Moderator: coldharvest
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.
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.
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.
You are parrotting what you are being told by people whose political agenda matches yours.
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.
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."
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
If there were no WMD in Iraq, what do you call a mortar shell with nearly a gallon of Sarin in it?
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.
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.
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?
Which "large US government contracts" would those be?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests