YESSSSSSSS!!!!

[Etaoin]

<font size=1>I received this as an Email this morning. Below is an editorial from Sunday's edition of a Florida newspaper in Florida's panhandle. Someone who reads this paper thought that the editorial was worth a wider distribution and retyped it to send out over the Internet.

Phil Lucas, the paper's Executive Editor, wrote this article published in The News Herald, Panama City, Florida, Sunday April 4, 2004. His email address is plucas@pcnh.com. The News Herald web site is found at http://www.newsherald.com/ </a></font>

<font size=4>Up Against Fanaticism</font>

By Phil Lucas, Executive Editor, Panama City New Herald

If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages,and take the children, too. This piece is not for you.

We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims. Some readers didn't like it. Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don't want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we? That's just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt. We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France,Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia,etc. etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims.

We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them. One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more than 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City. Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resent the Crusades. Well, Madam Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let's recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe, and when they reached sufficient numbers, they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France. Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious. Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland. Sound familiar?

Let's consider the concept of a "long war." Last time it was 200 years, give or take. Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn't fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That's the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys. There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims - some live here - but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, the million gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on "diversity," we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we're so addled on Ritalin we wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn't take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest,the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions. Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that's the way it was and that's the way it is. But many Americans don't get it.

That's why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it's a start.

[Warlady]

Well said!! Bravo!! This is what the left will never understand. I wonder how many of the 3,000 dead in NY were leftists? Since it was NY I have to conclude that there were many. I bet if they could speak they would be disappointed in their fellow appeasing leftwingers who remain.

[Large_Al]

I've forwarded this to everyone. Great find

[Warlady]

Good idea. So did I.

[DoctorDoom]

The original is available from the paper's archives (http://66.21.108.67/interconnect/index/search.asp).

Type in lucas as the search word, and 04/04/2004 for both dates. There is no direct URL link to it.

The piece is magnificent. No doubt the whiners and Muzzie appeasers will wail and gnash their teeth and tell us how it is not good to offend people who want to kill us because it might make them want to kill us. Skroom!

Bring it on, Mr. Lucas!

[Wolfcounsel]

This is like a three-month-old being told a bedtime story, when it comes to terrorist-worshipping liberals and the above editorial.

[Pennville_Bill]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/claps.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/claps.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/claps.gif

[Longhorn_Platinum]

[ QUOTE ]
Etaoin said:
If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought...

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it's a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif

[Longhorn_Platinum]

[ QUOTE ]
Warlady said:
I wonder how many of the 3,000 dead in NY were leftists? Since it was NY I have to conclude that there were many. I bet if they could speak they would be disappointed in their fellow appeasing leftwingers who remain.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://discussionforums.us/FC/lhsmiley.gif <font color="blue">Most leftists become conservative after they die. Of course, by then, it's too late.</font>

[Warlady]

I can just hear them now Moo. "Why are you being cowards? Why won't you avenge our deaths? Why won't you support our troops in fighting this war on terror?"

[Chris]

WOW! http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/happy-claphands3.gif

[Warlady]

There was a military expert on Fox news this morning. Not a General but a Major, someone who actually understands military strategy. He said that GW Bush's strategy in Iraq is a stroke of genius. By being in Iraq, our troops are strategically placed between Syria and Iran, two very bad terrorist countries. He said if you look at the bigger picture, Bush stopped the terrorists in Syria, Iran and Iraq from forming a gentleman's agreement of trying to stop us in Afghanistan and we stopped them from controlling the middle east. It's a shame that the Democrats and leftwingers cannot see the beauty of this move. It's clear as a bell to me.

[eric]

So it is empire building then...

[Warlady]

No eric, it is stopping the war on terrorism. Are you really that short sighted? Try to remember that we were the ones who were attacked. Bush warned anyone who harbored terrorists that they would be in our crosshairs. Libya got the message.

[eric]

No, I agree with the guy on Fox. I agree that one of the aims of the Iraq War was to place strategic military bases in Iraq.

[Warlady]

That's not what you said. You referred to empire building. That is not what we are doing. We are on the offense and defense to win this war THAT THEY STARTED. Both Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden declared war on the United States prior to 911. They asked for it so we are delivering.

[eric]

BTW, Iraq didn't harbor terrorists. That wasn't the issue!

[RayChuang]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
BTW, Iraq didn't harbor terrorists. That wasn't the issue!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes they certainly did. It is now known that a number of well-known terrorists lived in Iraq, and al-Qaeda had a training base in northeastern Iraq. And who can forget the Salman Pak training base (which had an old airliner fuselage to train terrorists for hijacking operations) and the very fact Hussein paid US$25,000 to each Palestinian family that had a person in the family become a suicide bomber?

[Warlady]

Surely you're joking right? Are you not familiar with the terrorist camps our troops destroyed in Iraq? Are you not familiar with the terrorists we have captured in Iraq? Are you not familiar with the terrorist camp deep in Iraq that had the airplane used for training pilots to fly planes into buildings? I have a question for you eric. Why are you defending Saddam Hussein?

[eric]

I'm not defending Saddam Hussein. That's just a bad argument.

"So you didn't support the war? Why do you support Saddam?"

Uhh...

No I'm not familiar with any Iraq-Al-Qaeda link. Powell accepts this

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

I'd like some decent evidence of these terrorist camps. There have been terrorist activity in Iraq post-war of course!

I don't deny that Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombings in Israel - again that isn't the issue. There was no proven Saddam - Al Qaeda link.
BTW, have you read the report on Iraq misconceptions?

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Fox news viewers are most likely to incorrectly believe that there was an Saddam-Al qaeda link.

[Warlady]

Fox news viewers? Hahahahaha There is tons of evidence and more and more coming out every day that there was indeed an Al Qaeda Iraq connection. I don't understand why you on the left are blind to it. There is also evidence that there is a Iraq/OKC bombing connection. Stay tuned.

[eric]

The point is that there isn't tons of evidence. And as for the OKC bombing, c'mon warlady! I suppose Pearl Harbor was perpetrated by Bin Laden. Let's see if we can link more bogeymen to Iraq and Al Qaeda

[Naturalized-Texan]

Abandoning the War on Terrorism at this juncture, as you advocate, would be like abandoning World War II prior to the D-Day landing at Normandy. Since you're probably ignorant of history, I should explain:

If we had abandoned WW II prior to D-Day we would have ensured that Hitler would have been victorious. Abandoning the War on Terrorism at this juncture would ensure that the terrorists would be victorious and that victory, that you so dearly want, will ensure that millions, if not tens-of-millions, of Americans will be slaughtered in terrorist attacks.

[eric]

Tex, who said anything about abondoning the War on Terror? Certainly not me.

Little history lesson for you Tex. To compare Nazi Germany with al Qaeda is rather overstretching things.

[Wolfcounsel]

"To compare Nazi Germany with al Qaeda is rather overstretching things." --eric

Both sides did or do have mindless f*cks falling over themselves trying to kiss the butthole of their master. That's not even stretching things.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
To compare Nazi Germany with al Qaeda is rather overstretching things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you prove your ignorance of history. Hitler was a fascist leftist. Osama bin Laden is a fascist leftist. Saddam was a fascist leftist. They were/are all serious threats to the world. in fact, Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda is and Saddam was a much more serious threat to the U.S. and the world than Hitler was because they have/had infinitely more powerful weapons at their disposal than Hitler did and have/had the means to deliver them via terrorist cells around the world.

Your support of terrorists and terrorism today is tantamount to supporting Hitler before and during WW II.

[ QUOTE ]
Tex, who said anything about abondoning the War on Terror? Certainly not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your nose must be a mile long afer telling a monstrous lie like that. Everyone here has seen you repeatedly advocating the abandonment of the War on Terrorism.

[Estragon]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
The point is that there isn't tons of evidence. And as for the OKC bombing, c'mon warlady! I suppose Pearl Harbor was perpetrated by Bin Laden. Let's see if we can link more bogeymen to Iraq and Al Qaeda

[/ QUOTE ]


No amount of evidence would convince you anyway.

As for OKC, the Secret Service just released a video showing the Ryder truck, with four people leaving it. It was a surveillance video that was missed somehow; even the FBI had not known of its existence during the investigation.

Terry Nichols had been trying to make bombs with little success. Then he took a sudden two week trip to the Phillipines. What he did there, no one knows; he wasn't under suspicion of anything at the time and wasn't being watched.

Yousef's cell was in Manilla at the time. His apartment was busted shortly thereafter, although he escaped because he wasn't home at the time. On the apartment's visitor log there are several visits by someone signed in only as "Nicky," during the time Nichols was in town.

After returning from the Phillipines, Nichols began making bombs that worked. The OKC bomb was of similar design to the truck bomb used in the 1993 WTC attack.

None of this proves anything, of course. But there are a lot of unanswered questions:

Who were the other men riding with McVeigh, and what became of them?

Why did Nichols go to Manilla?

There is clearly much we still don't know about OKC.

[jag]

Eric,

In the late 1930's Winston Churchill had to fight just that thinking, no one would pay attention to his reiterated warnings of the folly of attempting to appease HITLER and of the necessity to bring together a "grand alliance" against the aggressive powers before it was too late....and as they say the rest is history.

[Warlady]

eric what is clear to me is that you need to read more. And I don't mean DU either.

