Al-Qaeda, a politically-driven fantasy?

Fight nice, guys!

Maybe it is me, but I do see "truths" in both of you.

Cens, while I instinctively believe you are on target, it would be easier to voice support for you if you quoted your sources or at least listed them.

Bossel, I believe if you look hard enough, you can find documentary evidence from some "authority" or another to support almost any position you wish to take.

I know a lot of things about what has happened in Iraq that I believe is utterly reliable, but I cannot quote the sources because it would jam up those same sources (if I get them into a jackpot, they'll no longer be useful as sources!). Therefore, I do not mention them. Unless everyone wants to take my word for it, I'm screwed. And most of you would be unwilling to take my word for it, what?

Let's agree that this is a briar patch and none of us are Br'er Rabbit. Know what I mean, Vern?
 
bossel said:
Not surprising. What about offering your sources?
I'm in the same position as Shooter452. And unlike CNN and The New York Times, I care about my sources.

bossel said:
Maybe because you don't like the behaviour of said occupying force?
Compared to what, the previous occupying force? Get real.

bossel said:
What have these countries to do with the scandal? Sources?
Anyway, Russia is a special case. As Chechnya shows Putin would be stupid enough to invade. But I doubt that he would be stupid enough to try it on Iraq.
There's an investigation underway as we speak. Don't blame me if it's not finished and published in time for me to respond to your post. There's this thing called patience. Look it up.

bossel said:
Carter was responsible for that? Sources?
Documented history. Carter got Sadat to the peace table, and Sadat was killed for that. Until that second event occured, I thought that ol' Jimmy was actually going to do something productive with his term.

bossel said:
& BTW US forces kill a lot of innocent citizens of another country. But, hey, they're not US Americans, so who cares?
Wow, we went to trouble of traveling to other countries just to kill their innocent citizens? Sources?

bossel said:
Hamas & Al-Aqsa-Brigades communicate & coordinate as well, yet they are independent organisations. Al-Qaeda may be responsible for 9/11, but that doesn't mean that they are responsible for every islamic terrorist act that happens anywhere.
Never said they were. But they claimed responsibility for the ones I mentioned.

bossel said:
Yeah, but a trail of rubble & bodies can be used to create a myth.
So now we're planting evidence, is that what you're saying?

bossel said:
Nice that you know at least some history, sad that you have some problems in proportionality.
Just pointing out the pattern of behavior, not equating.

bossel said:
Ever heard of guerilla relying on support of the citizens? Baathists wouldn't get very much support or shelter in Fallujah, unless they & the citizens have roughly the same aims.
You mean unless they have citizens that can still be controlled by fear. These people lived under that kind of rule for 30+ years, or have you forgotten that? Remember that mosque in Najaf they were holed up in for a while? Everybody was waiting for us to storm the place, but we never did. Once we did get in though, we found piles of bodies of women and children. The "insurgents" had been dragging people in from the street and killing them. They had fully expected us to storm the place so they could blame the U.S. for killing so many innocents in a "place of worship".

bossel said:
Racial profiling is just crap.
I'm still waiting to hear your solution, o enlightened one.
 
Shooter452 said:
Fight nice, guys!
Bossel has been acting this way towards from the get-go. In the Left Vs. Right thread, all he kept saying was that I didn't know what I was talking about, but he never stepped up to the plate with any substantive discourse.

Besides, having worked for both Porsche and Mercedes, I'm not unaccustomed to German arrogance and how they talk down to Americans. ;)
 
It may be because our educational system doesn't meet German standards. :)

I've been following for a while, and I can't seem to figure out what the exact disagreement is. The documentary (which I haven't seen) says that al Qaeda is a threat of a different nature than portrayed by the United States. (I'm not certain that the Spanish would agree...) We keep talking about perceptions that are slightly different, but based on similar information. I may be inclined to believe that our reactions in curtailing civil liberties and our foreign escapades our counter productive to the war on terror. I may also be inclined to resent the dumping of resources into homeland security and war (especially while we are cutting taxes). Clarify please.

Forgive me for being dense. But clarify the points of dispute. Is anybody saying that we should simply forget the whole al Qaeda thing and go back to issuing (ineffective) sanctions? Who would you sanction for 9/11 or the train bombings? If it is about militant Islamacists- do we start some kind of religious war? (Greeeaat) Should we cancel the elections in Iraq? Should we just abandon Iraq, the Iraqis and the mess we created?
 
I'm just sayin that al q. is not as big of a threat as it is made seem to be, the biggest threat is in people abiding to this new radical muslim ideology, and you can't prevent this with guns, you need a political solution and policy changes to resolve such threats.
 
Shooter452 said:
I believe if you look hard enough, you can find documentary evidence from some "authority" or another to support almost any position you wish to take.
That's true, actually. But if you look hard enough you usually can distinguish more or less reliability.

I cannot quote the sources because it would jam up those same sources
Can't say that I understand this sentence entirely. "Jam up" as in blocking?


