More whining...

[spike]

Simply can't understand where anyone got the idea...

Memory seem a bit selective regarding the actual facts?

The BS is getting thick.

 

[Gonz]

Friday, June 18, 2004

Friday, June 18, 2004

Also, not quite pre-war runup is it?

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

He didn't say Al Qaeda.

Of course, here he does.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America

One paragraph, following a paragraph on terror in general.

chcr, you have been here. You should recall that I've been fighting this fight all along. The case for Iraq was not based on its connection to AlQaeda. That claim has been tossed around since the beginning. It's hard to find Bush laying claim that AQ is among the reasons we overthrew Saddam. Especially pre-invasion; the only time it counts.

WMDs
Desert Storm
Terrorism, in general.

Those were the presiding reasons.

for the 89th time.... salman pak was in an area NOT under saddam's control.

89th time? When has anyone, including you, said it wasn't under his control? He controlled everythign else in Iraq. Why would he allow this to go on or be unable to stop it?

 

[chcr]

The 2004 comments are defending the prewar run-up (as you did). If you were familiar with the timeline you would have recognized that this was just after the 9/11 Commission report, I think. Of course now that it's become even more obvious they've backed of from that position (as you have). I realize that you've been trying to justify the unjustifiable all along. You should wake up and smell the coffee. Fiasco from day one, fiasco today. You keep trying to convince people that the people in charge are not the people responsible. Sorry, yes they are.

 

[Gonz]

I don't recall AQ being part of this. I truly don't. As I said, I've been fighting that since the beginning. It was such a miniscule part of the whole run up yet seems to have taken center stage.

Terrorism includes AQ but is not limited to them.

Speasking of fiascoi, the 9/11 Commission? Didn't that include Jamie Gurelic?

The only thing I see today is ass covering, on both sides.

 

[2minkey]

WMDs that turned out not to be there, unless you count the few vintage pieces that had been discarded.

Link to Terrorism. links to low level regional terrorism at most that were extremely unlikely to ever reach our shores.


12 years of ignoring UN Mandates (which were upheld by the two largest contingents in the subsequent battle) oh no, ignoring UN mandates. so now you think the UN should have authority? hey, that country you worship - israel - has ignored the UN for decades.

A seat of Democracy in the ME. yeah, that'll happen. hmm... half a trillion dollars to fail at that... what a fuckin' bargain!

A new place to hang our hats so the Muslims have no complaint about our being in Mecca. (much like the Ieaq-AQ connection, this too was mostly silent) don't worry, we're still in muslim lands of significant import, and they'll bitch about that next as they struggle to blame someone else for their problems.

real strong arguments there gonz.

snoooooze

 

[spike]

I think at this point it just boils down to some people being unable to come to grips with being completely wrong for several years so memory lapses and avoiding facts is all you're going to get.

 

[chcr]

I think at this point it just boils down to some people being unable to come to grips with being completely wrong for several years so memory lapses and avoiding facts is all you're going to get.

I've noticed that myself.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I've noticed that myself.

You think he got it?


Anyway...none of that really matters now, does it? Bottom line is that we're there now, and the only two options we have are...

1. Bail out and let the area collapse into barbarism...which it isn't that far from now...
2. Straighten the mess out.

While number two is going to be a long and costly process, number one will cause a repeat of the invasion in about 8 years..and another debate about 'cut and run' and 'stay the course', and another half trillion, or more, spent. Which do you choose?

 

[MrBishop]

Pull out, watch it collapse and re-invade at the cost of 1/2 trillion in 8 years
or
1 trillion more and another 8 years (plus X lives of soldiers) trying to straighten the mess out now?

Nice choices.

 

[chcr]

You think he got it?


Anyway...none of that really matters now, does it? Bottom line is that we're there now, and the only two options we have are...

1. Bail out and let the area collapse into barbarism...which it isn't that far from now...
2. Straighten the mess out.

While number two is going to be a long and costly process, number one will cause a repeat of the invasion in about 8 years..and another debate about 'cut and run' and 'stay the course', and another half trillion, or more, spent. Which do you choose?

One is the only viable choice given the political climate of the nation and the world right now. I don't think the re-invasion is inevitable either. This one wasn't, it was a put up job. As Bish says, they're both bad choices, but one does more for us as a nation than two does. It's not pretty, but there it is.

 

[MrBishop]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to chcr again.

 

[Gonz]

No, I don't get it. I think we went in and it was the right thing to do.

The cost factor. We pay now or we pay later & later & later, ad nauseam.

Look at the costs of rebuilding Japan & look at the benefit. Security & trade. It can happen here. The only barbarians are the ones we're fighting. The rest of the nation (huge majority) just wants to go to work & feed their family. Same as you.

 

[MrBishop]

This ain't Japan, and it ain't Germany.

There were no Japanese kamikazes walking the streets looking for American troops to blow up, no German suicide bombers blowing up training centers for police and militia.

The war was over..papers were signed by politicians...and all that was left is infrastructure rebuilding. Iraq isn't just about replacing a bombed out bridge or putting people back to work....

It's a radically different situation and trying to apply one style to the other is more of a hinderance than a help, Gonz.

 

[Gonz]

There were no Japanese kamikazes walking the streets looking for American troops to blow up, no German suicide bombers blowing up training centers for police and militia.

Yes, there were. Instead of reporting it as horrendous examples of our failures, we killed them & anybody that was associated with them. It went much faster that way. Today, similar reaction is reported like we're the criminals.

