Poll reveals world anger at Bush

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

Postby SoloPilot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:49 pm

Okay, if he destroyed his chemical weapons, where is the residue? Iran had hundreds of TONNES of sarin alone, and of the 100,000 chemweps shells known to have existed in Iraq, several thousand are not accounted for, not to mention other suspected stocks.

Chemweps are not easy to render harmless. The US has been working on destroying 30,000 tons for decades, spending BILLIONS on the equipment alone. The process is inefficient and leaves tons of residue. How did Iraq dispose of hundreds of tonnes in secret?

Who did he buy the equipment from, who hasn't told the world about it? How about the chemicals needed to do the job? Or did he use an incinerator, and if so, where is it? Where are the tons of empty containers? Why hasn't any single one of the hundreds of people who would have been involved gone in front of Al Jazeerah or CNN to lead them to the site?

Show me WHERE THEY WENT and I will agree that they are gone.

And, again, what about that three-liters-plus of sarin that they found in one mortar shell? Was that the only one Hussein had left? How did it get into the hands of someone so stupid that they planted it as a mine?

BTW, what do you consider a WMD? I think that sarin fits the classification.

And no, he and his scientists had not been telling the UN that they weps were gone. But let's say they HAD been saying that -- it spikes your other idea that he didn't want his neighbors to know. You don't keep a secret by telling it to the "world council!"
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby SoloPilot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:52 pm

Nope, I'm still waiting for Clinton to come up with one. Now that he's not President any more, he should have plenty of time to devote to the project.

If you can't figure out whether the rest of my post is sarcasm or not, then I wasted my time on someone will never get it.

Have a nice day.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby patriot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:56 pm

Patriot: The National Socialists had nothing to do with the Pearl Harbor attack, but we attacked them anyway, concentrating on the war in Europe ahead of the war in the Pacific. We did so because Japan was not the only threat to the US.


You're comparing World War Two to the war in Iraq? Please! Do I really have to explain how silly that is?

Iraq wasn't behind 9/11, but Al Quaeda is not the only threat to the US. And, sorry, Hussein not only had interests in dealing with terrorists and even harboring them, but he was also funding them, if the reports of his paying for supplies and suicide bombers attacking Israel.


So when Colin Powell said that Saddam had no connections to Al-Qaida he was lying?

Saddam may have indirectly funded Hamas, but Hamas never attacked America. And Israel does not equal America, even though some Americans would like to believe so.

ARE we creating more terrs than we are destroying? What is the source of this information? Please provide the strength-of-forces evaluations for worldwide terrorist organisations, showing the numbers before and after our invasion of Iraq.


Henry A. Waxman in his report to the State Department claims that terrorist attacks are at a twenty-year high...go figure. And here's the suprise...that's not even including the multitude of attacks occuring in Iraq.

The fact is Bush is losing the War On Terror, and by going into Iraq he has created a terrorist recruiting center.

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/D ... -06775.pdf

You are parrotting what you are being told by people whose political agenda matches yours.


Don't even...

The fact of the matter is that terrorist activity against Americans has been pretty limited this last year. This is because we are not only active in Iraq, but the media seem mostly interested in American blood, not worldwide success.


See above report.


The facts are that Iraq did not have any connections to Al-Qaida and terrorists attacks are at a twenty year high.

Image
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby Aegis » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:05 pm

SoloPilot wrote:Aegis:

I didn't say "overt" but I was running with your definition, long-term and all. After all, they put up with Bosnia on the heels of Mogadishu, and we are STILL waiting to hear Clinton's "exit strategy."


I'd like to see it too, but the point stands: Bosnia is costing us next to nothing, and started on the end of a half-assed effort in Somolia that cost us 18 troops. Iraq has cost us better than 1100 troops, a shit-load of money, and dispite your decidedly rosy assessment doesn't seem to be getting appreciably better.

Afghanistan is winding down, Iraq is being contained (despite what you hear on the Nutly News), but as I said elsewhere, other countries are deciding not the become the next upraised target in the "Global Whack-a-Mole" game. Expect them to learn the words "Diplomatic Measures."


