Yea, that strikes me as curious too. Now we all better keep a good eye on Kerry a week before this November, too...
Is that Russian I see under your name?
BTW bringing the troops home from Iraq was a campaign promise of this guy, not a new idea. An something like 99% of Spaniards are against the war so it is extremely popular... now the ELECTION of the socialists was probably because of the bombing, but this move? I bet it would have happened either way.
Oh, and they said that if there's a UN mandate they'd return... like so many other nations. And we all know that would only happen with Bush gone.
If Spain withdraws from Iraq, it'll be such a victory for the terrorists--not because Spain's 1,000-man contingent is so powerful, but it'll encourage them to know that their attacks are having effect. Spain's withdrawal would be a nightmarishly symbolic faux pas. That, and it'll reaffirm what the rest of the world has known since 1588---Spain has no backbone.
PROVE ME WRONG, SPAIN!
Is that Russian I see under your name?
Yes. That is how you phonetically spell DARUNIA in Russian Cyrillic.
I guess we will see more terrorism in other Iraq joining countries.
I guess we will see more terrorism in other Iraq joining countries.
What? Try rephrasing that, or saying it in French even.
I guess we will see more terrorism in other Iraq joining countries.
It's a hidden message.
That's fricken amazing! Now I understand why ASM speaks like that.
haha, goron tits.
Gah... you don't listen! The new leader isn't pulling out because of the attacks, he would have anyway! It's against what he sees as good international policy. He's moving into line with France and Germany. And now Blair and the Italian PM should be very scared... they could be next, and their foreign policy could go this way too... However one aspect of what you say is right -- it is probable that this guy won because of the attack. Aznar's chosen successor was leading in the polls up to right before the attack... I guess this scared them into voting him out. So a well timed terrorist attack can greatly affect national policy and elections... but we knew that already with 9/11 (and things like the Patriot Act)...
Spain now joins many other nations, including France and Germany, in saying that they will go into Iraq, but only if the UN has real power and a good mandate -- ie turning over Iraq to the UN. And as I said Bush will NEVER do that so the only way to get any international support (and do the right thing in Iraq) is to get rid of Bush.
Quote:What? Try rephrasing that, or saying it in French even.
Vous avez un petit pénis
A Black Falcon Wrote:Gah... you don't listen! The new leader isn't pulling out because of the attacks, he would have anyway! It's against what he sees as good international policy. He's moving into line with France and Germany. And now Blair and the Italian PM should be very scared... they could be next, and their foreign policy could go this way too... However one aspect of what you say is right -- it is probable that this guy won because of the attack. Aznar's chosen successor was leading in the polls up to right before the attack... I guess this scared them into voting him out. So a well timed terrorist attack can greatly affect national policy and elections... but we knew that already with 9/11 (and things like the Patriot Act)...
Spain now joins many other nations, including France and Germany, in saying that they will go into Iraq, but only if the UN has real power and a good mandate -- ie turning over Iraq to the UN. And as I said Bush will NEVER do that so the only way to get any international support (and do the right thing in Iraq) is to get rid of Bush.
Right. No one's bagging the new Socialist for being a coward, socialists are cowards. Everyone knows this and no one expects anything better from them. What I'm disappointed in is how cowardly the Spanish people are, They stared danger in the face and blinked. Raised the white flag, played French.
Plus, what right-thinking person would unconditionally turn over total control to the UN? Has the UN ever not totally ruined any country it has attempted to rebuild? I mean, look at the former Yugoslavia. Remember that little war we fought five years ago with Serbia? Look how well they kept that up. Now it's looking more and more every day like we'll have to repeat the process again.
Quote:Right. No one's bagging the new Socialist for being a coward, socialists are cowards. Everyone knows this and no one expects anything better from them. What I'm disappointed in is how cowardly the Spanish people are, They stared danger in the face and blinked. Raised the white flag, played French.
Plus, what right-thinking person would unconditionally turn over total control to the UN? Has the UN ever not totally ruined any country it has attempted to rebuild? I mean, look at the former Yugoslavia. Remember that little war we fought five years ago with Serbia? Look how well they kept that up. Now it's looking more and more every day like we'll have to repeat the process again.
Socialists are dick heads no question about.
But if the president decided too do somthing that would increase the threat terrorism on your own country and it was not necessary, Wouldnt you be upset? The war in Iraq isnt conciderd a war on terrorism by many, Bush even said there is no connection with Al Qeada, Saddam didnt help terrorist anymore then north korea or Syria.
.
If you lived in spain you would be freightend too take a bus or train because your afriad it may be the next target.All because of Iraq your safety and welfare are at risk.
Former Yugoslavia is a mess because of centuries of ethnic hatred,Just like Northern Ireland. Its hard too build a country when all the different groups want too knife each other and finnish old grudges at any cost.I seriously doubt the U.S could have fixed it any better unless they tossed in some puppet dictator who would rule with a Iron fist.If it waisnt for the U.N in the in former Yugoslavia there would have been a massive Holocaust.
Iraq and Afghanistan have ethnic issues but not anything too the scale of Yugoslavia.
99% of the Spanish population, about, is and was against the war as a unilateral American action. Now, supporting it then and now pulling out isn't something I like much, but cowardice? I'd not go that far. Just not nice... but I can see why they did it and if I was them I probably would too. Bush needs to get the message that unilateralism is bad.
Wether or not Spain is pulling out because of the attacks isn't really that relevant here, it's what the terrorists believe that really matters here and I'd say they probably believe it was because of their attacks that this is happening.