Censport said:
Compared to what, the previous occupying force? Get real.
Which previous occupying force, the British in the 1920's?

There's an investigation underway as we speak. Don't blame me if it's not finished and published in time for me to respond to your post. There's this thing called patience. Look it up.
You showed quite some patience with your judgement that Germany, France & Russia didn't support the US in illegaly invading Iraq because they were corrupt.

Documented history. Carter got Sadat to the peace table, and Sadat was killed for that.
I don't see how this makes Carter responsible for Sadat's death. Same logic applied, you can say (with even better reason) that Bush is responsible for 9/11.

Wow, we went to trouble of traveling to other countries just to kill their innocent citizens? Sources?
Invading Iraq is a travel to you? Wow (again)!
Source:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Never said they were. But they claimed responsibility for the ones I mentioned.
But some attacks don't make them a world wide network & such a big threat as the Bushites picture them.

So now we're planting evidence, is that what you're saying?
Not that I know of. Just interpreting the things in way that you can blame a big bad bogeyman & use this bogeyman to advance your geo-political aims.


You mean unless they have citizens that can still be controlled by fear.
The people in Fallujah were not really living in such a fear. Actually, it was more the other way round. Saddam never really got control over that area. That's why he even gave the tribes there a certain freedom & did them some favours. Just to keep them at bay.

Remember that mosque in Najaf they were holed up in for a while? Everybody was waiting for us to storm the place, but we never did. Once we did get in though, we found piles of bodies of women and children. The "insurgents" had been dragging people in from the street and killing them. They had fully expected us to storm the place so they could blame the U.S. for killing so many innocents in a "place of worship".
Maybe I'm going for the wrong event, but it seems you show your misinformation again. You're talking of the Sadr militias who occupied the Imam Ali Mosque? Then there are several points you are wrong in:

1) The Sadr militia is largely unrelated to the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah & since they are Shia most probably even more unrelated to the Baathists.
2) You didn't get in. It was the Iraqi police who entered there, after the US troops had pulled back & the militia had left.
3) There was one woman killed by the militia, I never heard of any children killed. An AP correspondent reported to have seen around 10 bodies. Iraqi police said they had been policeman & civilians, while the militia claimed them to be insurgents killed in the fighting.

I'm still waiting to hear your solution, o enlightened one.
Simply don't use racial profiling.

Censport said:
Bossel has been acting this way towards from the get-go. In the Left Vs. Right thread, all he kept saying was that I didn't know what I was talking about, but he never stepped up to the plate with any substantive discourse.
My very 1st post in that thread was in response to you wrongly claiming that no other country had such an issue with illegal immigration as the US. Which I corrected. Then I asked where you would see free market capitalism realised. Your response to my correction was what you'd probably call "condescending". Hence you can't really moan about me starting it, I just adapted to your style (as I usually adapt to those I talk to in discussions).

BTW, I'm still waiting for your enlightenment regarding what makes Tenncare exemplary for (which particular form of) socialism. You never showed that you had any knowledge of socialism beyond some buzz words.
 
Jam up; definition

To put into a difficult situation.

When you get "jammed up" you are usually in serious trouble. That is what is meant by being in a "jackpot" also.

Sorry, but I talk like that and I forget that some people do not understand me. Thanks for your patience. Sometimes we forget that despite our differing points-of-view, we all intensely believe in what we believe. I hope that you guys all understand that despite my opinions, they are merely opinions. I know things, but not everything. I listen, I learn, I share. But I never assume that I am in position to judge...necessarily. In some things, I know more than you. In other things I am abyssmally ignorent.

'Know what I mean?
 
Why are the elections in Iraq a joke?

Ok, take a country that has been traditionally ruled by a theocratic despot for say, oh, the last few hundreds of years. Then throw in the a previous occupying force (Britian) to help build mistrust of foreigners. Now let's speed up to recent times. Your country is ruled by a brutal dictator. His key support has come from America. (I don't know if you know this, but many Iraqi's I know blame America for Saddam. Afterall, we did supply him with many of the weapons he used on his own people.) Next, your dictator is removed by the same outside force that supported him. This outside force also happens to be traditionally your enemey for the last 1,000 years or so. Now, this outside force want to place a new person in power. For your point of view, would you trust them? Since their arrival, your country has been destabilized. Basic amenities that were around under the dictator are no longer available. Moreover, the occupying force threatens some of your customs and offends your religious beliefs. At least the previous regime didn't do that. So, you are faced with a worse economic situation and standard of living, streets (ironically) are less safe then they were before, and even if you don't hate America by this point your options for choosing your own candidate, (one who will not bend to US interests) are zero.

Oh year, I forgot to mention this: Iraq is full of different ethnic and religious factions that have been fighting as long as anyone can remember. But wait! We've actually helped this situation! They're fighting less now! Instead, their putting aside their differences to fight us! Great, isn't it?
 
Censport said:
We also a larger active military than the other countries. Seondly, thank you for admitting that the conflict is only present in four spots of Iraq and not encompassing the entire country as the wolrd media would have us believe.