[Wolfcounsel]

Eric, would you be able to answer this question?

If bin-Laden is caught, do you want him dead? Either 100 percent yes or 100 percent no. There is no such thing as "kill him a little". Thank you.

[DesertFox]

Gee, Wolf, why do you always ask eric the hard ones?

[Wolfcounsel]

You're right, Fox. Okay, eric, just give me the right to be pro-choice as to bin-Laden's doom, er, I mean, destiny.

[DesertFox]

"I am your density." -- George McFly

[Timberwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
The point is that there isn't tons of evidence. And as for the OKC bombing, c'mon warlady! I suppose Pearl Harbor was perpetrated by Bin Laden. Let's see if we can link more bogeymen to Iraq and Al Qaeda

[/ QUOTE ]
People, welcome our latest YUTZ to the board....eric, take a bow. You are in serious need of a clue.

Doc!! You got one of those cluepons left in your vault??

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

An excellent piece! Guess it's time for another Crusade, eh? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif

[eric]

" Everyone here has seen you repeatedly advocating the abandonment of the War on Terrorism" - Tex

Where? Pray tell.

"eric what is clear to me is that you need to read more."

Don't we all?

I understand that it's quite easy to pore over history books to try and find some parallels with the War on Terror. The problem is that we'll struggle to find historical parallels. Al Qaeda don't have a state, they have no realisable aims. This is in sharp contrast to Nazi Germany. The Nazis were scared of death. I'm fairly well versed on Churchillian history. Jenkin's Churchill was a great read.

click here to read about the Greatest Briton (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000W6SVS/qid=1082538625/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-7802117-6593745?v=glance&amp;s=books&amp;n=507846)

It's interesting to note that the vast majority of appeasers were Conservatives! The socialists led the push to war. Still, I'm sure you knew that.

Where I differ from the neo-conservative world-view is the distinction between the War on Terror and the War on Iraq. . Iraq was something we could get the history books out over. It's coming out now that the British and American experts on foreign policy (in the State Department and the Foreign Office) were highly skeptical about the Iraq War because they had read their history books.

[eric]

In response to Wolfcounsel, if BL were caught alive I would want a fair trial. Seeing that his biggest crime was in the US, then it would be for the US Gov't to decide. I oppose the death penalty but I wouldn't shed any tears were he executed.

[DesertFox]

"Consistency, thou art a jewel." -- Rhett Butler

[Warlady]

I could care less about finding parallels to our current problems with Islamic fanatics and past terrorists like Hitler. The fact is Islamic fanatics have been wreaking havoc in the world for hundreds and hundreds of years. There is only one way to stop them. Kill them. That is what history shows and I thank God we now have a leader who understands that. eric the war in Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror. We are now in a position in that part of the world to wage war on the terrorists. It's a good thing.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
" Everyone here has seen you repeatedly advocating the abandonment of the War on Terrorism" - Tex

Where? Pray tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every time you pretend that the Iraq phase of the War on Terrorism is not part of that war, you are advocating the abandonment of the War on Terrorism. Every informed person in the world knows that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an integral part of the War on Terrorism and cannot be separated from that war. So, your pretense that it was not part of that war is tantamount to abandoning the War on Terrorism.

[spanky]

No eric, it is stopping the war on terrorism. Are you really that short sighted? Try to remember that we were the ones who were attacked. Bush warned anyone who harbored terrorists that they would be in our crosshairs. Libya got the message.

And attacked by whom. . . . .oh, of course, Iraq, my bad. You were right all along and I concede. Non penso cosi.

I have a question for you eric. Why are you defending Saddam Hussein?

Why are you defending Bush? Saddam was never, I REPEAT, NEVER, a threat to the USA. And never could be. And don't give this potential threat bullshit. There is a big difference between potentiality and actuality. He was a threat to his own people. And where the F%$# did you hear that they trained people to learn to fly planes into buildings? Fox news. Why don't you guys watch other news sources. I would compare Fox news to Al Jazeera, they have an agenda. And why did the terrorists have to learn to fly in Iraq when they could do it here without arousing suspicion? Was this maybe because maybe from the onset all the focus was elsewhere (e.g. Iraq)?

[DesertFox]

Spanky, has anyone told you lately that you're a flake?

[Estragon]

Man, he's a bowlful!

Saddam gave sanctuary to fugitives from six different terrorist groups, including the notorious Abu Nidal. The mujadeed al-islam group operated freely in the mountainous areas of the east - not in the "no-fly" zones. They are closely associated with al Qaeda, yet operated with impunity even though Saddam could have crushed them whenever he chose.

spanky seems to have swallowed a Big Gulp of leftist Kool-Aid.

[Warlady]

[ QUOTE ]
spanky said:


Why are you defending Bush? Saddam was never, I REPEAT, NEVER, a threat to the USA. And never could be. And don't give this potential threat bullshit. There is a big difference between potentiality and actuality. He was a threat to his own people.



[/ QUOTE ]

Why am I defending the President of the United States? Here's a clue child. I'm an American and we are at war. It's called "loyalty". The same loyalty I afforded Bill Clinton when we were at war with Slobo. Perhaps loyalty to ones country is something you never learned. That would be my guess.

Saddam was never a threat to America? Where do you get your information from child? Saddam declared war on America. He also tried to assassinate an American President. That IS a declaration of war in anyone's playbook child.

What makes you so certain that Saddam could never be a threat to the US? Are you familiar with biological and chemical weaponry child? Apparently not.

You say there is a difference between potential and actual threats. Well I can tell you this much. Saddam Hussein is NO LONGER A THREAT TO ANYONE. CHILD.

[ QUOTE ]

And where the F%$# did you hear that they trained people to learn to fly planes into buildings? Fox news. Why don't you guys watch other news sources. I would compare Fox news to Al Jazeera, they have an agenda. And why did the terrorists have to learn to fly in Iraq when they could do it here without arousing suspicion? Was this maybe because maybe from the onset all the focus was elsewhere (e.g. Iraq)?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a naive idiot child. Fox news has never lied and misrepresented America. Al Jazeera has done nothing but lie to the Arabs about America. I really could care less whether you believe me or not. If you want to live with your head buried in your nether region that's no skin off my nose. Stupid is as stupid does and that is you child. Words from the great man himself describes you to a tee. "It's not that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so much that isn't so" --- Ronald Reagan. Dear child. Here's some advice for you. GROW A BRAIN. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/votebush.gif

[Wyatt_Junker]

Spank This.

Spank the monkey.

Spankified.

She's a SPANK!!

A peanut butter &amp; spanking sammich.

Spank, (noun): the substance that oozes out of infected girl parts.

Spank, its not just a form of discipline anymore. Its a troll.

[Warlady]

Wyatt I think Spank + ooze is the stuff that seeps out of mans parts. Or is that mans pants? Please don't play the sexist card.

[Estragon]

He's just a brownish stain. No need to make this a sex issue.

[eric]

Tex

I made a distinction between the WoT and the Iraq War. Of course, by starting that war, it has now become an integral part of the WoT. That's why I don't think that Iraq should be abandoned (you just assumed that part).

[2Cent]

eric, I'm thinking that you skipped Warlady's post about the Major who explained the genius of being in Iraq? That being in Iraq is necessary in order to win the war in Afghanistan?

(I happen to think that the bigger picture yet is having a presence in the ME so that the Israelis will concede to giving the Palestinians a homeland, thereby settling a wholelottatrouble. But that's for a different thread.)

Etaoin, thanks for the post. As has been said, excellent read.

[Etaoin]

eric &amp; spanky:

Has this nation been repeatedly subjected to terrorist attacks by Muslim terrorists?

While 9-11 was an Al Qaeda sponsored event, were not Iraqi nationals a demonstrated part of the other attacks?

Were there Terrorist training camps in Iraq or not?

Was Saddam in violation of the UN mandates?

Did Saddam fund Hamas suicide bombers? and reward their families?

Did Saddam give sanctuary to terrorists?


If you answer yes to any of these questions, then you must agree that there was justification for going into Iraq.

Are you so dense that you do not see that it is not only America that is under assault, but Western Civilization? Don't you understand what the word Jihad means? Iraq is merely one front of this war between cultures. Muslim terrorists started this war, and we propose to finish it since our survival depends on combatting it throughout the world!

[Warlady]

Esty tell that to Wyatt not me.

[Warlady]

Well said Etaoin but I fear eric's little brain isn't capable of comprehending the larger picture.

[eric]

You posed some worthwhile questions, and I'll try to answer them honestly, while keeping an eye on the justification of the Iraq war. I'd also like to highlight that I didn't oppose the war straight out, but was unhappy with the way it was carried out. You should keep this in mind when considering my responses.

Has this nation been repeatedly subjected to terrorist attacks by Muslim terrorists?

Yes, but Muslim does not equal Iraqi. That question is a red herring!

While 9-11 was an Al Qaeda sponsored event, were not Iraqi nationals a demonstrated part of the other attacks?

Possibly. However, even so it's not justification. Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we invade the UK because of the shoe bomber?

Were there Terrorist training camps in Iraq or not?

The evidence is shaky, but at the camps were in an area not controlled by the Baathists. There were terrorist cells in Germany. Why not invade Germany?

Was Saddam in violation of the UN mandates?