A Black Falcon Wrote:99% of the Spanish population, about, is and was against the war as a unilateral American action. Now, supporting it then and now pulling out isn't something I like much, but cowardice? I'd not go that far. Just not nice... but I can see why they did it and if I was them I probably would too. Bush needs to get the message that unilateralism is bad.
No, I think it's very accurate. Hell, I feel the same way about those of us who want America to give up the fight against terrorism. Getting attacked should make a nation step up their resolve to fight. Instead, they throw the towel and basically beg for mercy. That, my friend, is cowardice.
You have one twisted idea of what I wish we'd do... doing all we can to get the UN's support is quite the opposite of "giving up"... it's doing one of the only things that will get us progress against terrorists!
First. We cannot "win" this war. Terrorism won't go away. What we can do is limit it. But you know what? I'd bet that the Iraq war has CREATED at least as many or more terrorists than it stopped... Afghanistan obviously was much more clear, but Bush abandoned it once he'd "won" because he had to attack Iraq. A sane and thoughtful president would have focused on Afghanistan, by far the most important front in the war on terror... but this idiot has far too few troops there to do much of any good and is letting that nation fail again. Because he doesn't actually care about stopping terrorists, it seems...
As for Iraq, I do think we can't leave. We destroyed their government so it'd be irresponsible to leave. And I think that after supporting us so far it isn't right for Spain to pull out... but when you consider all the facts, for the Spanish the course they're taking is by far the best one. Why in the world should they support us with troops when they get nothing in return? Same with France, Germany, etc. Bush is saying "come in with troops please but we will not actually give you any kind of control over the nation". That is insane and no self-respecting nation should do that!
So as I said, the only way to get more support is to give the UN real power. The only way to do that is to get rid of Bush. Oh, and with the UN there I'm sure that the political situation would improve... oh, there'd still be plenty of terrorists, but there'd be even less public support because they'd see the international community dealing with it and not just our unilateral action that could very well (and partly obviously is) done just for our own ends and not for theirs.
Bush has realized he needs more international support but refuses to do the measures needed to get it because he hates the UN and illogically thinks that it is a failure. It isn't. It's not the most efficient organization, for sure, but nothing of that nature ever could be!
Bosnia/Kosovo? The UN (many of them US troops) has troops there. They are still there, you are right. Why? Look at the news yesterday. There was a massacre... some Kosovars killed some Kosovo Serbs. That's why we're still there. If we left Kosovo and Bosnia would instantly collapse into war and genocide again. We cannot leave. Oh, it is true that we have no exit strategy and we could be there a very long time, but that's the right thing in this situation! It'd be insanely irresponsible to leave!
Iraq? They didn't get rid of Sadaam, but they isolated him, destroyed his Bio/Chem weapons program, limited his income, and forced him to limit his military...what more could you possibly ask for? It's absurd to say they failed in Iraq. Actually, I'd call Iraq 1991-2003 (until right before we attacked) a great success for the UN...
Wether or not Spain is pulling out because of the attacks isn't really that relevant here, it's what the terrorists believe that really matters here and I'd say they probably believe it was because of their attacks that this is happening.
Exactly, Great Rumbler---this will only encourage them. They win if Spain withdraws---or haven't they won already.
but when you consider all the facts, for the Spanish the course they're taking is by far the best one.
Absolutely not! Their leaving is a terrorist victory! Ugh!
Why in the world should they support us with troops when they get nothing in return?
WHAT THE FUCK DID AMERICA GET OUT OF SUPPORTING EUROPE IN EITHER WORLD WAR---EXCEPT FOR A STRING OF BAD DEBTS! Using that same "we don't gain anything" logic, what are we doing in Haiti right now? We don't get anything from having peace troops there.
First. We cannot "win" this war. Terrorism won't go away.
Yes we can, and yes it will---eventually. Having such a weak resolve like YOURS is a crippling thing form the offset. Too bad Franklin D. Roosevelt hadn't said "we can't win against Nazi Germany. The Nazis won't go away." That'd be awesome--and if he'd gone into it half-assed, never believing in ultimate victory. You'd have liked that wouldn't you.
Vous avez un petit pénis
Vous n'avez aucun pénis
And as I said Bush will NEVER do that so the only way to get any international support (and do the right thing in Iraq) is to get rid of Bush.
If that's so (and I'm not crediting it as such), then I guess we just don't need their support. And why does getting "any" international support exclude Poland, Spain, Britain, Holland, Denmark, Australia, etc. etc. ? Aren't those countries just as good--nay, BETTER than many countries who oppose the war? Isn't Britain's military record on par with America's as being the world's greatest? Having 650 countries is nice and everything, but it isn't like it's essential or anything---it just makes the little people who have no clout in the world today feel special.
...and if I was them I probably would too. Bush needs to get the message that unilateralism is bad.
Again, you neglect all those countries in Iraq at this very moment because they aren't the countries that are on your side.
Quote:If that's so (and I'm not crediting it as such), then I guess we just don't need their support. And why does getting "any" international support exclude Poland, Spain, Britain, Holland, Denmark, Australia, etc. etc. ? Aren't those countries just as good--nay, BETTER than many countries who oppose the war? Isn't Britain's military record on par with America's as being the world's greatest? Having 650 countries is nice and everything, but it isn't like it's essential or anything---it just makes the little people who have no clout in the world today feel special.
Exactly! There is a broad coalition despite what Democrats are saying. About the only difference between this and any other action in the past few decades is that we didn't get a mandate from the UN [or help from France and Germany which we usually get]. Alot of countries have sent troops, though, heck even South Korea and Japan have sent troops to Iraq!