Yes, the US does have a larger military but that still doesn't explain the huge discrepency in forces if we are to understand it as a "coalition" in anything but name only. And yes, I do recognize that the conflict is present in only four of Iraq's provinces -- which contain more than 50% of Iraq's population.


Censport said:
Same way they did the last two times, with funding from bin Laden and his network of financiers. And, like last time, they would enter through that great champion of freedom in the world, Canada. Feel better about yourself?
Excuse me? NEWS FLASH: ALL 19 9/11 HIJACKERS WERE GRANTED VISAS BY US IMMIGRATION!!!!!! Feel better about yourself?



Censport said:
The UN ran at the first hint of danger.
First hint of danger? Like having their headquarters blown up and their cheif representative killed? Yes, cowards indeed.
Censport said:
You know, like Clinton with Somalia.

Hmmm...seems to me it was the Republicans shouting the loudest for US troops to get out of Somalia....



Censport said:
If the UN won't stop genocide, can't prevent wars, can't or won't provide humanitarian relief, then what purpose do they serve?
Please name one instance of genocide the Bush administration has stopped. Or a war they have prevented. They didn't stop genocide in Iraq or Afghanistan and they turned a stable country into a killing field in the former's case. As for providing humanitarian relief I'd refer you to the activities of UNICEF and the UN's lead role in organizing relief to Tsunami victims as examples.
Censport said:
Why do they still exist? The UN wanted to be in Iraq to keep an eye on "American atrocities", but things got a little too hot in the kitchen. Boo hoo.

I see, the UN wanted to be in Iraq to keep an eye on American atrocities? Exactly how many US atrocities did the UN report to the world during their stay in Iraq? Don't recall them saying a thing, which isn't surprising given the fact that the US, as a permanent member of the security council would have the ability to veto any UN mission that didn't accord with its own views. Its also surprising given the fact that the Bush administration WANTED the UN to stay. Why on earth would Bush want the UN to stay if, as you say they only wanted to be there to keep an eye on American atrocities, presumably with the purpose of embarassing the US?


Censport said:
Carter set the standard for appeasement and cowardice. Yes, I'm talking about the 444-day Iran hostage crisis which came about because Carter turned his back on the Shah, our questionable but reliable ally. Things have only gotten worse since then.

Interesting take on events, especially considering it was REAGAN who entered into negotiations with the hostage takers and later sent weapons to the Ayatollah's government in Iran. But Carter, who authorized military action against Iran to free the hostages is the one who set the standard for appeasement?

Censport said:
How many people, how many countries did he liberate from tyranny? How many regimes did he end?
How many countries did Nixon liberate? Or Bush for that matter, who has so far toppled two viscious dictatorships but only to replace them with violence, economic collapse and chaos that are arguably just as bad if not worse than the situation that existed before the US intervened.
Any progress in the Cold War? Nope. Haiti? Don't get me started. What did he do? He got Sadat killed, that's what. The one Egyptian who would sit down at the table with Israel. Carter barely protected his family from a rabbit. He shouldn't have been trusted with the country.

Censport said:
Things didn't get much better under Clinton. Terrorists bomb the WTC? Treat it like a criminal act and give the attorneys something to do. Prevent the CIA from connecting the dots. Take an enemy that's willing to kill themselves in an attack and threaten them with life in an American prison. Terrorists from the same group bomb US embassies abroad. Make a speech. Fire a missile. Get a hummer. Focus your AG on Bill Gates. Worked great, didn't it?

What exactly was Clinton supposed to do, fly off the handle and start invading countries even though the vast majority of the American public, not to mention the Republicans in congress, would have been opposed to such action? It was easy for Bush to make the case because 3,000 people had just been killed and the public was willing to go along with pretty much whatever he wanted. The political situation did not afford Clinton the same flexibility.

Censport said:
Or, you could topple a dictator who has a history of financing terror and invading his neighbors, preferably one who is violating a UN cease-fire agreement, and give the terrorists a place to die far from your citizens' homes and businesses.

1) Hussein's "history of financing terror" consisted of sending money to the widows of Suicide bombers who had attacked Israel. Did the US go to war to save Israelis from a bunch of old Palestinian women?

2) His history if invading his neighbors all occured while he was being supported by the US. Saddam even believed (obviously incorrectly) that his invasion of Kuwait had tacit US support. The Iraq that the US invaded in 2003 did not even have a functional air force. It posed a threat to nobody, as evidence by the fact that not a single one of Iraq's neighbors felt at all threatened by Saddam.

3) Giving terrorists a place to die far from your home is a pretty damned stupid rationale for the war, no offence intended. For one thing, Bin Ladin sitll has the money and the volunteers to send attackers against the US if he wants to. The collapse of the Iraqi government also meant that huge sums of money and weapons also found their way into the hands of terrorist who now have even more ways of reaching out and attacking America.

I'll repsond to the rest later,
 
Censport said:
Keep in mind that only 37% of colonists supported America's Revolutionary War in 1776.