Yes, this is the strongest case. (Admittedly, so is Israel). I'm unhappy with the rush to war. Couldn't the weapons inspectors finished their work?

Did Saddam fund Hamas suicide bombers? and reward their families?

Yes. Again, this is a strong case. However, most would see the Israel-Palestine question as separate from the WoT (here there are legitimate territorial grievances). Has the US funded terrorists (eg Bin Laden - of course!) I don't see the benefit in linking disparate groups together as Muslim terrorists.

Did Saddam give sanctuary to terrorists?

the evidence for this is shady. The answer is probably no.

I believe the correct initial position for any thinking person when confronted with the possibility of a war is to be skeptical. One has to pose certain questions. What is the justification? Will it weaken or strengthen international unity? Is the US under threat? How will the Arab world see the war? (That question is vital in any WoT).

Ultimately, we have to consider whether the war will aid in the WoT?

I'm a big enough man to admit I'm wrong if history shows us that the war did help the WoT.

Presently, we're in a different position. Having ousted Saddam, we have to stay the duration. One theme that sticks in the mind is whether the US will get bored with Iraq (are we prepared for the nation building that may last decades?)

[eric]

Post deleted by eric

[Warlady]

Eric why did you post your answers twice? Those other countries were not in violation of 17 UN resolutions or declaring war on the US. Iraq was and did.

[eric]

I'm sorry, double post.

When did Iraq declare war on the US?

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
I made a distinction between the WoT and the Iraq War.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such distinction and there never has been. The Iraq War IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN part and parcel of the War on Terrorism. THEY CANNOT BE SEPARATED no matter how much you try to pretend that they can.

[Estragon]

[ QUOTE ]
Naturalized-Texan said:
[ QUOTE ]
I made a distinction between the WoT and the Iraq War.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no such distinction and there never has been. The Iraq War IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN part and parcel of the War on Terrorism. THEY CANNOT BE SEPARATED no matter how much you try to pretend that they can.

[/ QUOTE ]


The leftists' selective views remind me of a song written for a fellow determined to "do his own thing:"


[ QUOTE ]


Gonna lose my way tomorrow,
gonna give away my car.
I'd take you along with me,
but you would not go so far.
Don't see what I do not want to see,
Don't hear what I don't say.
Won't be what I don't want to be,
I continue in my way.

Don't see, see, see where I'm goin',
Don't see, see, see where I'm goin',
Don't see, see, see where I'm goin' to,
I don't want to.

Everyday I see the mornin' come on in the same old way.
I tell myself tomorrow brings me things I would not dream today.



[/ QUOTE ]

[Beowulf]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/trollhook.gif

[eric]

Tex, if attacking Iraq really was an integral part of the WoT (before we attacked Iraq - I don't deny that it's now become part of that war) you have to ask yourself some questions.

What are the ultimate aims of the WoT? What were the aims of the Iraq war? How do these aims fit in the aims of the WoT? Could any of these aims have been achieved in any other way?

Let's consider just two points.

(i) WMD. A stated aim was to rid Iraq of banned weapons. Did they have any at all? Even so, could Iraq have been disarmed by other means?

(ii) Arab opinion. How would the war affect Arab opinion? Would it create more animosity towards the US?

I see that attacking Iraq was a high risk option in the WoT (that may pay off), but not "part and parcel of the War on Terrorism"

[jag]

Eric,

To both your points - who cares?

War is always high risk, and always just an option.

Begging for mercy, pretending the Islam religion is a peaceful and loving religion and hoping the Arab nations will not feel animosity towards the US are options also.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It's sad that you have decided to go through life pitifully uninformed. I've already answered your questions and provided you with overwhelming proof that Operation Iraqi Freedom was and is an integral and unseperable operation in the War on Terrorism just as the invasion of North Africa, the invasion of Sicily, the Anzio landing, the D-Day invasion of Normandy, the landings on Guadalcanal, Bougainville, the Philippines, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. were integral parts of World War II.

[eric]

I'm trying to conduct a civil discussion with you.

Where have you given "overwhelming proof that Operation Iraqi Freedom was and is an integral and unseperable operation in the War on Terrorism"? Perhaps I missed you Perhaps it was in another thread you assumed I read.

No one is denying that it has become an integral part of the WoT. Perhaps it would be helpful if you could answer my questions.

You keep on relating the WoT to WW2. I think this is a little naive, but I'll give you an example.

We could look at WW2 and D-Day and consider the questions I posed. The aim of WW2 was to defeat Nazi Germany. To do this, we needed troups on mainland europe. The D-Day landings were a means to that end, to achieve the bigger end (the defeat of Nazi Germany). After the event, D-Day was an integral part of WW2 (and it's very difficult to see how we could have defeated Nazi Germany without the landings).

Your assertion seems to be that (because Iraq was always an integral part of the WoT) it is impossible to win the WoT without invading Iraq. It's quite possible that the war might damage the WoT. It's a possibility you seem unwilling to entertain

[Chris]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smack.gif

[DesertFox]

<font size=1>Chris, wouldja quit bangin' my head with that hammer?

Or at least hit a different spot? That one's getting sore. </font>

[Chris]

[ QUOTE ]
<font size=1>Sorry! http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/confused-discombobulated2.gif

I keep trying to smack my own head, but I keep ducking. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

[DesertFox]

<font size=1>Hmmm. Never thoughta that. I'll duck, too. </font> /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[Chris]

<font size=1>Good idea! http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/happy-thumbsup3.gif

Now the guy behind you can deal with it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font>

[DesertFox]

Hey, Wyatt! DUCK!

[Timberwolf]

He did...caught me on my blind side....Dammit, Chris!!! Watch it with that thing!!

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[Chris]

Geeze, you guys need to stay on your toes!

Duck! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/viking.gif

[Naturalized-Texan]

First of all, it's impossible to hold a civil discussion with someone who is so pitifully uninformed and who refuses to face the facts.

[ QUOTE ]
We could look at WW2 and D-Day and consider the questions I posed. The aim of WW2 was to defeat Nazi Germany. To do this, we needed troups on mainland europe. The D-Day landings were a means to that end, to achieve the bigger end (the defeat of Nazi Germany). After the event, D-Day was an integral part of WW2 (and it's very difficult to see how we could have defeated Nazi Germany without the landings).

[/ QUOTE ]

We had no choice but to invade Iraq in order to defeat terrorism just as we had no choice but to invade France to defeat Hitler. Saddam harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists and had a long record of doing so. Saddam's al Qaeda links went back to proir to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. At least one of those al Qaeda terrorists in that bombing used an Iraqi passport.

Saddam DID have WMDs. There is no question about that. The only question is: Where are they? There are 4 and only 4 possible answers to that question:

1) They are still hidden somewhere in Iraq. When Dr. Kay gave up the search, only 10 of 130 possible hiding places had been searched. Also, enough biological weapons to kill many millions of people can be stored in a container the size of a coffee can and many of those containers could still be hidden in scientists' refrigerators all over Iraq.

2) They were transported to Syria and/or Lebanon. David Kay was given maps of Syria and Lebanon showing the coordinates of locations where Saddam's WMDs had been hidden before the war. He was also provided evidence that convoys of tanker trucks were traveling from Iraq to those sites in Syria and Lebanon before the war. So, it's likely that many or most of of Saddam's WMDs are at those sites.

3) They were distributed to terrorist cells around the world before the war. We had all better be praying that that isn't where Saddam's WMDs are.

4) All of the above.

Here is a partial list of those who knew that Saddam had WMDs before the Iraq War:

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - JOHN KERRY, Jan. 23, 2003

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - BOB GRAHAM, Dec. 8, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - HILLARY CLINTON, Oct. 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - HENRY WAXMAN, Oct. 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- JAY ROCKEFELLER, Oct. 10, 2002

"Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." - PATTY MURRAY, Oct. 9, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - JOHN KERRY, Oct. 9, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - ROBERT BYRD, Oct. 3, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - TED KENNEDY, Sept. 27, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - AL GORE, Sept. 23, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - AL GORE, Sept. 23, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - CARL LEVIN, Sept. 19, 2002

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by BOB GRAHAM and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Clinton Secy. of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - NANCY PELOSI, Dec.16, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -Letter to President Clinton, SIGNED BY CARL LEVIN, TOM
DASCHLE, JOHN KERRY, AND OTHERS, Oct. 9, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - SANDY BERGER, Clinton National Security Advisor, Feb. 18, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue stare will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, Feb. 18, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, Feb.17,1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - PRESIDENT CLINTON, Feb. 4, 1998


[ QUOTE ]
Your assertion seems to be that (because Iraq was always an integral part of the WoT) it is impossible to win the WoT without invading Iraq. It's quite possible that the war might damage the WoT. It's a possibility you seem unwilling to entertain

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no doubt that defeating Saddam was absolutely necessary to winning the War on Terrorism. Anyone who claims differently is flat-out misinformed.

[Timberwolf]

Add to the above that (pretty much) everyone knows that it is primarily Saudis who FUND terrorism. Saddam / Iraq was the conduit for distribution of the funding. It was also one of many countries that harbored terrorists and either actively supplied training camps or turned a blind eye to said camps.

[Estragon]

The Saudis provide much of the funding for Wahhabi Muslims, building religious schools and mosques throughout the world - including the US - that become hotbeds of radicalism. Many of the Saudi "Islamic charities" fund al Qaeda related groups directly, or did until we enforced a crackdown after 9/11.