 

[chcr]

No, I don't get it. I think we went in and it was the right thing to do.

See, I thought it was a mistake from the beginning and still do. The difference is that the evidence bears me out.

 

[Gato_Solo]

See, I thought it was a mistake from the beginning and still do. The difference is that the evidence bears me out.

Sorry, but I disagree. Mistake, or not, isn't the issue. Bail or not is. While it would be rosey to think that the first choice is the correct one, I'm not so sure. Once you start the killing, you don't stop until you're done. Some may think I'm preaching genocide, but I'm not. By leaving the area, we'll create a huge breeding ground for more hate, and more fanaticism. If we don't stop it now we will deal with it in the future, and it will be much worse. The fanatics have disliked the West since before the crusades. The only thing thats really changed is the weaponry. The tactics (become Muslim or die) have been pretty much the same.

 

[chcr]

Sorry, but I disagree. Mistake, or not, isn't the issue. Bail or not is. While it would be rosey to think that the first choice is the correct one, I'm not so sure. Once you start the killing, you don't stop until you're done. Some may think I'm preaching genocide, but I'm not. By leaving the area, we'll create a huge breeding ground for more hate, and more fanaticism. If we don't stop it now we will deal with it in the future, and it will be much worse. The fanatics have disliked the West since before the crusades. The only thing thats really changed is the weaponry. The tactics (become Muslim or die) have been pretty much the same.

We can't stop it now (not without genocide anyway and I don't think anyone sane is seriously in favor of that) and we will continue to deal with it as we have for the last 40+ years. I'm not sure it can be worse than it is right now. One of the most invasive and dangerous myths of the late 20th/early 21st century is that muslim terrorism is a threat to western civilization. It is not and never will be. Pretending it is gives them exactly what they want. They're the enemy, why do we keep giving them what they're after in the first place?

 

[Gato_Solo]

We can't stop it now (not without genocide anyway and I don't think anyone sane is seriously in favor of that) and we will continue to deal with it as we have for the last 40+ years. I'm not sure it can be worse than it is right now. One of the most invasive and dangerous myths of the late 20th/early 21st century is that muslim terrorism is a threat to western civilization. It is not and never will be. Pretending it is gives them exactly what they want. They're the enemy, why do we keep giving them what they're after in the first place?

I don't think the '72 olympics was a myth, nor do I see Khobar Towers as a myth, nor do I see the 1993 World Trade bombings as a myth, etc. While not the most important threat, it is still a quite viable one. Maybe we can't entirely stop it, but we can make it expensive for them. As an aside, what do you think is the biggest threat to Western society? (besides liberal/conservative extremists)

 

[chcr]

I don't think the '72 olympics was a myth, nor do I see Khobar Towers as a myth, nor do I see the 1993 World Trade bombings as a myth, etc. While not the most important threat, it is still a quite viable one. Maybe we can't entirely stop it, but we can make it expensive for them. As an aside, what do you think is the biggest threat to Western society? (besides liberal/conservative extremists)

None of these incidents you mentioned, while abhorrent, had any significant effect on western society in general. Even the 9/11 attacks didn't. They are simply not a threat unless we make them one. Liberal/conservative extremism is not the number one threat, fear is. Every media outlet or politician wants you to live in fear. That's what's profitable. They don't particularly care if if a threat is real as long as you spend money protecting yourself from it. We are living in one of the most peaceful, prosperous and free eras in world history. Unfortunately, governments in general aren't geared for that so the have to generate threats. There aren't enough terrorists (even if they ever would work together) to occupy Spartansburg, SC by force and yet these madmen are a threat to western civilization? Please, be honest with yourself and ignore the hype for a while.

 

[Gato_Solo]

None of these incidents you mentioned, while abhorrent, had any significant effect on western society in general. Even the 9/11 attacks didn't. They are simply not a threat unless we make them one. Liberal/conservative extremism is not the number one threat, fear is. Every media outlet or politician wants you to live in fear. That's what's profitable. They don't particularly care if if a threat is real as long as you spend money protecting yourself from it. We are living in one of the most peaceful, prosperous and free eras in world history. Unfortunately, governments in general aren't geared for that so the have to generate threats. There aren't enough terrorists (even if they ever would work together) to occupy Spartansburg, SC by force and yet these madmen are a threat to western civilization? Please, be honest with yourself and ignore the hype for a while.

Hype? Au contrair mon frer...Fear is a survival mechanism, and is hardly the point. The threat is real, and minimizing it won't make it go away. as for numbers...There are enough terrorists to populate Memphis, and there are enough recruits to populate Nashville. What you see running about are cells.
You also have to take into account the price a person is willing to pay to get what they want. Most people will stop before it gets out of hand. Fanatics or nucases, if you were, don't stop. As for living in the most peaceful eras, do you have any idea whats going on in Africa? How about South America? All of those trouble spots took a back seat real quick when the press decided that our soujourne into Iraq was wrong. To give you a little information, look up FARC, Darfur, Kenya, Somalia, Shining Path, hell...look up Colombian Rebels, Argentinian rebels. Just because the press doen't deem it 'newsworthy' doesn't make it disappear. No matter how peaceful things may seem, there's always a war going on somewhere. There's always somebody 'fed up' with the system they live in that will do whatever they deem necessary to further their cause and bring about their version of utopia. You know this just as well as I do.