That is true, but would that not be a stronger argument AGAINST the US staying in Iraq, as it seems to argue that despite the low support for the insurgency outside of the Sunni community the rebels may prevail in the long run? Like the British in the late 18th century, won't the Americans simply get tired of fighting a costly, apparently unwinnable war that provides them with no concrete returns?

Censport said:
In '81, Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq without provocation and was condemned by everyone, including Reagan. (They even did it on a Sunday to minimize the body count. It worked: Only one French scientist was killed.)

Yes! It worked! Proving what exactly? Earlier in this very same post you were condemning Clinton for using air strikes, but here you are a few lines later praising Israel for doing the same thing. Yet another internal contradiction in your arguments.

Censport said:
The anti-war voices in this country were loud and clear against our fighting Germany prior to 1941, as they had never attacked us.

Yes, the big difference being that Germany actually posed a legitimate threat to the US whereas Saddam didn't even pose a threat to the Kurdish rebels that had set up an autonomous government within Iraq's own borders, let alone to anyone outside the country.

Censport said:
Just because something is unpopular or difficult, doesn't mean it's wrong or not worth doing.

This is true as well. It isn't the fact that the war is unpopular or difficult that makes it wrong. There are plenty of other reasons. Its not hard to make the case that a war that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people, laid entire cities to waste, destroyed the economy of an entire country, turned public sentiment across the world against the US and cost 200 billion dollars so far is wrong, given that the original justification for the war has proven to be completely wrong. A simple look a the cost/benefit ratio should reveal the war as the worst folly since Vietnam. The only benefit one can think of from this war is that Saddam will face justice. You could make the case that bringing democracy to Iraq is another benefit, though that is a project whose future is at best very uncertain at this point.
Censport said:
Afghanistan and Iraq are only in their teething stage, and we're not done there. It's going to take a while and it won't be easy. But impossible or a joke? No.

The teething stage is a bit of an understatement. It'll probably take a full generation for the damage caused (and the damage yet to come) to be undone. If I were an Iraqi, I think I would have preferred the status quo.
 
Shooter452 said:
When you get "jammed up" you are usually in serious trouble. That is what is meant by being in a "jackpot" also.
Interesting, never heard of that meaning. Thanks for the explanation!

In some things, I know more than you. In other things I am abyssmally ignorent.
Well, I suppose, those words count for pretty much every human being. I'm interested in quite a lot of things, but still "abysmally ignorant" of others.
 
senseiman said:
Excuse me? NEWS FLASH: ALL 19 9/11 HIJACKERS WERE GRANTED VISAS BY US IMMIGRATION!!!!!! Feel better about yourself?
I'm not saying mistakes weren't made on our side. The difference is OUR policies have changed since then. Changed enough? No. Are we seeing any help from Canada?

senseiman said:
First hint of danger? Like having their headquarters blown up and their cheif representative killed? Yes, cowards indeed.
Exactly. They don't know how to tough it out.

senseiman said:
Hmmm...seems to me it was the Republicans shouting the loudest for US troops to get out of Somalia....
Why, those war-mongering Republicans!

senseiman said:
Please name one instance of genocide the Bush administration has stopped. Or a war they have prevented. They didn't stop genocide in Iraq or Afghanistan and they turned a stable country into a killing field in the former's case.
Didn't stop genocide in Iraq? Ask the Kurds.

senseiman said:
As for providing humanitarian relief I'd refer you to the activities of UNICEF and the UN's lead role in organizing relief to Tsunami victims as examples.
:lol: OH MY GOD, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT!!! :lol:
A little reading for you:
No relief for the Lincoln
UN Rushes Condoms to Tsunami Victims
And my favorite -
The USA responds, and the UN?
"the UN's lead role..." Hahahaha! What, twenty days after the US military had already been providing relief?!? Oh yeah, great leadership.

senseiman said:
I see, the UN wanted to be in Iraq to keep an eye on American atrocities? Exactly how many US atrocities did the UN report to the world during their stay in Iraq? Don't recall them saying a thing, which isn't surprising given the fact that the US, as a permanent member of the security council would have the ability to veto any UN mission that didn't accord with its own views. Its also surprising given the fact that the Bush administration WANTED the UN to stay. Why on earth would Bush want the UN to stay if, as you say they only wanted to be there to keep an eye on American atrocities, presumably with the purpose of embarassing the US?
Okay, so it wasn't their sole official purpose, but there are certainly those in the UN (and CNN/CBS/BBC, etc.) who would be more than happy to publicize any such occurances. (What was the name of that prison again? Abu-something, I'm sure you've got it memorized....) Besides, we were still under the impression that the UN was still good at humanitarian work. Silly us...