Source on Afghanistan winding down?
Iraq is being contained (but then again, it was being contained BEFORE the war too), but when do you expect to see US troop levels in-country apreciably decrease? Like, to levels where we would have the excess forces to launch another invasion?

Dictators' minds are actually very easy to read. ANY politician's first duty is to remain in power, but for the dictators it's "Stay in power, stay alive." Very few serious dictators have survived losing their office. Marcos is the worst of the lot that I can think of who outlived their stationery. When you know their motivation, you can figure out their thoughts.


So how do Saddam's pre-war actions jive with your assesment? I mean, it seems if his goal was to stay in power, he did damn near everything wrong.

Maybe not 98% but the vast majority of Iraq is NOT involved in terrorist "revolt" (actually, a last-ditch effort of Hussein's insiders). Fewer than 30 towns are on the "To Do" list, and most of these are more like villages. The rate of attacks is dropping steadily, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (the Jordanian Al Qaeda leader who was Hussein's guest) is losing support (and troops) at a rapid rate.


Fallujah has a population of 300,000 IIRC. Not exactly a village. And if you would, a source for your assessment that only "Saddam insiders" are conducting the resistance?
"[R]emember, Roman, these will be your arts: to teach the ways of peace to those you conquer, to spare defeated peoples, tame the proud."

-Virgil, the Aeneid
User avatar
Aegis
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:32 am
Location: The dark heart of "Red" Oregon... or I guess its "Blue" Oregon now.

Postby SoloPilot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:20 pm

Patriot:

Well, lessee, we were attacked from the air, with no warning, and our response was to attack in a different direction. You're right, there's no similarity at all.

When did Powell say that? Was that before or after the interviews in February of 2003 in which he noted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was operating in Iraq, and that he had been Hussein's guest following a leg amputation? al-Zarqawi is still there in Iraq. al Zarqawi is still associated with al-Qaeda. But no, there are no connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda. None at all.

Oh, I get it, you think that only American victims of terrorism count?

You're quoting HENRY WAXMAN??? HE's your authority??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Terr attacks are "at a 20 year high" only because more American troops are being attacked by terrs. But guess what? That's what American troops are paid to do, engage the enemy. Some die, unfortunately. If you use Waxie's definitions, then the time of greatest terr activity was 1966 - 1970, the height of US involvement in Viet Nam.

Hmmm, is that pic your self-image? Now I begin to understand.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby patriot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:22 pm

My mistake.
Last edited by patriot on Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby SoloPilot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:32 pm

I'm sure that means something to you . . .
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby Aegis » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:34 pm

SoloPilot wrote:Patriot:


Well, lessee, we were attacked from the air, with no warning, and our response was to attack in a different direction. You're right, there's no similarity at all.


Except that :

1. Germany and Japan were allies. As for Iraq and Al Qaida....
2. Germany declared war on us. Once again, as for Iraq....
3. Germany was currently on the verge of invading Great Britian. Our quick defeat of an already evicerated Iraqi army seems to prove that Iraq wasn't going to be attacking ANYONE soon.

When did Powell say that? Was that before or after the interviews in February of 2003 in which he noted that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was operating in Iraq, and that he had been Hussein's guest following a leg amputation? al-Zarqawi is still there in Iraq. al Zarqawi is still associated with al-Qaeda. But no, there are no connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda. None at all.


Ummmm...... Yeah, theres a connection now, but thats what we call a self-fulfilling prophesy. In any case, no demonstratable link can be found between Saddam Hussien and Al Qaida.

Oh, I get it, you think that only American victims of terrorism count?


Dude, youre the one who went on the "America first" tangent.

You're quoting HENRY WAXMAN??? HE's your authority??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Terr attacks are "at a 20 year high" only because more American troops are being attacked by terrs. But guess what? That's what American troops are paid to do, engage the enemy. Some die, unfortunately. If you use Waxie's definitions, then the time of greatest terr activity was 1966 - 1970, the height of US involvement in Viet Nam.