I guess we defeated Les Liberaux.
You know what every liberal always ignores, pertaining to Iraq?
Iraqi-Americans overwhelmingly support it. Because they know what the hell was going on. And many of them are insulted by do-gooder lefties who stage protests and condemn the war because, as the Iraqi-Americans rightly say, they don't have a damned clue as to what they're protesting against, and they also, rightly in my opinion, feel the protesters show support to such regimes when they rally against those who remove them.
And honestly, the opinions of the displaced natives count a hell of a lot more than the French or Germans or Madagascarians.
Weltall Wrote:Right. No one's bagging the new Socialist for being a coward, socialists are cowards. Everyone knows this and no one expects anything better from them. What I'm disappointed in is how cowardly the Spanish people are, They stared danger in the face and blinked. Raised the white flag, played French.
Plus, what right-thinking person would unconditionally turn over total control to the UN? Has the UN ever not totally ruined any country it has attempted to rebuild? I mean, look at the former Yugoslavia. Remember that little war we fought five years ago with Serbia? Look how well they kept that up. Now it's looking more and more every day like we'll have to repeat the process again.
Well that's not really the UN's fault as much as it is the mentality of the Balkans. They don't understand anything but conflict, and now it looks like there will be another ethnic war over there. It's very sad, and I'm certainly glad that I no longer live near Yugoslavia.
Quote:WHAT THE FUCK DID AMERICA GET OUT OF SUPPORTING EUROPE IN EITHER WORLD WAR---EXCEPT FOR A STRING OF BAD DEBTS! Using that same "we don't gain anything" logic, what are we doing in Haiti right now? We don't get anything from having peace troops there.
What you got? No more nazis trying to take over the world , You got military bases planted everywhere.Just cause they dont believe in your unilateralism today, doesnt mean europe didnt pay you back in time after ww2 and eventually you got a Healthy economic market.
Why you seem to believe that if people dont agree with you their automatically enemies?
What do you gain by ignoring your neighbor if he is getting knifed by theives?
The attitude that you wont do anything for anyone unless you get somthing in return leaves for a bad society, What if your kids wouldnt do their homework or clean their bed if you didnt pay them? how would you feel about that?
What you would gain out of keeping the peace in Haiti is a new cheap labour market too manufactor your underware.
Quote:Iraqi-Americans overwhelmingly support it. Because they know what the hell was going on. And many of them are insulted by do-gooder lefties who stage protests and condemn the war because, as the Iraqi-Americans rightly say, they don't have a damned clue as to what they're protesting against, and they also, rightly in my opinion, feel the protesters show support to such regimes when they rally against those who remove them.
The reason people opposed the war is because they dont trust your reasons for heading too war ,I can tell you alot of Iraqis (as in Iraqis in Iraq) Dont trust the U.S nore do they like you, Many believe you came soley for the Oil feilds.They are not stupid they know you sided with Saddam Hussein in the 80's and supplied him with weapons and even shaked his hand.If Donald Rumfeld cared so much about Saddams evil deeds today why did he go out and shake his hand and suck his dick in the 80's while he did alot of these things?
![[Image: rumsfeldesaddam%5B1%5D.gif]](http://www.costanzo.org/Images/rumsfeldesaddam%5B1%5D.gif)
What you got? No more nazis trying to take over the world ,
Exactly---and the world was better of for that. And now there aren't any more Baathists terrorizing Iraq. Isn't that good too? I'm glad we had this talk, because now you've come to see it from my point of view.
You got military bases planted everywhere. Just cause they dont believe in your unilateralism today, doesnt mean europe didnt pay you back in time after ww2 and eventually you got a Healthy economic market.
No, I'm pretty sure that Europe just fingered us. As an American I can tell you that having an air force base in Germany isn't quite worth the hundreds of thousands of American killed and wounded, nor the billions and billions of dollars it cost to win the war for Europe---nay, the world.
Why you seem to believe that if people dont agree with you their automatically enemies?
Show me where I said those words. Can't find them? Then stop putting them in my mouth.
What do you gain by ignoring your neighbor if he is getting knifed by theives?
The attitude that you wont do anything for anyone unless you get somthing in return leaves for a bad society, What if your kids wouldnt do their homework or clean their bed if you didnt pay them? how would you feel about that?
You seem to want to be all courageous and gallavant around the world helping the weak and poor--wait, you're AGAINST helping Iraq? Wait a tick...which is it?
What you would gain out of keeping the peace in Haiti is a new cheap labour market too manufactor your underware.
I don't get something.
We made a mistake by installing Saddam (and honestly at the time, one could be forgiven for assuming he was the lesser of two evils), but how on earth does anyone rationalize this belief that because we put him in there makes removing him wrong?
Removing him waisnt the bad part , Its how you did it , Making up a big story about WMD and trying to scare everyone and waisnt even true.If you guys had the made it the point that you would invade because he did crimes agiast humanity and was a evil element that would be a problem in the future things would be different, You didnt give the inspectors enough time and you werent patient if you would have waited you could have had U.N approval, Saddam was contained and waisnt a threat. The war in Iraq is not a war on terrorism just a crappy dictator who hates the jews,But now that you went you burned up your resources and alienated all your allies and if there is another necessary military action like afghanistan somewhere else you wont have the resources and you will be tied up in Iraq.
The reason I brought up that picture , Is that if Rumfeld had a shread of morality he would not have supported saddam and give any weapons too shady dangerous men just in the sole interest of the U.S, I think what he did in the 80's says alot about him today.