Saddam supplied funding for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian-oriented terrorists. For other groups, he mainly provided sanctuary from international justice.

The al Qaeda group in Iraq was tolerated and allowed to function without interference. Several al Qaeda leaders visited Iraq and were received warmly, but they really didn't need much additional financing. They were most likely seeking aid in the form of logistics, like foreign safe houses maintained by Iraqi secret police services, or help with WMD development.

Hezbollah is primarily funded by Iran and Syria.

The damned Arabs all have their own "teams," but they don't compete against each other except as to who can pull off the most deadly attack. Most of them cooperate in various ways.

There is one country in the Middle East where ALL the terrorists groups operated freely, with the active or at least tacit support of the government, for the last 25 years: Iraq.

How anyone thinks we could win a war on terror without attacking the terrorists' 3 million square mile safe house is beyond me.

[Warlady]

Excellent job NT and Esty. There are some people who (and I don't believe it's intentional) are incapable of retaining information. Why? Unfortunately, it goes in one ear and out the other because there is nothing inbetween to catch it.

[bannerman]

http://mercury.walagata.com/w/mynamehere/commiePuke.jpg

[Estragon]

Yo, bannerman! Nice pic!

Good to see around here - we miss your creative graphics.

Where ya been? Staying in fancy hotels and riding in limos with the MyPalAl campaign?


/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif

[Etaoin]

[ QUOTE ]
bannerman said:
http://mercury.walagata.com/w/mynamehere/commiePuke.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

Too Much Bannerman!!! I saved it as "IRAQI KIDS TO U.S. DEMOCRATS."

[Maggie_T]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
Tex, who said anything about abondoning the War on Terror? Certainly not me.

Little history lesson for you Tex. To compare Nazi Germany with al Qaeda is rather overstretching things.

[/ QUOTE ]

But to compare Bush with Hitler, as liberals do, is perfectly adequate, isn't it, eric?

Listen, instead of remaining here and boring us all, why don't you go to democratic underground? They're having a mega Bush-hate fest over there. The latest thing is that they believe that Bush masterminded the train wreck in North Korea just to kill Kim Jong Il. That should be right up your alley.

So why don't you just go there and join the festivities? I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms.

[Donavan]

[ QUOTE ]
bannerman said:
http://mercury.walagata.com/w/mynamehere/commiePuke.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]



I love that Pic. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/patriot.gif

[DesertFox]

I think bannerman does, too. He's posted it about ten different times/places just on FC.

[Warlady]

Where was that picture taken? Is it genuine? Do Iraqi kids know how to write in english?

[eric]

[ QUOTE ]
"Saddam DID have WMDs. There is no question about that. The only question is: Where are they? There are 4 and only 4 possible answers to that question:

1) They are still hidden somewhere in Iraq. When Dr. Kay gave up the search, only 10 of 130 possible hiding places had been searched. Also, enough biological weapons to kill many millions of people can be stored in a container the size of a coffee can and many of those containers could still be hidden in scientists' refrigerators all over Iraq.

2) They were transported to Syria and/or Lebanon. David Kay was given maps of Syria and Lebanon showing the coordinates of locations where Saddam's WMDs had been hidden before the war. He was also provided evidence that convoys of tanker trucks were traveling from Iraq to those sites in Syria and Lebanon before the war. So, it's likely that many or most of of Saddam's WMDs are at those sites.

3) They were distributed to terrorist cells around the world before the war. We had all better be praying that that isn't where Saddam's WMDs are.

4) All of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or option 5, the intelligence on WMD could have been wrong!

You don't give enough credit to those who were rightly skeptical about the war. You're dealing with a great number of uncertainties as if they're known facts. One of the 1993 WTC bomber had an Iraq passport? So?

There are facts about Iraq and conjectures. We can say:

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant : FACT
Saddam Hussein had WMD before 1990 (and used them) : FACT
Saddam Hussein had WMD at start of 2003 : CONJECTURE
Saddam Hussein had clear links with Al Qaeda : CONJECTURE (at best)

Anyone pretending that invading Iraq was the only way to win the WoT is just misinformed (or just didn't give it enough consideration)

[Warlady]

eric I don't know anyone who is pretending that invading Iraq was the only way to win the WoT. And it seems to me that you are the one who is misinformed. Why are you totally dismissing Saddam's atrocities? The 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves? Wasn't genocide the reason Clinton gave for invading Kosovo? Where are the mass graves in Kosovo? Back to the WoT...Didn't Libya just give up their WMD programs BECAUSE we invaded Iraq? Yes they did. We are getting a much better payoff from Iraq than we did in Kosovo.

[eric]

"I don't know anyone who is pretending that invading Iraq was the only way to win the WoT " - Warlady

"Every time you pretend that the Iraq phase of the War on Terrorism is not part of that war, you are advocating the abandonment of the War on Terrorism. Every informed person in the world knows that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an integral part of the War on Terrorism and cannot be separated from that war" - Tex

Warlady, meet Tex!

I'm not dismissing Saddam's atrocities. However, you forget that many of these atrocities were committed with tacit western knowledge. Those on the left were far more vocal in their criticism of human rights abuses in Iraq under Saddam. Only time will tell who will remain interested in the human rights situation in Iraq. If Human rights was the issue, why didn't we finish the job in 1991?

"Didn't Libya just give up their WMD programs BECAUSE we invaded Iraq? Yes they did. " - Warlady

That is deliberate spin. You could equally argue that Libya gave up weapons becuase of clever diplomacy. It's rather presumptious to say Libya gave up weapons directly because of the Iraq War. I don't know the real reason and I'm sure you don't either.

"We are getting a much better payoff from Iraq than we did in Kosovo." - Warlady

How do you define payoff? Payoff = graves discovered divided by US soldiers killed?

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
Or option 5, the intelligence on WMD could have been wrong!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not an option, but do continue touting the egos of Scott Ritter the pederast &amp; every single nation that had self interest in the Iraq/UN oil-for-food scam that murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis at the expense of their own greed(aka payoffs).

[ QUOTE ]
You don't give enough credit to those who were rightly skeptical about the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why do you, eric? There's was nothing "rightly" about their skeptical motivations. Their skepticism was nothing more than doctored up method acting to cover an agenda.

[ QUOTE ]
One of the 1993 WTC bomber had an Iraq passport? So?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll let this one speak for itself.

Perhaps, he did only want to visit the number one tourism captial of the world, Irackyland: Home of the Largest String Ball.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Saddam Hussein was a tyrant : FACT
2) Saddam Hussein had WMD before 1990 (and used them) : FACT
3) Saddam Hussein had WMD at start of 2003 : CONJECTURE

[/ QUOTE ]

I've numbered your inanities for the sake of discussion.

Let's traverse from number 2 to number 3, shall we? Firstly, what was Saddam's motivation for ridding himself of such weapons? Secondly, he provided little proof that he had, given the fact that prior he did have them. Where was the proof of receipt? Thirdly, "conjecture", if that's what you wish to call it, was enough based on my first two points. And fourthly, its not really a conjecture of the minority opinion either, it was only painted as such after G. Dub picked up the pieces.

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam Hussein had clear links with Al Qaeda : CONJECTURE (at best)

[/ QUOTE ]

Separate argument altogether. But, why not, I'll bite.

It matters not if there was or wan't clear links to AQ. Iraq was its own problem, with its own merits for causus belli, with its own bad history of documented crimes and its also recent dismissal of UN demands. That last point alone in and of itself is enough reason to topple Saddam. You don't want to make the UN irrelevant, do you?

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone pretending that invading Iraq was the only way to win the WoT is just misinformed (or just didn't give it enough consideration)


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give you that Iraq was conveniently stupid, to our advantage. Pity that.

But, now, squarely situated in one of the most prime spots of terrorist real estate, in angry Arab mans' backyard, we can tinker with the remaining dickweeds by virtue of our stronghold. It certainly is a very effective post for gutting terror.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Or option 5, the intelligence on WMD could have been wrong!

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not possible. Everyone in the world knew that Saddam had WMDs and that he used them on his own people. The UN inspectors, including Hans Blix, knew that Saddam had WMDs; every intelligence organization in the world knew that Saddam had WMDs; every politician in the US and UK knew that Saddam had WMDs. So, once again, the question remains: Where are they?

[ QUOTE ]
You don't give enough credit to those who were rightly skeptical about the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

I give NO credit to the skeptics because they are all basing their scepticism on the bald-faced lies being told by left-wing Big Lie Propaganda organs.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Thanks for proving with this quote from my post that you lied when you claimed that I said that invading Iraq was the only way to win the WoT:

"Every time you pretend that the Iraq phase of the War on Terrorism is not part of that war, you are advocating the abandonment of the War on Terrorism. Every informed person in the world knows that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an integral part of the War on Terrorism and cannot be separated from that war"

By telling a lie like that your nose must be at least a mile long.

[maxparrish]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
[ QUOTE ]
"Saddam DID have WMDs. There is no question about that. The only question is: Where are they? There are 4 and only 4 possible answers to that question:

1) They are still hidden somewhere in Iraq. When Dr. Kay gave up the search, only 10 of 130 possible hiding places had been searched. Also, enough biological weapons to kill many millions of people can be stored in a container the size of a coffee can and many of those containers could still be hidden in scientists' refrigerators all over Iraq.