Hmmm, is that pic your self-image? Now I begin to understand.


ugh... Read Patriot's post. The State department's report DOES NOT INCLUDE AMERICANS KILLED IN TERRORIST ATTACKS IN IRAQ.
"[R]emember, Roman, these will be your arts: to teach the ways of peace to those you conquer, to spare defeated peoples, tame the proud."

-Virgil, the Aeneid
User avatar
Aegis
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:32 am
Location: The dark heart of "Red" Oregon... or I guess its "Blue" Oregon now.

Postby patriot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:55 pm

Yea, what Aegis said...

Just to back up a few things...

“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Iraq and Al Qaida], but I do believe the connections existed.”
-Secretary of State; Colin Powell.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150

"Today, the State Department issued revised data for its annual report, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003. The new data, which represents a good-faith effort by the State Department to correct serious mistakes in its 2003 report, shows a major increase in deaths and injuries from terrorist attacks in 2003. The number of "significant" terrorism attacks reached a twenty year high in 2003.

...

Although the revised data is an improvement, there are still large ommissions. For example, the report does not include hundreds of attacks on oil pipelines and electicity plants and transmissions lines in Iraq."
-Taken from Patterns of Global Terrorism (State Department).

http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/D ... -93231.pdf
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby SoloPilot » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:15 am

1) Iraq hosted al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda leader. He was protected while he was invalid after a leg amputation. Bill Clinton justified "Monica's War," the 1998 missile attacks, on "strong ties" between al-Quaeda, the nerve-gas factory, and the Iraqi government. bin Laden met with Iraqi secret police, who worked directly for the Husseins.

That's a pretty good sign that al-Qaeda and Iraq were "allied."


2) True, Iraq didn't declare war on the US. For that matter, neither Afghanistan. Nor did al-Qaeda. Does that mean that there's no war?


3) Since when is Great Britain AMERICA'S problem? The National Socialists had no weapons which could reach the US. Hitler had taken over most of Europe, but wasn't causing us any trouble.


4) Is that the same "eviscerated" army of which so many veterans are joining the Iraqi police and being killed by and even smaller group of Iraqi terrorists, including those led by al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda leader? Perhaps size of a group isn't really the indicator of capability or intent?

al-Zarqawi was there long befor 9/11, long before the War on Terror. And if there are no links between Hussein and al-Qaeda, why was al-Zarqawi given refuge in Hussein's capital city, hosted by Hussein's secret police?

Yes, I believe "America First," not "America ONLY." About half of my friends and trusted associates are from other countries. What tyrants do in other countries is not all right with me just because they are in their own countries. That's the whole damn point. While you and your compatriots are arguing about how many devils dance on the head of a pin, you are ignoring the fact that, in three years, we have deposed TWO tyrannical governments, freed millions, saved untold thousands who would have died by the hands of their own governments, and made half a dozen other didcators reconsider their attitudes.

Our troops and advisors have helped another dozen governments take decisive action against the terrorists operating in their own lands.

These are GOOD THINGS.

Yes, these things come at a cost, but the cost so far has been low, almost absurdly low. During the year and a half that it took to stack up 1000 American casulaties in Iraq, freeing a country, over 60,000 Americans died pointlessly in traffic accidents! As many as 98,000 died from doctors' mistakes.

Get some damn perspective.

You know, for being in a forum about the "world's most dangerous places," I sure see a lot of people with weak blood in here.

Sometimes you have to do the right thing on behalf of someone else, even if it's not the best thing yourself.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby roxy » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:13 am

Solopilot

If there were no WMD in Iraq, what do you call a mortar shell with nearly a gallon of Sarin in it?


Hardly a WMD! Nasty if it lands on top of you, but not an apocalyptic threat. To have any military value, such a shell would need to be one of many hundreds or thousands, and used in a close firing pattern on the battlefield. The shell partly detonated by the Iraqi resistance in May was probably more a relic dating from about 1990/91.