Quote:if you would have waited you could have had U.N approval
I doubt it. France, Germany, and Russia did NOT want us going into Iraq and were prepared to veto any resolution we proposed.
alien space marine Wrote:Removing him waisnt the bad part , Its how you did it
That wasn't my point. You, and others, say that the fact we put him in power suggests that we had to right to take him out.
Quote:Making up a big story about WMD and trying to scare everyone and waisnt even true. If you guys had the made it the point that you would invade because he did crimes agiast humanity and was a evil element that would be a problem in the future things would be different, You didnt give the inspectors enough time and you werent patient if you would have waited you could have had U.N approval,
That is such an old myth it's not even funny anymore. It's very common knowledge that everyone, including Saddam, thought he had the WMDs. Clinton was very convinced. Wes Clark was very convinced. Hans Blix just recently stated that he was also very convinced for a long time. The idea that WMD is a lie started by Bush is complete bullshit, and no one ever makes that claim anymore.
Now, we have a certified madman, and the entire world believes he has these weapons. He refuses for years to cooperate with inspectors. Before we had patience, but 9/11 changed that. He still wouldn't cooperate. The UN wasn't working fast enough, 12 years was way more time than necessary. So we took him out. And it was the right thing to do.
Quote:Saddam was contained and waisnt a threat. The war in Iraq is not a war on terrorism just a crappy dictator who hates the jews,But now that you went you burned up your resources and alienated all your allies and if there is another necessary military action like afghanistan somewhere else you wont have the resources and you will be tied up in Iraq.
NOW we know he wasn't a threat. No one knew then. He most certainly put across a convincing performance. Why, only he knows, since it brought him ruin.
Also, I don't think there are any other military operations planned. If one comes up, we'll manage. We always do.
Quote: The reason I brought up that picture , Is that if Rumfeld had a shread of morality he would not have supported saddam and give any weapons too shady dangerous men just in the sole interest of the U.S, I think what he did in the 80's says alot about him today.
Yeah, that people make mistakes, especially when you have the mad Ayatollah in Iran? We made a mistake propping him up. It was hardly the only time. One could just as easily blame Clinton for two major transgressions of a similar taste, one being the disastrous agreement with North Korea that allowed them to build their nuclear weapons program, and the time in 1998 when Sudan offered Bin Laden to America and Clinton refused to take him.
Well its settled , Lets move on.
Quote:That is such an old myth it's not even funny anymore. It's very common knowledge that everyone, including Saddam, thought he had the WMDs. Clinton was very convinced. Wes Clark was very convinced. Hans Blix just recently stated that he was also very convinced for a long time. The idea that WMD is a lie started by Bush is complete bullshit, and no one ever makes that claim anymore.
I'll admit that Bush thought he had them. It is, after all, why he chose it as his main reason for going in -- he thought it was the easiest to prove.
And yes, it wasn't new to Bush and Clinton's administration thought many similar things.
However. If they had really wanted to see what was in Iraq, they would have looked harder. What they essentially did was look a little, trust their sources (who were not exactly always telling the truth), and then make 'maybe's and 'i wish's into "YES THEY ARE THERE"s. Bush is guilty of greatly, greatly inflating very shaky evidence into 'definite proof'. He didn't WANT to know if his evidence was good before going to war -- it might prove him wrong! So he kept saying it and closed his eyes and ignored anything else... okay it was institutional in the CIA to think this, and many in the world did too, but I've read enough about how bad our intelligence in Iraq was after the inspectors left in '98 (the Iraqi claims that the inspectors had US spies among them were absolutely true) to know that we did not have the ability to come anywhere close to claiming what we did. The proof just wasn't there. And the CIA did do some limiting of the reports... it's the Bush administration that removed those qualifications when they talked about that intelligence. So it's close enough to lying to not matter much...
Quote:Now, we have a certified madman, and the entire world believes he has these weapons. He refuses for years to cooperate with inspectors. Before we had patience, but 9/11 changed that. He still wouldn't cooperate. The UN wasn't working fast enough, 12 years was way more time than necessary. So we took him out. And it was the right thing to do.
Absolutely ridiculous! Now, the UN from '91 to '98 was in Iraq looking for weapons. They found plants. They found weapons. They confiscated and destroyed them. By being there they kept Sadaam from being able to set up any new weapons factories to make more stuff. They served their purpose perfectly. Then they were kicked out, but still Sadaam didn't make more weapons... the crippling blockade and the threat of their return was obviously strong enough. The UN blockade by the way... then the inspectors returned. They found nothing. Bush said that it didn't work, and he attacked WELL before they could possibly have said a final report. Why? I bet it's because he was afraid that they'd take too long and not find anything and erode any minimal pretext for invasion... so despite the fact that Sadaam was doing as much as he ever would to cooperate (allowing inspections all over, destroying those missiles, etc) he attacked anyway. Your claims here are patently absurd.
Oh, and 9/11 has NO connection to Sadaam. N-O-N-E. THAT we know for a fact.
As for 'Sadaam is a madman' well yeah, he was an awful ruler, but there are SO MANY of those! We don't do anything about, oh, Haiti (well no we are doing a little but not trying very hard, and cutting aid!), Liberia, Burma, China, etc, etc... so that arguement is ridiculous. That wasn't the reason and everyone knows it.
Quote:Yeah, that people make mistakes, especially when you have the mad Ayatollah in Iran? We made a mistake propping him up. It was hardly the only time. One could just as easily blame Clinton for two major transgressions of a similar taste, one being the disastrous agreement with North Korea that allowed them to build their nuclear weapons program, and the time in 1998 when Sudan offered Bin Laden to America and Clinton refused to take him.