2) They were transported to Syria and/or Lebanon. David Kay was given maps of Syria and Lebanon showing the coordinates of locations where Saddam's WMDs had been hidden before the war. He was also provided evidence that convoys of tanker trucks were traveling from Iraq to those sites in Syria and Lebanon before the war. So, it's likely that many or most of of Saddam's WMDs are at those sites.

3) They were distributed to terrorist cells around the world before the war. We had all better be praying that that isn't where Saddam's WMDs are.

4) All of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or option 5, the intelligence on WMD could have been wrong!

You don't give enough credit to those who were rightly skeptical about the war. You're dealing with a great number of uncertainties as if they're known facts. One of the 1993 WTC bomber had an Iraq passport? So?

There are facts about Iraq and conjectures. We can say:

Saddam Hussein was a tyrant : FACT
Saddam Hussein had WMD before 1990 (and used them) : FACT
Saddam Hussein had WMD at start of 2003 : CONJECTURE
Saddam Hussein had clear links with Al Qaeda : CONJECTURE (at best)

Anyone pretending that invading Iraq was the only way to win the WoT is just misinformed (or just didn't give it enough consideration)


[/ QUOTE ]

As I recall, SH had WMD at least until 1995 (around the time his son-in-law defected and told the world that the UN team had blown it).

SH had WMD prior to 2003: Most Reasonable Conclusion. He failed to account for inventoried stocks, he obstructed verification efforts, he continued dissembling and hiding documents and information.

SH had links to al Qaeda: Empirically true. Since the war, the evidence of contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam has piled up. However, the full nature of those contacts remain murkey.

SH supported WTC 93: Fact
SH tried to kill Bush Sr: Fact
SH hid WMD development efforts: Fact
SH would not account for stocks: Fact
SH killed 1.4 million people in war of aggression (Iran): Fact
SH killed 100,000 or more Kurds: Fact
SH killed 100,000 or more Shia to Suppress Revolt:Fact
SH launched second war of aggression (Kuwait):Fact
SH killed 40,000 Kuwaites: Fact
SH plundered billions in oil funds for palaces and bribes of UN/France: Fact
SH let his country starve and children die (maybe 50,000 a year):Fact
SH created the largest enviromental disaster in the gulf: Fact
SH defied 18 UN resolutions:Fact
SH sons ran torture chambers: Fact

You like "Facts" Eric? How bout dem facts!

[Naturalized-Texan]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/yeahthat.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/claps.gif

[Warlady]

Great job Max!

[Chris]

http://www.discodelic.netfirms.com/signs-super.gif

[eric]

[ QUOTE ]
"Thanks for proving with this quote from my post that you lied when you claimed that I said that invading Iraq was the only way to win the WoT:

"Every time you pretend that the Iraq phase of the War on Terrorism is not part of that war, you are advocating the abandonment of the War on Terrorism. Every informed person in the world knows that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an integral part of the War on Terrorism and cannot be separated from that war"

[/ QUOTE ]

Err... so before we invaded Iraq, it wasn't part of the WoT. The way I see it, by making Operation Iraqi Freedom an integral part of the WoT, that means it was a necessary stage for winning the WoT.

You can't have it both ways. Either it was integral (and thus necessary) or it wasn't.

Max,

As I recall, SH had WMD at least until 1995 (around the time his son-in-law defected and told the world that the UN team had blown it).

Yes, no disagreement there.

SH had WMD prior to 2003: Most Reasonable Conclusion. He failed to account for inventoried stocks, he obstructed verification efforts, he continued dissembling and hiding documents and information.

Highly debatable! Kay now says no. It is not impossible that Iraq didn't have weapons in 2003. That is now the most likely scenario.

SH had links to al Qaeda: Empirically true. Since the war, the evidence of contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam has piled up. However, the full nature of those contacts remain murkey.

Emphasis on murky!

SH supported WTC 93: Fact
SH tried to kill Bush Sr: Fact
SH hid WMD development efforts: Fact
SH would not account for stocks: Fact
SH killed 1.4 million people in war of aggression (Iran): Fact
SH killed 100,000 or more Kurds: Fact
SH killed 100,000 or more Shia to Suppress Revolt:Fact
SH launched second war of aggression (Kuwait):Fact
SH killed 40,000 Kuwaites: Fact
SH plundered billions in oil funds for palaces and bribes of UN/France: Fact
SH let his country starve and children die (maybe 50,000 a year):Fact
SH created the largest enviromental disaster in the gulf: Fact
SH defied 18 UN resolutions:Fact
SH sons ran torture chambers: Fact

You like "Facts" Eric? How bout dem facts!

Ok, some of those are facts, some are still conjecture, some are just out of context. SH supporting WTC 1993 is not a fact, but there are murky links. Hussein killed 1.4 million people in Iranian War with US support.

No one disagrees that Saddam was a brutal tyrant.

I have to admit I've been a bit all over the place here. That's the problem when you're the only one on a particular side of a debate. You end up responding to so many different people that you lose the original point of the debate. So back to my central point:

What are the aims of the WoT? What were the aims of the Iraq war? How are they linked?

Attacking Iraq was not part and parcel of the WoT as some have claimed. It has now become part of that war, and for that reason, the coalition needs to stay the course.

Yesterday's letter from 52 former UK diplomats is worth a read. Are they "misinformed"?

Diplomat's letter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3660837.stm)

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Err... so before we invaded Iraq, it wasn't part of the WoT. The way I see it, by making Operation Iraqi Freedom an integral part of the WoT, that means it was a necessary stage for winning the WoT.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears to me that you are either illiterate or you don't know how to read. Either way, you need to go back to 1st grade and learn how to read.

Iraq was always part of the War on Terrorism. President Bush said so on 9/17/2001 when he defined the "Axis of Evil" which included Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea. So it has always been an integral part of the War on Terrorism. But nowhere have I ever said or implied that that invading Iraq was the ONLY way to win the War on Terrorism. It was just the quickest and most obvious way after the victory in Afghanistan - it only took 21 days to topple Saddam.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Saddam's WMD have been found (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/326701/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1/vc/1)

Iraq had chemical weapons and the means to deliver them ahead of last year's US-led invasion (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/327065/page/0/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1)

[dPrasse]

[ QUOTE ]
Naturalized-Texan said:
[ QUOTE ]
Err... so before we invaded Iraq, it wasn't part of the WoT. The way I see it, by making Operation Iraqi Freedom an integral part of the WoT, that means it was a necessary stage for winning the WoT.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears to me that you are either illiterate or you don't know how to read. Either way, you need to go back to 1st grade and learn how to read.

Iraq was always part of the War on Terrorism. President Bush said so on 9/17/2001 when he defined the "Axis of Evil" which included Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea. So it has always been an integral part of the War on Terrorism. But nowhere have I ever said or implied that that invading Iraq was the ONLY way to win the War on Terrorism. It was just the quickest and most obvious way after the victory in Afghanistan - it only took 21 days to topple Saddam.


[/ QUOTE ]

Some folks just dunt read !
or pay attention to what Bush says ! they seem to listen to what the nightly news anchors say that Bush said .......

and since 2 known terrorist heads were hiding in Baghdad ......
(both have since gone looking for their virgins , bless their lil hearts) ......

to continue this tripe about no connection is just plain stupid !

[eric]

I suppose it was silly of me to try and discuss the Iraq War with people. For a lot of people, it's become like a religion. Sheesh!

I can't be bother to argue the semantics of whether integral means necessary. It's quite clear that we're a long way from knowing whether the War in Iraq helped or hindered the WoT. I suppose we should come back to this in 20 years' time. In the mean time, we can wait for some WMD to be discovered.

I hope that Iraq will be a stable democracy by then.

[dPrasse]

It has helped ......
no question ..Libya now has disclosed things for the first time ...Korea has backed off from their threats ...... Pakistan is actively hunting down the bad guys ..as soon as the ldrs see that Bush means business , and isn't a blow-hard do nothing like Clinton ...more will co-operate in the war on terror .....
Saudi is next ......

[DesertFox]

You just don't want to look at reality, eric. Someone proves that Iraq was integral to the War on Terror from the start, and you blandly pass it right by and repeat that Iraq wasn't part of the War on Terror from the start.

The one who can't discuss the war meaningfully is you.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Saudi is next ......

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Iran or Syria is next. After all, the terrorists who are killing Iraqis and Americans in Iraq are being infiltrated from and supported by those countries. By then, Saudi Arabia may have a democratically elected government.

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it was silly of me to try and discuss the Iraq War with people. For a lot of people, it's become like a religion. Sheesh!

[/ QUOTE ]

We who support the War on Terrorism look upon that war as we remember what happened on 9/11/2001. That terrorist attack justifies everything that has happened in the War on Terrorism since then. You'll find a reminder here since you seem to have forgotten what happened then:

9/11 Photos (http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/325385/page/1/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/1)

[Wyatt_Junker]

[ QUOTE ]
For a lot of people, it's become like a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the only one wearing the saffron robe, my little addict, incense burning, rocking back and forth while chanting your preprogrammed, memorized incantations, hands cupped firmly around both ears. Tying off your arm &amp; locating liberal veins, you're nothing but a junkie of yes men.