We DID attack because of 9/11, because we got involved in the War on Terror because of 9/11. We went after Hussein as part of the War on Terror. Notice that it's not a "War on Al Qaeda," it's a war on ALL terrorist, which is why we are not only in Afghanistan and Iraq.


……as you say, a bunch of people are buying a line…..

Iraq is a FAR safer place now than it was under Hussein. The rape rooms are closed, the children's prison, the torture cells, the "Wall of Flies" is GONE, destroyed by grieving family members who even smashed every block into gravel.


The Kurds may think Iraq is a safer place now, but not many Sunni’s do. Iraqi opinion is somewhat mixed on the subject. The fact that there is a debate about this to be had at all suggests that we are doing an awful job there. We may be doing just a bit better at delivering better personal security to the citizens of Iraq than one of the most brutal dictatorships of modern times. I’m so proud.

You don't think the world is safer? What proof do you have that it is not? After we went into Iraq, suddenly North Korea, Iran and Syria wanted to "play well with others." Don't you think that makes the world even a LITTLE bit safer?


Er, let me see. Two of the three countries you mention may possibly have become nuclear powers since 9/11, and with the same mad regimes still in place. Much safer

Which "large US government contracts" would those be?


Companies with contracts worth over $1bn in Iraq include American International Contractors Inc, Betchel Group Inc, CH2M Hill, Contract International, Dataline Inc, Environmental Chemical Corporation, Explosive Ordinance Technologies Inc, Flour Corp, Halliburton, Millitary Professional Resources Inc, Odibrecht-Austin, Parsons Corp, Perini corporation, Ronco Consulting Corporation, Shaw Group, Stanley Baker Hill, Tetra Tech, USA Environmental Inc and Zapta Engineering.

Uh . . .WHAT authoritarian legislation? This is actually pretty amusing, coming from a Brit. Or did they overturn the Civil Justice Bill, the Football (Disorder) Act, RIPA, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994), the Police Act of 1997, SSFA, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act . . ? The Patriot Act, with it's problems, is still not even in the same league as British law. With all the noise, we expect the PA to be fixed or repealed, but it would take you the next decade to do the same job on the authoritarian legislation which Brits take for granted.


Could not agree more. As I say, we have been sold the same con a by leader I have as much time for as Bush. The fact that we are both living in countries that are becoming more authoritarian is a worry to me.

For the last . . .I don't remember having cared much one way or another about elections in the UK, Auz, NZ, Japan, Russia, Bosnia . . .the list goes on. Yet it's amazing how many people around the world seem to be hyperventilating about Bush.


I rather suspect that the outcome of NZ or Bosnian elections won’t actually make much difference to your life, so why should you care? The reason the rest of the world is ‘hyperventilating’ is because we feel that the outcome of this election will make quite a big difference to our lives.
Organized religion is like organized crime; it preys on peoples' weaknesses, generates huge profits for its operators, and is almost impossible to eradicate - Mike Hermann
User avatar
roxy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:45 am
Location: London

Postby patriot » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:25 pm

1) Iraq hosted al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda leader. He was protected while he was invalid after a leg amputation. Bill Clinton justified "Monica's War," the 1998 missile attacks, on "strong ties" between al-Quaeda, the nerve-gas factory, and the Iraqi government. bin Laden met with Iraqi secret police, who worked directly for the Husseins.

That's a pretty good sign that al-Qaeda and Iraq were "allied."


“I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection [between Iraq and Al Qaida], but I do believe the connections existed.”
-Secretary of State; Colin Powell.

2) True, Iraq didn't declare war on the US. For that matter, neither Afghanistan. Nor did al-Qaeda. Does that mean that there's no war?


Al-Qaudi did declare a Jihad on all Americans and all Jews actually...

3) Since when is Great Britain AMERICA'S problem? The National Socialists had no weapons which could reach the US. Hitler had taken over most of Europe, but wasn't causing us any trouble.