senseiman said:
Interesting take on events, especially considering it was REAGAN who entered into negotiations with the hostage takers and later sent weapons to the Ayatollah's government in Iran.
How did Reagan enter into negotiations? The outgoing Cater people told the Iranians that a new administration was coming in January, and that negotiations would have to begin anew, and the next guy wasn't known for taking crap. As Reagan was walking down the inaugural parade route, the news reporters announced that the hostages were being freed. So Reagan was president what, 45 minutes? Amazing negotiation skills. I wonder if he used the same technique during the Air Traffic Controller strike?

senseiman said:
How many countries did Nixon liberate? Or Bush for that matter, who has so far toppled two viscious dictatorships but only to replace them with violence, economic collapse and chaos that are arguably just as bad if not worse than the situation that existed before the US intervened.
There was no call for Nixon to liberate any countries. The Vietnam War was so unpopular, and so pourly run before he inherited it, that there was nothing he could do to within even two terms to win it. And even if he could've, by the time he had it wouldn't have mattered to anyone but the Vietnamese.

And just how fast do you expect peace and prosperity to grow after a war? It took Germany and Japan decades to get back on their feet. It will take more than a few months for stability to return to that region. Just because it hasn't happened already, doesn't mean it never will.

senseiman said:
What exactly was Clinton supposed to do, fly off the handle and start invading countries even though the vast majority of the American public, not to mention the Republicans in congress, would have been opposed to such action? ... The political situation did not afford Clinton the same flexibility.
Political situation? You mean the public opinion polls that decided everything down to where the Clintons went on vacation?

No, what Clinton wasn't supposed to do was tie the CIA's hands. But that's exactly what he did. From keeping the CIA's counter-terrorism division out of the investigation to passing legislation which prevented our intelligence agencies from getting info from "unsavory characters" to Jamie Gorelick's intelligence "wall", preventing agencies from sharing information, Clinton made al-Qaeda's mission a lot easier. Maybe build up and de-regulate our intelligence resources? Yeah, he coulda done that. And that could've prevented our current situation in more ways than one. More on that in a moment.

senseiman said:
1) Hussein's "history of financing terror" consisted of sending money to the widows of Suicide bombers who had attacked Israel. Did the US go to war to save Israelis from a bunch of old Palestinian women?
It wasn't "old Palestinian women" who were strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israelis. IT WAS THEIR SONS. Nice attempt to put a "basket of puppies" face on terrorism. Ever thought of working PR for al-Jazeera?

senseiman said:
2) His history if invading his neighbors all occured while he was being supported by the US. Saddam even believed (obviously incorrectly) that his invasion of Kuwait had tacit US support. The Iraq that the US invaded in 2003 did not even have a functional air force. It posed a threat to nobody, as evidence by the fact that not a single one of Iraq's neighbors felt at all threatened by Saddam.
Once again, you're expecting the US to be clairvoyant when it comes to foreign policy (and everything else). Our previous support of Hussein was when we faced a greater foe. Oh well. I promise we'll never help Saddam attack another country ever again. :)

senseiman said:
3) Giving terrorists a place to die far from your home is a pretty damned stupid rationale for the war, no offence intended. For one thing, Bin Ladin sitll has the money and the volunteers to send attackers against the US if he wants to. The collapse of the Iraqi government also meant that huge sums of money and weapons also found their way into the hands of terrorist who now have even more ways of reaching out and attacking America.
Have you ever considered the alternative? Our enemy was spread out to 60 countries. A few dozen here, a half-dozen there. What were we going to do? Send our military to each country and go door-to-door? Have a horribly time-consuming process of diplomatic tap-dancing with each country, either to allow our men to find and kill the terrorists on their soil or have them do the work for us? One, that would've taken longer. Dangerously longer. Two, we didn't have the resources. Remember, we'd have to use the same CIA that told us Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. How confident does that make you now?

senseiman said:
Yes! It worked! Proving what exactly? Earlier in this very same post you were condemning Clinton for using air strikes, but here you are a few lines later praising Israel for doing the same thing. Yet another internal contradiction in your arguments.
I wasn't condemning Clinton for using air strikes. I was condemning him for using only air strikes.

senseiman said:
Its not hard to make the case that a war that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people, laid entire cities to waste, destroyed the economy of an entire country, turned public sentiment across the world against the US and cost 200 billion dollars so far is wrong, given that the original justification for the war has proven to be completely wrong.
Nothing has been proven either way on the WMD issue. The UN inspectors were there to determine if Saddam had lived up to his claim of having destroyed his WMDs. They never found the WMDs, but they also never found any evidence that he had destroyed them.

senseiman said:
If I were an Iraqi, I think I would have preferred the status quo.
How nice of you to speak for the Iraqi people. I'm sure they appreciate it. Let's check in with an actual Iraqi, eh?
Naseer Flayih Hasan
 
sabro said:
Is anybody saying that we should simply forget the whole al Qaeda thing and go back to issuing (ineffective) sanctions? Who would you sanction for 9/11 or the train bombings? If it is about militant Islamacists- do we start some kind of religious war? (Greeeaat) Should we cancel the elections in Iraq? Should we just abandon Iraq, the Iraqis and the mess we created?
Good questons. You should start a poll.