Repetition does not advance an argument. Although it does deepen the fissures in the grooves of your brain, like a needle riding a record. We've all heard that vinyl before, that pre-dated analog, a synthetic mix of factory glue epoxy embedded with all the lateset liberal hits and bestsellers.

[eric]

Because the sum proof so far is that

1) Bush says it was.
2) WorldNetDaily says WMD have been found.
3) Some shady Al Qa'eda links have been discovered.

I'm happy to be proved wrong in the fullness of time. As of yet, I've seen little evidence that the Iraq war was an integral part of the WoT, although of course it is now. No-one has even stated what the aims of the WoT are, what the aims of the Iraq war were, and how they were related!

Has the war won Arab support?
Has terrorism been weakened?
Why are american soldiers still being killed?
Are heavy handed techniques in Fallujah working?
How is the Road Map for peace developing?

Let's discuss reality. I note no-one has mentioned the open letter to Tony Blair from the 52 ex-diplomats. Are they misinformed? Is US policy doomed to failure?

[eric]

PS, sticking up pictures of 9/11 does not an argument make!

[Estragon]

Neither does blowing smoke out of your ass, but that hasn't seemed to stop you from posting . . .

[Naturalized-Texan]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the sum proof so far is that

1) Bush says it was.
2) WorldNetDaily says WMD have been found.
3) Some shady Al Qa'eda links have been discovered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately for you, those sources have infinitely greater credibility than you or your sources (whatever they are) will ever have.

[Tumblehome]

My brief thoughts on this matter.

1. I commend Eric for remaining civil throughout this entire thread, even though his opponents have not.

2. It is clear FACT that Saddam HAD WMD a decade ago. There is controversy over where he got them (Some say it was from the US).

3. I don't know what became of these WMD. Could they deteriorate? Were they shipped away? Did he still have them, hidden away somewhere? If he did have them, was the planning to use them? If he did have them and was ready to use them, why didn't he use them to defend himself against the US invasion and his capture?

4. Sadam was a brutal dictator and I'm happy he has been removed.

5. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was just, I do not like the way the US President handled the diplomacy of it. I believe that handled better there could have been less international conflict, and greater support.

6. I have difficulty getting clear and unbiased information on this entire matter. I do not trust the radical muslims (or pretty much any muslims) on this matter. I also cannot trust the pro-bush christians or jews on this matter. I am suspicious of their motives - too much talk of God and against a competing religion.

7. The religious bias is another reason I am uncomfortable with Bush's leadership. He initially dubbed Afghanistan invasion a "crusade". He speaks in black &amp; white terms of Good &amp; Evil. He claimed that the world is either "with him or against him". Canada didn't support the Iraqi Invasion, so should we be expecting Bush to attack us next?

8. I am curious of the ANTI-BUSH / ANTI-WAR AGENDA that the conservatives here suspect. What is it exactly? Why do you believe that non-muslims (who don't wish for an islamic planet) would oppose the war disingenuously? Perhaps I'm failing to see a hidden agenda.

[DesertFox]

1. I commend Eric for remaining civil throughout this entire thread, even though his opponents have not.

He has indeed been civil ... but wrong.

2. It is clear FACT that Saddam HAD WMD a decade ago. There is controversy over where he got them (Some say it was from the US).

Agreed.

3. I don't know what became of these WMD. Could they deteriorate? Yes Were they shipped away? That's what we're trying to establish. Did he still have them, hidden away somewhere? That's what we're trying to establish. If he did have them, was the planning to use them? Not against us. If he did have them and was ready to use them, why didn't he use them to defend himself against the US invasion and his capture? Because he knew we have the capability to do much worse to his guys.

4. Sadam was a brutal dictator and I'm happy he has been removed.

Me, too.

5. Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was just, I do not like the way the US President handled the diplomacy of it. I believe that handled better there could have been less international conflict, and greater support.

I didn't like the way he handled it, either. I think he should have told the French, Germans and Russians to **** off; brought our troops home from Europe so they could go back to killing each other as they've done for centuries; and flashed them the bird on prime time television.

6. I have difficulty getting clear and unbiased information on this entire matter. I do not trust the radical muslims (or pretty much any muslims) on this matter. No shit, Sherlock. I also cannot trust the pro-bush christians or jews on this matter. I am suspicious of their motives - too much talk of God and against a competing religion. It so happens that religion caused 911. Are we supposed to pretend it has nothing with anything when it manifestly does? Wait, don't answer that, I already know your answer.

7. The religious bias is another reason I am uncomfortable with Bush's leadership. But you have no problem with Muslim bias, eh? He initially dubbed Afghanistan invasion a "crusade". So what's the problem? He speaks in black &amp; white terms of Good &amp; Evil. So your real problem is that there is no good, no evil, just opinions on good and evil. Duzzat sum it up? He claimed that the world is either "with him or against him". He was right about that, wasn't he? Canada didn't support the Iraqi Invasion, so should we be expecting Bush to attack us next? If you make war on America, you bet your sweet ass.

8. I am curious of the ANTI-BUSH / ANTI-WAR AGENDA that the conservatives here suspect. What is it exactly? It's an anti-Bush, anti-war agenda. Exactly. Why do you believe that non-muslims (who don't wish for an islamic planet) would oppose the war disingenuously? Several reasons: Extreme corruption; relativist ethics; a belief that America is "the bad guy;" mental illness. Perhaps I'm failing to see a hidden agenda. So am I, because the Left's agenda isn't hidden at all. Just tune in to John effin' Kerry and he'll set you straight.

[Tumblehome]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
Because he knew we have the capability to do much worse to his guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

You figure he'd care what became of his guys? I'm more of the mind that he only cared about his own skin.

[ QUOTE ]
It so happens that religion caused 911. Are we supposed to pretend it has nothing with anything when it manifestly does? Wait, don't answer that, I already know your answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you do already know my answer, because its rather obvious. If religion started this mess, MORE religion isn't the cure. 9/11 showed the danger of blind unquestioning obedience to a leader/god. I'm not confident that this lesson has been fully learned.

[ QUOTE ]
But you have no problem with Muslim bias, eh?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just stated that I can't trust muslim bias either (to which you responded "no shit, sherlock" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif )

[ QUOTE ]
He initially dubbed Afghanistan invasion a "crusade". So what's the problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose whether its a problem or not depends on the goals of this war. Is it to enrage and stamp out muslims? or is it to destroy terrorist camps and quell the sentiment to create more?

[ QUOTE ]
He claimed that the world is either "with him or against him". He was right about that, wasn't he?

[/ QUOTE ]

He created a false dicotomy, implying that anybody who doesn't do things his way is siding with the terrorists. At least, that's how I and most people I know read it. If that wasn't the intention then its simple bad diplomacy.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe that non-muslims (who don't wish for an islamic planet) would oppose the war disingenuously? Several reasons: Extreme corruption; relativist ethics; a belief that America is "the bad guy;" mental illness.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly don't see the US as "the bad guy". The terrorists are the only bad guys in this. This does not, however, mean that the US can do no wrong. Criticism of any leader/government is critical. I agree that it shouldn't be done just to spite the leader/government, but it MUST be there to catch mistakes and/or corruption and to keep up the battle of ideas.

[dPrasse]

[ QUOTE ]
Naturalized-Texan said:
[ QUOTE ]
Saudi is next ......

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Iran or Syria is next. After all, the terrorists who are killing Iraqis and Americans in Iraq are being infiltrated from and supported by those countries. By then, Saudi Arabia may have a democratically elected government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Tex ,

I wasn't real clear .I think the Saudis will be the next to change for the better ...... hopefully , if they are more than just lip-service friends ,
they'll stop paying the bribe money to support the Wahhabi cultists ......... if not , then they too (the Saudis) are a part of the problem that needs to be cleaned up /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif


I agree , Syria needs to go next ......... Reagan should have cleared Syria out years ago .there might still be a "meaningful" Lebanon today .

[Estragon]

[ QUOTE ]
Tumblehome said:


2. It is clear FACT that Saddam HAD WMD a decade ago. There is controversy over where he got them (Some say it was from the US).



[/ QUOTE ]


This latter misconception arose from the fact that private labs were routinely granted licenses to ship biological cultures to other nations' own universities and governments for research purposes. There were several anthrax strains sent to Iraq in the late '70s and early '80s.

At the time, we believed it impossible to "weaponize" anthrax, because we had tried ourselves for years and failed. The Soviets actually had done it, but managed to keep the secret.

Anthrax was and is a serious problem in that part of the world. No one in the US government thought these cultures could be converted to bioweapons, and in fact we don't know that Saddam ever did.

The sources for his other WMD programs, mostly chemical, aren't clear, but the formulae for producing things like mustard gas, sarin, and ricin are not secret knowledge. Anyone willing to devote the money and resources to producing them could likely do it on their own, as did the Japanese cult that attacked the subway system with sarin.

So, the routine shipment of cultures not known at the time to be potential bioweapons has become, in the fervent imaginations of the left, a blanket accusation that the US "gave Saddam WMD."

[Faithful_Servant]

Pic's been bouncing across the internet for a couple of weeks now. Unfortunately, the text on the sign has been Photoshopped to death with a wide variety of pro and anti WoT slogans. This may be the original, but I kind of doubt it. The text looks like something someone would write using a mouse, not a pen.