Sudan's government is a pretty brutal regime and the nation is in a permanant war, pretty much... not exactly one I'd trust too far... As for North Korea, yes, the Koreans immediately lied and did what they had promised not to do. But you know what? I still think it was probably a good move. We can't "solve" the North Korea problem militarially. Political isolation we try but that nation is the most isolated in the world... and we can only do economic blocade as far as China wants, which is only to a point. As I've said before it's a horrible situation, but I see no way out... making agreements like that and hoping they will listen is about our only option.
Quote:he was an awful ruler, but there are SO MANY of those! We don't do anything about, oh, Haiti (well no we are doing a little but not trying very hard, and cutting aid!), Liberia, Burma, China, etc, etc... so that arguement is ridiculous.
Yeah, why doesn't USA rid those countries of their awful rulers?? Is it 'cause there's no oil reserves or anyway to get a huge payoff from it? [/obviously]
There is no garantee that capturing Bin ladin in sudan would have prevented 9/11, Bin ladin Al'qeada is probaily prepared to operate without him.
I am glad Saddam is gone, I always knew from the day Bush was elected he would go after Saddam, I wonder if 9/11 had not happen would you have still gone and invaded iraq?
I bet he would have come up with an excuse.
Saddam deserved it, plain and simple.
Here, here! Good riddance to that fucker. Who REALLY wishes that he were still in power?
CANADA, FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA: A pox on America for removing that corrupt fanatical tyrant! That was the wrong thing to do!
AMERICA, BRITIAN, (formerly Spain), POLAND, HOLLAND, DENMARK, JAPAN, BULGARIA, TURKEY, PAKISTAN, SLOVAKIA, ROMANIA, NICARAGUA, THE PHILLIPPINES, MACEDONIA, LITHUANIA, LATVIA, ITALY, HUNGARY, GEORGIA, ESTONIA, ERITREA, EL SALVADOR, COLUMBIA, AZERBAIJAN, AUSTRALIA: Why? He was a tyrant, he's started wars, invaded Kuwait, killed millions, is intolerant, hates our guts...
CANADA, FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA:, Yes, yes, we know! But you DIDN'T GET OUR PERMISSION!
France, Germany, Russia: Plus he owed us a bunch of money because we sold him things we weren't supposed to. And then there's the whole oil for food thing that we totalled messed up on and let Saddam imbezle milllions of dollars from.
If weapons were found , Then I would take everything back and Join the pro war gang.
The Iraq war has a consiquence nobody will believe U.S inteligence anymore then someone trusting the credibility of a tabloid.The Arabs saw the Iraq war as a act of agression of the muslim world and it may surprise you but they were all cheering for the iraqis resisting.
In canada's position we wouldnt join without U.N approval,I thought the reasons of the canadian politicians on the right wing who wanted too go to war had selfish reasons, Namely Soley too please the U.S and get economic gains. It waisnt a war we believed in and we wouldnt go solely too get economic gains.
You (Darunia/Weltall) are so dumb... why in the WORLD should Germany, France, and Russia do what we want when we are 1) attacking them (see Rumsfeldt's 'Old Europe' insults, and the innumerable insults Bush has thrown Europe's way) 2) belittling them (they are the biggest force behind the UN, I'd say, and you idiots make it sound like that organization isn't working -- a completely false assumption as Iraq shows) and 3) denying them any authority ("please support our war, even though we won't give you one whit of real power there and will hog it, and all the contracts, for ourself!", as well as "the UN will have authority in Iraq over our dead bodies"...)...
They'd have to be mentally insane to go along! As for the nations that did... Britain, Spain, and Italy had rulers who did it against the strong wills of their people. They believed the US intelligence. They got burned. As for Eastern Europe, they're small, weak nations and want to suck up to us as much as possible... oh, and they do have a more legitimate reason for disliking Sadaam as they have much more recent memories of tyrants.
See no one is saying Sadaam was a good man or anything. Just that flouting (or, really, breaking) international law to do it, and doing it in the way we did, with no legal backing, is the worst possible way to change a regime. It sends a horrible message to the world and creates FAR more evil than it solves! It's amazing that you're still saying that we are SAFER after getting rid of Sadaam... I know a while back Howard Dean got burned for saying that capturning Sadaam didn't make us any safer, but he's absolutely right...
Quote:It's amazing that you're still saying that we are SAFER after getting rid of Sadaam... I know a while back Howard Dean got burned for saying that capturning Sadaam didn't make us any safer, but he's absolutely right...
How are we not safer? Any terrorist attacks in the US lately?
That's what I thought.
Sadaam had nothing to do with 9-11 so that's irrelevant...
No it certainly is not. You are saying we are in more danger now of terrorist attacks, yet we've not had one in America since the big one three years ago, nor has Al Qaeda so much as directly attacked any purely US interests overseas, something they did pretty frequently before 9/11. Not to mention, other nations, such as Libya and Iran, have seen what we can do. Libya gave up on it's weapons program. Iran has not but may. This war has sent shockwaves through the Arab world, and because of that we have effectively neutered one longtime enemy and may do so with another, ad we have definitely made sure none of them are going to attack us unless they entertain a death wish. And we accomplished this merely by taking down one dictator. By my reckoning we are far safer now than we were during the Clinton era. So I'd like for you to explain why we are less safe now.