I think sanctioning would be impossible. Ineffective, too. BTW, anybody have the latest on what actions Spain has taken on the train bombings?

No religious wars. War is bad enough to go through, adding "holiness" to it would divide the world further. It's bad enough the other side already thinks they're fighting a holy war.

Absolutely not on cancelling the elections or abandoning Iraq. It's imperative that we help the Iraqis get their country back up and running.
 
Did someone say Haiti? How many times in the last century did we invade Haiti to "restore" democracy? How successful were we at giving the Haitians this gift? How do the Haitians percieve these invasions? (Extrapolation to situation in Iraq. What are the chances that this little adventure will end in freedom, democracy and good will to Uncle Sam?)

Just heard that Congress is raising the price on bin Laden's head to $50 million dollars. The Saudis and the Yemenis and possibly the Kenyans also have some reward money.
Does anyone know where we can find him? Anyone for a field trip?
 
Last edited:
bossel said:
Which previous occupying force, the British in the 1920's?
No, I was thinking of the guy that threatened beheadings if he people didn't vote for him. Sounds more like occupation by force than what we're doing.

bossel said:
You showed quite some patience with your judgement that Germany, France & Russia didn't support the US in illegaly invading Iraq because they were corrupt.
Thanks! I wanted to start before the investigation was even thought of. It took great restraint to wait this long.... ;)

bossel said:
I don't see how this makes Carter responsible for Sadat's death. Same logic applied, you can say (with even better reason) that Bush is responsible for 9/11.
You call that logic?!? How did you get from one to the other, GPS?

bossel said:
Invading Iraq is a travel to you? Wow (again)!
So you're saying that we invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of killing its innocent civilains? That was what I had asked for examples of, so if that's your example, you've got a pretty sick sense of reality.

bossel said:
But some attacks don't make them a world wide network & such a big threat as the Bushites picture them.
So how big a threat would you like it to grow into before action is taken?

bossel said:
Not that I know of. Just interpreting the things in way that you can blame a big bad bogeyman & use this bogeyman to advance your geo-political aims.
Ah, like blaming neo-cons? "Ignore the man behind the green curtain...."

bossel said:
The people in Fallujah were not really living in such a fear. Actually, it was more the other way round. Saddam never really got control over that area. That's why he even gave the tribes there a certain freedom & did them some favours. Just to keep them at bay.
Sources?

bossel said:
Maybe I'm going for the wrong event, but it seems you show your misinformation again. You're talking of the Sadr militias who occupied the Imam Ali Mosque? Then there are several points you are wrong in:

1) The Sadr militia is largely unrelated to the Sunni insurgents in Fallujah & since they are Shia most probably even more unrelated to the Baathists.
2) You didn't get in. It was the Iraqi police who entered there, after the US troops had pulled back & the militia had left.
3) There was one woman killed by the militia, I never heard of any children killed. An AP correspondent reported to have seen around 10 bodies. Iraqi police said they had been policeman & civilians, while the militia claimed them to be insurgents killed in the fighting.
That could be the same event. I'm working from memory here.

1) Relation, shlamation. If you go up against the US military in Iraq, don't expect them to take the time to read your name tag.
2) It was a cleric who got them to stand down. We followed. We still refrained from storming the mosque.
3) Only ten? Oh well, then no big deal. Is that what you're saying? How many would've been enough for you?

bossel said:
Simply don't use racial profiling.
That's our current plan, and it isn't working. Just look to the first page of this thread for a couple of examples.

bossel said:
You never showed that you had any knowledge of socialism beyond some buzz words.
You left the thread, so I didn't follow up with any Tenncare articles. Also, telling someone "You obviously don't know what you're talking about" sounds pretty condescending. If you're going to say something like that, then that's your cue to step up and define socialism. After all, if you're gonna claim to have more knowledge on a subject.... prove it.
 
sabro said:
Did someone say Haiti? How many times in the last century did we invade Haiti to "restore" democracy? How successful were we at giving the Hatians this gift? How do the Hatians percieve these invasions? (Extrapolation to situation in Iraq. What are the chances that this little adventure will end in freedom, democracy and good will to Uncle Sam?)

Just heard that Congress is raising the price on bin Laden's head to $50 million dollars. The Saudis and the Yemenis and possibly the Kenyans also have some reward money.
Does anyone know where we can find him? Anyone for a field trip?
We've been to Haiti too many times. I hear Carter has a suite in his name...

There's no guarantees about Iraq, other than the odds are better now than they were with Saddam's sons inheriting power.

Quick, what's $50 million after taxes?!?!? Enough to get a couple more bikes, I hope.

Heard on the news that we captured someone responsible for 75% of the car bombings in Iraq. Anybody wanna defend his rights to interrogation without torture?
 
When Yousef what's his name had a $2 million price tag on his head, I could not believe that he wasn't caught faster. For $50 million, you should be able to find almost anyone (except maybe that guy Carl that lives under the bridge in the wash behing the 7-11).