The Nazis declared war on America, and were taking over the whole of Europe. Iraq wasn't invading anyone, they didn't declare war on us, and it turns out they didn't have any weapons that could reach the U.S. either.

Oh, and by the end of World War Two the Nazis were days away from creating a nuclear bomb. They already had three major launching facilities. Not to mention they killed over 6,000,000 Jews.

There is no comparison...

4) Is that the same "eviscerated" army of which so many veterans are joining the Iraqi police and being killed by and even smaller group of Iraqi terrorists, including those led by al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaeda leader? Perhaps size of a group isn't really the indicator of capability or intent?


I don't think they are too many "Iraqi terrorists" persay. They are the insurgents, and the internationals are the terrorists. They saw that Iraq had become a great recruiting ground...

Yes, I believe "America First," not "America ONLY." About half of my friends and trusted associates are from other countries. What tyrants do in other countries is not all right with me just because they are in their own countries. That's the whole damn point.


First you try to make an arguement that Hitler wasn't "bothering" us so ergo it wasn't our problem, but when it's convienant to cite the evils perpetrated by a completely different dictator then all of a sudden it becomes our buisness?

It seems logic escapes you my friend.




Yes, these things come at a cost, but the cost so far has been low, almost absurdly low. During the year and a half that it took to stack up 1000 American casulaties in Iraq, freeing a country, over 60,000 Americans died pointlessly in traffic accidents! As many as 98,000 died from doctors' mistakes.

Sometimes you have to do the right thing on behalf of someone else, even if it's not the best thing yourself.


Once again you aren't using any logic. Did you know that fourty-two percent of Iraqis want Saddam back? It's not America's job to go gallabanting about freeing countries.

If a country want's a tyrannical leader disposed then they have to do it themselves. Just like we did.

And out of 250,000,000 people only 150,000 died from auto accidents and doctor's mistakes. Ten percent of the America soldiers in Iraq have died. When ten percent of America's population dies from car wrecks and bad doctors then you can make that comparison.

But I won't convince you that the war was a mistake, and you won't convince me that it was right, so let's just leave it at that.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby SoloPilot » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:51 pm

Roxy:

I am holding in my hand one live cartridge, caliber .376Steyr. Only a fool would believe that it is the only one in my possession.

They found one chemweps mortar shell. It didn't grow there.

"Hardly a WMD"? Do you have any idea how many people three liters of sarin will kill? And the age is really not important -- Hussein said he didn't have it, the Hans "Ignorance S." Blix Clown Show didn't find it, but there it was anyway. What makes you think that it was the only one? Age isn't important.

How many Sunnis have you asked?

BTW, that was a nice dodge. You completely ignored the issues of rape rooms, tortured children and so on...I guess, if your own front door is closed, the whole, wide world is warm . . ?

Uh . . .Roxy . . ? All of that totalitarian British legislation predates 9/11.

Anyway, I have just come to realize that this issue is religion to you, and I won't argue religion.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby SoloPilot » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:54 pm

Patriot:

You said that Iraq "didn't have any weapons that could reach the U.S. either. "

This proves your complete and utter ignorance on the issue of terrorism.

Thus, it is a waste of my time to discuss the issue with you.

Have a nice day.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Postby Aegis » Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:58 pm

SoloPilot wrote:Patriot:

You said that Iraq "didn't have any weapons that could reach the U.S. either. "

This proves your complete and utter ignorance on the issue of terrorism.

Thus, it is a waste of my time to discuss the issue with you.

Have a nice day.


What weapon did he have? If he had one, why aren't the Administration's backers (other than you) screaming it from the rooftops?

And DON'T say he could give weapons to his (proven to be fictitious) Al Qaida allies. That does not count as a delivery system.
"[R]emember, Roman, these will be your arts: to teach the ways of peace to those you conquer, to spare defeated peoples, tame the proud."

-Virgil, the Aeneid
User avatar
Aegis
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:32 am
Location: The dark heart of "Red" Oregon... or I guess its "Blue" Oregon now.

PreviousNext

Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 guests

cron