Erm... completely wrong. Terrorist bombing in Madrid. Recently. Al-Quaida ties. Also since 9-11 there has been a lot of other terrorism with ties to them overseas... the nightclub in Bali, some bombings in Morocco, etc... yes, nothing in the US, but that's because of the additional vigilance of 9-11, not anything to do with Iraq. I'd certainly say that destroying Iraq made us less secure, not more secure. After all it's made many Arabs hate us even MORE, and has antagonized a lot of people there... yes some have grown to like us more, but it only takes a few to have an effective terrorist network... I'd bet that this has more than anything strengthened international terrorist ties in Iraq. After all, Sadaam and Osama were at odds philosophically and with Sadaam gone it gives more room for groups like Al Quaida to come in...
Look, after 9-11 we obviously had to do something. That's why I'm not opposed to the war in Afghanistan. But Iraq had nothing to do with it! It was just using a great excuse to do something his family had wanted ever since Bush lost in '92...
Oh yeah and as this 9-11 commission is showing, Bush II was not exactly any better at antiterrorism than Clinton until 9-11. You can't blame Clinton much without also blaming pre-9-11-Bush at the same time. After 9-11 obviously ANY administration would do more... it's the extent and the means of the 'more' (and the cynical exploitation of that for their own gains!) that's the problem here.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Erm... completely wrong. Terrorist bombing in Madrid. Recently. Al-Quaida ties. Also since 9-11 there has been a lot of other terrorism with ties to them overseas... the nightclub in Bali, some bombings in Morocco, etc... yes, nothing in the US, but that's because of the additional vigilance of 9-11, not anything to do with Iraq. I'd certainly say that destroying Iraq made us less secure, not more secure. After all it's made many Arabs hate us even MORE, and has antagonized a lot of people there... yes some have grown to like us more, but it only takes a few to have an effective terrorist network... I'd bet that this has more than anything strengthened international terrorist ties in Iraq. After all, Sadaam and Osama were at odds philosophically and with Sadaam gone it gives more room for groups like Al Quaida to come in...
Al Qaeda is specifically attacking interests that are not ours, because they know that these nations will never retaliate against them. They did the same to us when we wouldn't retaliate. But they know now that the US (unless Kerry is elected) will open the gates of hell for anyone who attacks us. They are cowards. 9/11 was a huge error on their part because they had no idea we'd go all out on them... why would they? We always let them get away with this sort of thing before. While they'd never admit it, they fear us now. They are not nearly so willing to stage a real attack against us unless it's a huge one, something truly crippling, because they know if they go bigger and don't wipe us out, we will wipe them out. If they nuked a city or something like that, I doubt any but the worst liberal apologists would object to America scouring every last greasy Al Qaeda fuck off the face of the earth. They know this, and that is why they do not attack us.
Also, other enemy nations see this exact same thing. They know that none of them has a snowball's chance of surviving an American invasion. Few of them are led by fools stupid enough to attack us.
No, we are without doubt safer and more secure now than we have been in over ten years. But if we allow them the time, they will do their damnedest to attain such hold that they can threaten us again. Since liberals have had a historically soft stance on terrorism, this is a major reason why Kerry cannot win this race.
Quote:Look, after 9-11 we obviously had to do something. That's why I'm not opposed to the war in Afghanistan. But Iraq had nothing to do with it! It was just using a great excuse to do something his family had wanted ever since Bush lost in '92...
Oh yeah and as this 9-11 commission is showing, Bush II was not exactly any better at antiterrorism than Clinton until 9-11. You can't blame Clinton much without also blaming pre-9-11-Bush at the same time. After 9-11 obviously ANY administration would do more... it's the extent and the means of the 'more' (and the cynical exploitation of that for their own gains!) that's the problem here.
You refer to the testimony by Dick Clarke? The testimony that has been largely discredited by his own past statements? He's bitter because he lost his job. His past statements are in complete contradiction to what he says now (just like Wes Clark, must be something about the name). Clarke is a liar, and his credibility was called into question numerous times during the hearings. After all, if Bush's supposed weakness on terrorism bothered him so much, why wait all this time to say something about it? Why, because he needed the controversy to wait until his book was published!
After all, Bush never had Bin Laden presented to him on a silver platter and REFUSED to take him. Bush didn't allow half a dozen Al Qaeda attacks against America, one in the World Trade Center, go completely unanswered and unpunished... well, okay, we did bomb an innocent aspirin factory in Sudan, and a few camels and uninhabited desert terrain in Afghanistan once... Bush wasn't the president who gutted military and intelligence funding. Plus, there were eight years of Clintonocracy before 9/11, as opposed to eight months of Bush.
Slick Willy definitely bears the burden of blame for this. By my reckoning of time, he's twelve times more blameworthy purely on the basis of how long he allowed it to go on, to say nothing of the direct steps he took to weaken our defenses. To suggest otherwise is fallacy and in direct defiance of mountains of evidence.
Quote:You refer to the testimony by Dick Clarke? The testimony that has been largely discredited by his own past statements? He's bitter because he lost his job. His past statements are in complete contradiction to what he says now (just like Wes Clark, must be something about the name). Clarke is a liar, and his credibility was called into question numerous times during the hearings. After all, if Bush's supposed weakness on terrorism bothered him so much, why wait all this time to say something about it? Why, because he needed the controversy to wait until his book was published!