You could spend lots of dough and still have plenty left over. Does it seem reasonable that if some ignorant American spent lots of money in and around Pakistan and Afganistan that Bin Laden could be found? I suppose you would have to have cash, and IOU's don't count. You would also need a plan, and some knowledge of the region, people, culture, politics... or you could pay someone with knowlege.

I would argue against torturing Sami ...al Jaaf, primarily because you won't get the highest quality information (unless there is some time constraint.) On the other hand, I won't lose much sleep if some un-justifiable unethical behavior turns up later.

Whatever happened to the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar?

I also hear that Ayman al-Ziwahiri is actually more dangerous than bin Laden, that bin-Laden was more of a spokesman and poster boy than a leader.
 
Damn. Lots to reply to here. I wish I wasn't at work. :)

You'll here from me later.
 
i just read the article you posted bossel, it re affirmed my belief that the us government is living in a "fantasy" land surrounding the events mentioned. i have long felt that there was an underlying tone of distrust involving the current administration, and bush's personal endeavors and goals. i guess the phrase to best describe the tone would be, "blowing the situation well out of proportion, to gain popularity among american voters and countries abroad.
bush's Inaugural address last week made it very clear, without saying so directly, that he was planning to make a global stronghold centered around american beliefs and values. i thought to myself after hearing the address, how absurd, who buys into this crap? apparently, less than i anticipated. our traditional allies, (not all) are among those that feel that bush's re-ellection is a threat to world peace, while india, the philipines, and poland, were the only nations who felt completely content with bush's re-ellection and policy making. hmmmm.....suprisingly, or not suprisingly, however you want to view it, Not long ago, the American dream was a global fantasy. Not only Americans saw themselves as a beacon unto nations. So did much of the rest of the world. East Europeans tuned into Radio Free Europe. Chinese students erected a replica of the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square, but the undelying realism of american ideals spreading accross the globe was undoubtedly shot down after the bbc polls came in. they speak for themselves. 70 percent of all nations excluding the nations mentioned above do not adhear to the idea of american ideals spreading into their countries. hmmmmmm......you can draw your own conclusions.
here is an interesting article i found on msnbc, that parallels the article that bossel posted in many ways. hope you enjoy > http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6857387/site/newsweek
 
Censport said:
I'm not saying mistakes weren't made on our side. The difference is OUR policies have changed since then. Changed enough? No. Are we seeing any help from Canada?

No, you were just trying to lay the blame for terrorist getting into the US on Canada's doorstep. Canada HAS changed its immigration policies since 9/11 BTW.


Censport said:
Exactly. They don't know how to tough it out.

Tough it out? The UN presence in Iraq was a civilian one, they don't have a huge army to protect them like the US. So it isn't really surprising that they, like every other foreign civilian organization, withdrew from Iraq when the violence got out of hand.


Censport said:
Why, those war-mongering Republicans!

You were the one criticizing Clinton for withdrawing from Somalia. The Republicans (whom you seem to be supporting here) were in favor of withdrawing too and in fact were the most vocal in doing so. So which party is the coward, exactly? The Democrats for supporting withdrawal from Somalia or the Republicans for....supporting withdrawal from Somalia? I don't follow your logic at all.


Censport said:
Didn't stop genocide in Iraq? Ask the Kurds.
These would be the same Kurds who had set up an autonomous government in northern Iraq and had US and British warplanes protecting them? The same Kurds who Saddam's forces hadn't fired a shot at in over a decade? The invasion saved them from genocide? I'm sure that would be news to them.


Censport said:
"the UN's lead role..." Hahahaha! What, twenty days after the US military had already been providing relief?!? Oh yeah, great leadership.

What do you expect, exactly? The UN to send its navy to Sumatra? They dont' have a military. Its an international organization whose role is to COORDINATE relief assistance, the actual job of providing immediate assistance is dependent on the contributions of member states. While the US can take all the publicity from having its helicopters drop supplies on the victims while the tsunami is still a hot topic on the news, in the coming years when these people are going to have to rebuild their homes and lives its the UN that is going to be playing a lead role in helping them.


Censport said:
Okay, so it wasn't their sole official purpose, but there are certainly those in the UN (and CNN/CBS/BBC, etc.) who would be more than happy to publicize any such occurances. (What was the name of that prison again? Abu-something, I'm sure you've got it memorized....) Besides, we were still under the impression that the UN was still good at humanitarian work. Silly us...

So...now it was the UN that broke the Abu Ghraib torture scandal? Funny, I thought it was the American media that did that.


Censport said:
There was no call for Nixon to liberate any countries.

I see. So there was no call for Nixon to liberate any countries but - if we are to follow your logic - there were pressing calls for Carter to liberate countries that he failed to heed. So this just begs the question as to what exactly happened in the world between Nixon's leaving office in 1974 and Carter's taking over in January of 1977 that caused this radical change of circumstances. And, indeed I might ask why president Ford isn't singled out by you for criticism as a lot of these earth shaking changes must have occured on his watch.