[Tumblehome]

Well even if it is an authentic photograph, could anybody really claim that the Iraqi kids wrote it -- or could read it?

[DesertFox]

Tumble, you're equating Bush's religious fervor with that of the Islamist fanatics?

Get serious, please.

[Faithful_Servant]

Has the war won Arab support?
Why should we be concerned about gaining the support of the people who are supporting that which we fight against??

Has terrorism been weakened?
Absolutely!! With the exception of the attack in Spain, there have been no successful major attacks and a slug of terrorist cells unearthed.

Why are american soldiers still being killed?
Because we are at war and war means people die. Our goal is for it to be the other guy, but when you volunteer to put on the uniform, it's done with the understanding that you may be asked to die in the service of the country who's uniform you are wearing.

Are heavy handed techniques in Fallujah working?
Yeah, they really p*****d off the American troops who are there .

How is the Road Map for peace developing?
The Road Map to Peace is developing at the hands of the soldiers who are in Iraq. Not just the ones who are killing the people who want no peace, but also at the hands of those who are willing (pay very close attention to that word) to do whatever it takes to get the job done, including laying down their lives for the people who trying to kill them. The Road Map to Peace is not some fluffy idealistic notion that "all we need to do is just be friends", it's a hard won fight. Peace comes not at the hands of the pacifists, but by the sacrifice of the warriors.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tank.gif

[DesertFox]

<font size=1>Uh, Servant, them last two dudes need to get back in line</font>

[Warlady]

The Roadmap for Peace is not about Iraq. It's about the battle between the Palestinians and Israelis. I would say however that since Saddam is no longer paying suicide bombers for blowing themselves up that things have gotten somewhat better. That money is now going to Iraqis.

[maxparrish]

Eric stated:[ QUOTE ]
What are the aims of the WoT? What were the aims of the Iraq war? How are they linked?

Attacking Iraq was not part and parcel of the WoT as some have claimed. It has now become part of that war, and for that reason, the coalition needs to stay the course.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong thinking is not just a matter of incorrect data (facts) or dubious interpretations of evidence, but is also caused by a fundemental misunderstanding of the relevant issue. So on this issue we ought to get back to the basics.

The Basics I: the issue is not if Iraq was “part and parcel” of the WoT, but if Saddam Hussein (hence Iraq) was, or might become, an important threat to our national and/or security interests independently of, or in partnership with, others. It does not matter, in the end, if he “currently” had “substantial” cooperation with al Qaeda, or if he acted alone. Saddam was not “on-trial” for his current links to al Qaeda and 9-11; he was already convicted by the world for his previous and on-going behavior and his previous record of terrorism. Thus the standing U.S. policy for the last 12 years was: regime change.

Perhaps you think that Eliot (Bush) Ness should not pick on Guido’s (Saddam’s) crime family if its cooperation with Rocco’s (Osama’s) crime family is only periodic and murky – but then you’re missing the point that they’re crime families. No?

The Basics II: in pursuit of the national interest, a nation must do so based on deductive reasoning NOT on inductive proof of guilt. In the cold war, deductive reasoning would tell you that if the Soviet Union exported revolution (which it did) and that its client states exported revolution (which they did) then a new client state would (e.g. Cuban troops to Angola). Based on communist ideology and past behavior, that’s a reasonable and safe assumption.

Current liberal practice, however, takes an inductive approach. To them, every nation and dictator is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To the benighted liberal it may be that Saddam was a psychopath with a record of imperial conquest, reputed torture chambers, dreams of becoming the new Saliden, previously support of terrorism, and had a history of covert WMD production (and refusing inspections) but, asks the liberal “can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt he does any of this NOW or will”?

Well, maybe not (of course, I don’t remember when he was ever granted a pardon). But if we had conducted our foreign policy on that basis for the last 70 years we would not be on this board explaining this issue to the naive…comrade.

[Warlady]

Bravo max!!!! The left raise hell about the government not connecting the dots before 911 but when they connected the dots on the intel they had regarding Saddam and they do something about it they raise hell. There is no pleasing the left so I think we should give up trying and do what is right for our national security. I still believe Saddam's WMD's are in Iraq and haven't been found yet. Although a lot of evidence of their programs have.

[DesertFox]

Well said, Max.

[Warlady]

You lefties that have said that had Bush given "human rights violations" as his justification for going to war are confusing me because Bush did list human rights violations as one of his reasons for deposing Saddam. That and the fact that Saddam had declared war on the US and the fact that he had violated 17 resolutions and the fact that he had been firing on our airplanes for 12 years in the no fly zones etc etc etc. I have a feeling the only reason you guys oppose the war in Iraq is because a Republican president led it. What other conclusion can we come to since you didn't protest Clinton's war in the Balkans, Clinton's war in Kosovo, Clinton's war in Haiti, Clinton's war in Mogadishu, Clinton's bombing of Afghanistan, Sudan and Baghdad? Why can't you just admit that it's pure partisan politics keeping you from supporting this war and that if Bill Clinton had had the balls to do what he stated should be done but didn't and was the President leading the war in Iraq you wouldn't be here protesting it? And as with all of Clinton's wars the silence from the left would be deafening. As Susan Estrich said "It just wasn't cool to protest Bill Clinton's military actions". ha busted.

[Tumblehome]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
Tumble, you're equating Bush's religious fervor with that of the Islamist fanatics?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Didn't say that, don't mean that. The fanatic muslims' fervor is far greater than that of Bush. However, I don't trust the fervor of either.

[DesertFox]

Well, that's interesting, because frankly I don't trust a man who doesn't believe strongly in God.

[Warlady]

Me either Fox. My Daddy had a sayin'. "Don't trust anyone who doesn't like animals and sure has hell don't trust anyone who doesn't believe in God Almighty." In my life that has been proven right time and time again.

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

Muslim extremists don't get along with anybody. They gotta fight (even people of their own race and religion). They gotta kill. They gotta always be doin' somethin' destructive and if they didn't pin it on their religion, they'd have to admit that all they are is criminal rapists, murderers, terrorists, and empty-headed-much-in-need-of-a-lobotomy-low-lifeloser-buffoons stumbling over each other to get their faces on Al Jazeera TV. And Al Jazeera's reports reflect that.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/terrorist.gif I looked up "terrorist" and nowhere does it mention an extremist believing in some type of god. The first comparision was to an anarchist. I don't know about anybody else here, but that just about spells it out for me.

[Warlady]

I agree Gone. Guess what? We have our very own anarchist right here at FC. Him aside, I think they are just in it for the money and their 15 minutes of fame on CNN. And of course their control. Spain's capitulation in their last election is a perfect example of what happens when you give in. They gave the terrorists more ground via power than any suicide bomber.

[Estragon]

[ QUOTE ]
maxparrish said:
Eric stated:[ QUOTE ]
What are the aims of the WoT? What were the aims of the Iraq war? How are they linked?

Attacking Iraq was not part and parcel of the WoT as some have claimed. It has now become part of that war, and for that reason, the coalition needs to stay the course.

[/ QUOTE ]



Wrong thinking is not just a matter of incorrect data (facts) or dubious interpretations of evidence, but is also caused by a fundemental misunderstanding of the relevant issue. So on this issue we ought to get back to the basics.

The Basics I: the issue is not if Iraq was “part and parcel” of the WoT, but if Saddam Hussein (hence Iraq) was, or might become, an important threat to our national and/or security interests independently of, or in partnership with, others. It does not matter, in the end, if he “currently” had “substantial” cooperation with al Qaeda, or if he acted alone. Saddam was not “on-trial” for his current links to al Qaeda and 9-11; he was already convicted by the world for his previous and on-going behavior and his previous record of terrorism. Thus the standing U.S. policy for the last 12 years was: regime change.

Perhaps you think that Eliot (Bush) Ness should not pick on Guido’s (Saddam’s) crime family if its cooperation with Rocco’s (Osama’s) crime family is only periodic and murky – but then you’re missing the point that they’re crime families. No?

The Basics II: in pursuit of the national interest, a nation must do so based on deductive reasoning NOT on inductive proof of guilt. In the cold war, deductive reasoning would tell you that if the Soviet Union exported revolution (which it did) and that its client states exported revolution (which they did) then a new client state would (e.g. Cuban troops to Angola). Based on communist ideology and past behavior, that’s a reasonable and safe assumption.

Current liberal practice, however, takes an inductive approach. To them, every nation and dictator is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To the benighted liberal it may be that Saddam was a psychopath with a record of imperial conquest, reputed torture chambers, dreams of becoming the new Saliden, previously support of terrorism, and had a history of covert WMD production (and refusing inspections) but, asks the liberal “can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt he does any of this NOW or will”?

Well, maybe not (of course, I don’t remember when he was ever granted a pardon). But if we had conducted our foreign policy on that basis for the last 70 years we would not be on this board explaining this issue to the naive…comrade.




[/ QUOTE ]



Bravo, max!


Saddam Hussein harbored and assisted at least five different terrorist groups, and tolerated the presence of an al Qaeda related group operating in his territory outside the no-fly zones. He met with top al Qaeda leaders.

He invaded Iran and Kuwait, and fired missiles into Saudi Arabia and Israel. He plotted the assasination of an American President paying a visit to Kuwait.