After all, Bush never had Bin Laden presented to him on a silver platter and REFUSED to take him. Bush didn't allow half a dozen Al Qaeda attacks against America, one in the World Trade Center, go completely unanswered and unpunished... well, okay, we did bomb an innocent aspirin factory in Sudan, and a few camels and uninhabited desert terrain in Afghanistan once... Bush wasn't the president who gutted military and intelligence funding. Plus, there were eight years of Clintonocracy before 9/11, as opposed to eight months of Bush.
Slick Willy definitely bears the burden of blame for this. By my reckoning of time, he's twelve times more blameworthy purely on the basis of how long he allowed it to go on, to say nothing of the direct steps he took to weaken our defenses. To suggest otherwise is fallacy and in direct defiance of mountains of evidence.
Which is why Clarke said he would fully support opening the testimony he gave in 2002 to public record?
Anyway it's not just him that presents a picture of Bush essentially continuing Clinton-ish terrorism policies for those 8 months, it's everything else too! There is nothing that denies it. And why not? America was complacent... it was hardly just the Democrats who didn't see it coming (despite some warnings)! Your continual attempts to blame every ill this country has (and many it doesn't) on Clinton is so idiotic that it's just about pointless to try to say how stupid you are...
Yes, Clinton didn't make a maximum effort to catch Bin Laden. But Republicans are equally to blame! How about Clarke? Put in office by Bush I. And from 1994 they controlled the House. And people like the Defence Seceratary (Cohen for the second term at least) were Republicans... and Bush before 9-11 didn't try any harder than Clinton! Acting like he was something special and worse is completely false and it's just like you to try it.
We should have seen something coming, but America is insular and doesn't really feel like it can be hurt... they're so far away... and we had inservice rivalries (FBI-CIA not sharing info was crucial for the intelligence failures here...), etc... there are many factors...
Oh, as for why Clinton didn't get Bin Laden, well, there was that one missile strike and they said that they were very close several other times but other factors -- unsure intelligence, the possibility for innocent casualties -- made them not do it...
Quote:Al Qaeda is specifically attacking interests that are not ours, because they know that these nations will never retaliate against them. They did the same to us when we wouldn't retaliate. But they know now that the US (unless Kerry is elected) will open the gates of hell for anyone who attacks us. They are cowards. 9/11 was a huge error on their part because they had no idea we'd go all out on them... why would they? We always let them get away with this sort of thing before. While they'd never admit it, they fear us now. They are not nearly so willing to stage a real attack against us unless it's a huge one, something truly crippling, because they know if they go bigger and don't wipe us out, we will wipe them out. If they nuked a city or something like that, I doubt any but the worst liberal apologists would object to America scouring every last greasy Al Qaeda fuck off the face of the earth. They know this, and that is why they do not attack us.
Also, other enemy nations see this exact same thing. They know that none of them has a snowball's chance of surviving an American invasion. Few of them are led by fools stupid enough to attack us.
No, we are without doubt safer and more secure now than we have been in over ten years. But if we allow them the time, they will do their damnedest to attain such hold that they can threaten us again. Since liberals have had a historically soft stance on terrorism, this is a major reason why Kerry cannot win this race.
Check: We will make ourselves safer by getting everyone in the world to hate us more than they ever have before. Makes a lot of sense to me, uh huh!
And I doubt that they're holding back that much. For one thing it's just easier to strike those places. Much closer to home. They also have more terrorists there and have much larger local groups that might support them...
Oh, there were terror attacks in Turkey too...
Anyway, if anyone's holding back from going after Al Quaida it's Bush. Why? Iraq! Iraq and Bush's insane hatred of peacekeeping. We should be in Afghanistan in force. We are not. Why not? Iraq. Iraq is also draining our money so Afghanistan is abandoned. Hmm, kind of defeating your own position of "destroying the terrorists", you think? I sure do!
See, Sadaam was evil and supported the Palestinians, but wasn't big behind anti-US (directly) terrorism. Al Quaida obviously was, as things like the USS Cole show... there isn't a good 'terrorism' excuse for attacking Iraq. As I said, there's a better terrorism excuse for NOT attacking Iraq!
Oh, and liberals aren't any easier on terrorists. They just use methods like "international law" to go after them that you detest... maybe because they'd actually make the US more "popular" in the world and you'd rather be detested? I don't know...
Most of the Terrorist cells and activities have been captured by police work and internation cooperation, All the heads hunches of Bin ladin were captured by pakistan.
The reason there hasint been any attacks is because any Arab muslim in north america is being monitored carefully.
A Black Falcon Wrote:Which is why Clarke said he would fully support opening the testimony he gave in 2002 to public record?
Anyway it's not just him that presents a picture of Bush essentially continuing Clinton-ish terrorism policies for those 8 months, it's everything else too! There is nothing that denies it. And why not? America was complacent... it was hardly just the Democrats who didn't see it coming (despite some warnings)! Your continual attempts to blame every ill this country has (and many it doesn't) on Clinton is so idiotic that it's just about pointless to try to say how stupid you are...
Yes, Clinton didn't make a maximum effort to catch Bin Laden. But Republicans are equally to blame! How about Clarke? Put in office by Bush I. And from 1994 they controlled the House. And people like the Defence Seceratary (Cohen for the second term at least) were Republicans... and Bush before 9-11 didn't try any harder than Clinton! Acting like he was something special and worse is completely false and it's just like you to try it.
