a recruiting drive for Al Qaeda. So, what the heck we doing down there, wasting hundreds of billions we didn't have in the first place, killing and mutilating thousands, all for NOTHING, apart from the highly counter-productive effects outlined above ??? Time to get some heads rolling, methinks, best to start with da Boss man himself, Dubya Bush ! Best, |