I'm a little confused about how you arrive at these conclusions. Was Carter supposed to liberate Iran by invading it and giving the Shah - who was every bit as viscious a dictator as Saddam Hussein - back his throne? Interesting definition of 'liberation', if that is what you were trying to get at.


Censport said:
And just how fast do you expect peace and prosperity to grow after a war? It took Germany and Japan decades to get back on their feet. It will take more than a few months for stability to return to that region. Just because it hasn't happened already, doesn't mean it never will.

This is exactly what I meant when I said it would probably take a generation for Iraq to recover from the damage inflicted on it. What you have just written above supports what I was saying and I find it amusing that you feel it somehow contradicts my point.

While what you have just written conforms to my own opinion, it directly contradicts the statements of the Bush administration in the run up to the invasion when they predicted Iraq would, in fact, make a speedy recovery from the war. Wolfowitz even predicted that the US wouldn't need to spend any money on reconstruction as the Iraqi economy would be healthy enough to rebuild itself.





Censport said:
It wasn't "old Palestinian women" who were strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up Israelis. IT WAS THEIR SONS. Nice attempt to put a "basket of puppies" face on terrorism. Ever thought of working PR for al-Jazeera?

I'm not trying to put a nice face on terrorism, I'm trying to take a rationale look at things. The point in question wasn't 'who is killing Israelis', you were talking about Saddam's alleged financing of terrorism as a rationale for invading Iraq. Saddam didn't give money or weapons to terror groups, he in fact just gave money to "old Palestinian women", as I said above. I'm not defending Saddam's action, it probably did act as an indirect incentive for people to volunteer for suicide attacks that killed hundreds of Israeli civilians. But strictly speaking as a rationale for the US to start a war that has so far claimed tens of thousands of lives, including over 1300 US troops it is pretty damned thin.


Censport said:
Once again, you're expecting the US to be clairvoyant when it comes to foreign policy (and everything else). Our previous support of Hussein was when we faced a greater foe. Oh well. I promise we'll never help Saddam attack another country ever again. :)

I'm not expecting anyone to be clairvoyant. I'm just asking you to take a rationale look at what you are saying. You said said Saddam's history of invading other countries provided a legitimate rationale for invading Iraq because it was an indication of what kind of threat he posed. Look at the history. Saddam invaded two countries, Iran and Kuwait, during his rule. He did so at the height of his power while he was a US client state (though he quickly lost that status after invading Kuwait). I'm not mentioning the fact that he was a US client state at the time as a way of criticizing the US, I only mention it because it is relevant as an indicator of Saddam's power. In the 12 years between the destruction of his army in the Gulf war and the invasion in 2003, Saddam posed a threat to no one. He had no air force or navy to speak of, his army was equipped with Soviet weapons from the 1960s for which he could import no replacements or spare parts. Meanwhile all of his neighbors that the US cared about (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan) had upgraded their military power with the latest US equipment. Even if we accept that Saddam may have had WMDs the case is extremely weak. For one thing it was a known fact that 95% of his weapons had either been destroyed or decayed beyond use. There was a certain amount of suspiscion that he may have kept some of the unnacounted weapons or developed new ones, but it was also known that even in the worst case scenario whatever WMD Saddam may have possesed would NOT have been significant enough to alter the military balance in the region. His only possible motivation for seeking them would have been for defensive purposes and even in that narrow field they would have been of limited use.

So given that he no longer had the ability to invade anyone (even the Kurdish regions within Iraq's old borders), how is his history of invading other countries at all relevant to the US invasion of Iraq? It didn't defeat an existing threat and with sanctions and no fly zones in place there was no reasonable concern that he would become a threat in the forseeable future. The argument is completely superfluous.


Censport said:
Have you ever considered the alternative? Our enemy was spread out to 60 countries. A few dozen here, a half-dozen there. What were we going to do? Send our military to each country and go door-to-door? Have a horribly time-consuming process of diplomatic tap-dancing with each country, either to allow our men to find and kill the terrorists on their soil or have them do the work for us? One, that would've taken longer. Dangerously longer. Two, we didn't have the resources. Remember, we'd have to use the same CIA that told us Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. How confident does that make you now?

So...the answer is to invade a country that doesn't harbor terrorists with the deliberate purpose of attracting terrorists to that country so that you can kill them? And at the same time you are supposedly trying to promote democracy and freedom in that country? And this doesn't strike you as being at all contradictory?


I wasn't condemning Clinton for using air strikes. I was condemning him for using only air strikes.





Censport said:
How nice of you to speak for the Iraqi people. I'm sure they appreciate it. Let's check in with an actual Iraqi, eh?

Excuse me but I was quite specific in stating that I was speaking for myself, unlike the Bush administration which felt so comfortable speaking for the Iraqis that they went ahead and invaded their country for them. The Iraqi people are quite capable of speaking for themselves. I just happen to notice that the 80% of them who want the US troops out of their country agree with me.
 

This thread has been viewed 48198 times.

Back
Top