8 Years! Several terrorist bombings! We should have started this war on terror the FIRST time Bin Laden targeted the WTC! There was one terrorist attack on the United States during Bush's tenure: 9/11. How many under Clinton? Bush responded to a terrorist attack the way Clinton should have responded to the many we took while under his control. Now, should Bush have done something the minute he took office? Yes, he should have. But the simple fact remains: The worst Bush could be accused of is lack of initiative (and honestly, given the Democrats' anger over losing the election, I find it incredibly hard to believe they'd allow any proactive anti-terror policies to survive the thinking phase when they never responded to direct attacks). Clinton can be blamed for worse: Failure to respond. Multiple failures to respond. No way in hell could Bush and Clinton's terror policies be considered similar. The differences are so staggering it doesn't begin to compare.
Quote:We should have seen something coming, but America is insular and doesn't really feel like it can be hurt... they're so far away... and we had inservice rivalries (FBI-CIA not sharing info was crucial for the intelligence failures here...), etc... there are many factors...
Oh, as for why Clinton didn't get Bin Laden, well, there was that one missile strike and they said that they were very close several other times but other factors -- unsure intelligence, the possibility for innocent casualties -- made them not do it...
Oh, come on. Clinton did not make one single concerted effort to nail this guy, even when he was to be given to us! He might very well have totally prevented 9/11 by taking Bin Laden in 1998! Nope. Let him get away.
Quote:Check: We will make ourselves safer by getting everyone in the world to hate us more than they ever have before. Makes a lot of sense to me, uh huh!
They may hate us. But they also fear us. And most nations care more about self-preservation than destroying an enemy exponentially more powerful than themselves. Of course, the evidence of enemy nations backing down means nothing to you. The Iraq war will end up a stroke of genius, if these other nations keep dummying up and continue deleting their weapons programs.
And I doubt that they're holding back that much. For one thing it's just easier to strike those places. Much closer to home. They also have more terrorists there and have much larger local groups that might support them...
Quote:Anyway, if anyone's holding back from going after Al Quaida it's Bush. Why? Iraq! Iraq and Bush's insane hatred of peacekeeping. We should be in Afghanistan in force. We are not. Why not? Iraq. Iraq is also draining our money so Afghanistan is abandoned. Hmm, kind of defeating your own position of "destroying the terrorists", you think? I sure do!
See above.
Quote:See, Sadaam was evil and supported the Palestinians, but wasn't big behind anti-US (directly) terrorism. Al Quaida obviously was, as things like the USS Cole show... there isn't a good 'terrorism' excuse for attacking Iraq. As I said, there's a better terrorism excuse for NOT attacking Iraq!
No, there isn't.
[/quote]Oh, and liberals aren't any easier on terrorists. They just use methods like "international law" to go after them that you detest... maybe because they'd actually make the US more "popular" in the world and you'd rather be detested? I don't know...[/QUOTE]
How has using international law ever stopped terrorism? What has the UN done that ever curbed a terrorist organization? Hell, many UN members openly applaud the Palestinian terrorists!
You see, I don't care about America winning a Miss Popularity contest like you do. I care about American dismantling Islamic terrorism. Playing nice did not do that. Ignoring the problem certainly did not make it go away. The last option is to perform surgery and remove the cancer. And so far it's worked beautifully.
And if the rest of the world doesn't like it, fuck em. They're not the ones in the crosshairs, they ignore and sometimes excaberate the problem, therefore, their opinion means nothing.
Quote:Oh, come on. Clinton did not make one single concerted effort to nail this guy, even when he was to be given to us! He might very well have totally prevented 9/11 by taking Bin Laden in 1998! Nope. Let him get away.
It may not have prevented 9/11, It may have actually have been a reason for the terrorist to be more motivated too do attacks.9/11 would have been a retaliation for capturing Bin ladin which is what Colon Powell said himself.
before 9/11 the idea of a full scale attack on home turf would have been just dismissed as Holywood fiction, No one could have even contemplated 9/11.
Right. No one in America even considered that such a thing could happen. Trying to blame it on Clinton is idiotic because EVERYONE, from BOTH parties, had the same opinion (or very close) on the issue...
Quote:They may hate us. But they also fear us. And most nations care more about self-preservation than destroying an enemy exponentially more powerful than themselves. Of course, the evidence of enemy nations backing down means nothing to you. The Iraq war will end up a stroke of genius, if these other nations keep dummying up and continue deleting their weapons programs.
And I doubt that they're holding back that much. For one thing it's just easier to strike those places. Much closer to home. They also have more terrorists there and have much larger local groups that might support them...
Like the evidence of how much the Iraqis now hate us, largely because of how badly we've bungled this war, means nothing to you? Or how the fact that the world hates America now more than ever before means nothing to you?
Quote:No, there isn't.
Iraq: Supports Palestinian terrorists against Israel. Other than that, no real support for terrorism. Afghanistan: Grows most of the world's opium poppies. Supports Al-Quaida strongly. Base for anti-American terrorists. So what does Bush do? Yup, he severely skimps on Afghanistan and leaves it to tear itsself apart again so that he can get back at Sadaam for his father's "mistake" of not taking him out! Great!
Oh, did you see Colin Powell's admission today that some of that "evidence" he presented to the UN about Bio/Chem weapons was 'shaky'? I thought so from the start, but it's great to see him finally admit it...
Quote:You see, I don't care about America winning a Miss Popularity contest like you do. I care about American dismantling Islamic terrorism. Playing nice did not do that. Ignoring the problem certainly did not make it go away. The last option is to perform surgery and remove the cancer. And so far it's worked beautifully.
And if the rest of the world doesn't like it, fuck em. They're not the ones in the crosshairs, they ignore and sometimes excaberate the problem, therefore, their opinion means nothing.
And you act SURPRISED when anti-American/American-allied terrorism increases? Insane. Absolutely insane.