Saddam paid bounties of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who attacked Israeli civilians.

He used chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers in war, and against Kurdish civilians in peace. He engaged in a continuing policy of brutality, torture, and mass murder of civilians.

Some would believe that such a man should have been expected to suddenly change his spots and divest himself of one of the most frightening parts of his arsenal, against the assessment of every major intelligence service in the world.

It might be more logical to assume that a man crafty enough to fool UN Inspectors for over seven years {most of the actual violations they found were the result of direct tips, not their own detection} would have used the nearly four months between the passage of Security Council Res 1441 and the start of hostilities to make arrangements.

But then, logic has never been the strong suit of the far left, has it?

[Warlady]

He didn't just simply plot the assassination of an American President. He damned near pulled it off. Back before we became spineless in this country that would have been enough justification to go to war. But since it was a Republican President it is no longer enough. I wonder if Al Qaeda had succeeded in their attempts to assassinate Clinton would the Democrats who are now protesting the war in Iraq have been more aggressive? What if Saddam had plotted and damn near succeeded in assassinating Bill Clinton? Would the Democrats feel THAT is an act of war? I believe they would. Since the beginning of time attempting to kill a King or leader has always been considered an act of war. Why has that changed simply because President GHW Bush is a Republican? What does that say about Democrats?

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

If you put a beard and a rag on John Kerry, he looks exactly like UBL, by the way. It reminds me of when they were re-dressing UBL and showing what he'd look like if he shaved and took off the rag on his head and put a suit on. He looked like John Kerry. How tall is John Kerry? Does anybody know? Hey...maybe... naw... I won't say it.

[Warlady]

Osama is what 6' 6"? I don't think Kerry is that tall.

[eric]

Thanks Max,

At least you wrote a well-reasoned summary of your support for war. I take a similar position to Tumblehome, in that I'm glad Saddam is out of power. He was a brutal tyrant. There really is little point discussing that now that it's a fait accompli.

I was not opposed to the war straight out. In fact, I reluctantly supported it. My principal criticisms are that very little thought seemed to go into the post-war planning and the diplomacy that led to the war was appalling. To lose so many strong allies over the war cannot be seen as a success. The Iraqis needs international cooperation to create a democratic state.

Again, I note that no-one has mentioned the 52 former UK diplomats. I'll put up a link

52 former diplomats write to Blair (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3660837.stm)

I agree with Tumblehome that the black and white thinking on the issue is unwelcome. The Us v Them mentality is shocking. It causes people to jump to the conclusion that any criticism is tantamount to treason or supporting terror. Much of this thinking can equally be found at DU. All this pro-wrestling "Fox News and Coulter v Franken and the NY times" , "liberals v conservatives" rubbish just stifles debate.

I would note that I find it disturbing how some have written that it doesn't matter how Arabs view the war because "they're the people we're fighting". I think it speaks for itself.

[DoctorDoom]

[ QUOTE ]
The Us v Them mentality is shocking.

[/ QUOTE ]
Look up Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb. It IS us vs them.

[TheRealLobo]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
... Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we invade the UK because of the shoe bomber?
...
Why not invade Germany?


[/ QUOTE ]

My questions precisely. I'm darn tired of having to settle for American beer. I want my Amstel on tap, and my schnitzel fresh. And those fish and chips are to die for. I also think camel races are fun and exciting.


C'mon, everyone knows that without the U.S., the world is just some backwater planet in a third rate galaxy. Let's just rule the world officially.

[DesertFox]

Waaaait a minute! The WORLD may be some backwater, but the Milky Way is a FIRST RATE galaxy! In our local cluster the Milky Way comes in right behind Andromeda as the biggest and baddest. All the other galaxies shudder and avert their eyes when we sashay by.

[Warlady]

eric eric eric. tsk tsk tsk. The only countries who didn't support the war were France, Germany, Russia and China. Take a look at the real reason why they didn't want Saddam deposed. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Greed is not a good reason to allow a DICKtator to remain a threat to world peace. The others like Mexico and Canada don't count for shit anyway. They don't have a military to help with because they depend on us to defend them. President Bush put together a vey impressive coalition. You're just parroting the poor widdle Democrats who don't like it because Bush deposed Saddam and they didn't. There is no need to wonder why Kofi didn't support it either. Saddam was his golden goose. Again. Why didn't you guys on the left throw a fit when Clinton went to all of his wars without UN and global support. Pretty hypocritical wouldn't you say? What's with the double standard?

[eric]

"The only countries who didn't support the war were France, Germany, Russia and China"

Well, that's only three out of five on the Security Council! That's pretty good diplomacy by my reckoning.

"Mexico and Canada don't count for shit anyway" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smack.gif

Do you really think millions poured out on the streets to protest because they don't like George Bush's accent and they think it's a little thick? Why do you think world opinion was against this war? I reluctantly supported the war but if you can't see why the war was so unpopular, it's time to switch off Fox News and find out a bit more about the world you live in.

[DesertFox]

Baloney.

"The world" opposed the war because "the world" envies America and wants attention of the kind a little kid wants when pulling on mama's skirt. "Looky here, mommy! Looky look!" "The world" also opposed the war because "the world" was making money big time off Saddamite corruption.

If you can't see that, it's time to get off your ass and go look.

[eric]

Hang on, why do you think the vast majority of people out on the streets (not the heads of states) opposed this war? They weren't making any cash from America... and who envies the US exactly?

[DesertFox]

Everybody. Canada. Mexico. Russia. France. England. You name it, they envy us.

[eric]

Ha ha ha ha ha!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rotflmbo.gif

You are joking, right?

[DesertFox]

Nope. How many countries you traveled in, eric?

[eric]

Not too many. I'm being honest with you (I won't pretend).
UK, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland. I've lived as a student in France for a year at an international Grande Ecole, so I suppose there are people in the developing world and post-communist countries that might envy the US.

Western Europeans don't, I believe. Why would they want lower living standards?

[DesertFox]

Yeah, right. You've actually been in the UK and never noticed gasoline prices? Electricity costs? The fact that so few people own more than one car? The fact that so few choices are available on tv? That you can't get a medical appointment nearer in time than several months?

Lower living standards? Put down the bong.

[dPrasse]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
"The only countries who didn't support the war were France, Germany, Russia and China"

Well, that's only three out of five on the Security Council! That's pretty good diplomacy by my reckoning.


<font color="blue">you know nothing pompous ass ..... those countries were selling arms to Iraq , in violation of the truce ..they were getting oil money kick backs from Iraq , hell ..Ruissia had advisors on the ground with their latest gadgets tring to see our Stealth aircraft ...... Those 4 countries are the ones that don't count for shit ...... we should have let the Nazi's and Commies have Europe ...... they sure weren't worth fighting for 60 yrs ago ...... </font>


"Mexico and Canada don't count for shit anyway" /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smack.gif

<font color="blue">and you count for even less! </font>

Do you really think millions poured out on the streets to protest because they don't like George Bush's accent and they think it's a little thick? Why do you think world opinion was against this war? I reluctantly supported the war but if you can't see why the war was so unpopular, it's time to switch off Fox News and find out a bit more about the world you live in.

<font color="blue">millions ??????? you are delusional ..... those "millions" are the Arab radicals in Europe and sympathizers ..Euro-Weenies think if the appease the Atabs , there will be no problems ..just like Europe kissed Hitlers ass , thinking that he was rational ...... </font>

<font color="blue">and , yes ...the world is jealous of the US .... </font>




[/ QUOTE ]

[eric]

OK, so gas prices are cheaper in the US? Brits have fewer cars and can't get as many crappy cable channels? Actually with Sky Digital that's probably not true any longer anyway. Is that how you measure living standards?

Perhaps that's why you think Europeans envy the US. You can't see past number of television sets per household.

It is a rather peculiar world view to hold. I don't doubt there are some people in Europe who might envy the US, but I don't think it's many.

[dPrasse]

[ QUOTE ]
eric said:
but I don't think .



[/ QUOTE ]

oh , yes ......jealous people always come out and say how jealous they are ...no , it is easier to "hate" ...just like the class-envy warfare the libs pull in this country .......

[eric]

No, seriously. Do you really believe people in Europe are jealous of the US? Why?

[DesertFox]

I see. You're incapable of following that on out. Cable channels and cars are mere indicators of the vast wealth differences here compared to anywhere else. I notice you skipped right past the part of about medical service. And you're apparently incapable of noticing how much easier it is just to live here than there. Food costs less. Taxes are FAR lower. Unemployment is FAR lower, even in downswings.

That's why so many brainy folks in Europe never come to America first chance they get. No "brain drain."

You need to start seeing what's right in front of your nose and give up the superior air that Europeans, especially the French, so fondly adopt. It's a dead giveaway that they have nothing else to be proud of.

[eric]

Ok, medical services. I don't doubt that the US spends more on health than Europe. Funnily, the US is unhealthier (lower life expectancy, high levels of obesity, higher infant mortality rates). You forget to mention that over 40 million Americans don't have Health insurance. What we see is a sharply divided nation. Those with money do indeed get great medical services in the US.

Unemployment is actually lower in the UK than in the States, although, yes it is higher in France and Germany.

Finally, yes, american universities are better funded and that is the reason for the braindrain. At the same tim