Author Topic: To war, or not to war......that is the question  (Read 26752 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #90 on: February 14, 2007, 07:10:40 PM »
<<Well, as I saw it, given what we knew at the time, I can't see Bush doing anything else, but what he did.  And for that I appplaud his leadership, realizing the absolute repercussions that could come about from such decision making>>

It's pretty obvious from the thread that there are those who believe a preventive war is justified and those who believe it is not.  The Charter of the United Nations obviously prohibits a preventive war.  The U.S. is a charter member of the U.N. and is pledged to observe its Charter, including the preventive war provisions (Article 4 I believe) but apparently under the current U.S. regime, a signature on a treaty is virtually meaningless. 

Let me also add, in the context of the U.S. war on Iraq, the concept of it even possibly being a preventive war is laughable, no matter what sirs claims all the intelligence agencies of the world believed.  The idea that Iraq would ever attack the U.S. with WMD is preposterous and most people understand that.  This was never a preventive war, not even in the minds of those who planned it.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #91 on: February 14, 2007, 07:34:22 PM »
The idea that Iraq would ever attack the U.S. with WMD is preposterous and most people understand that.  

And the idea that Tee keeps propping that pathetic distortion up as the reason we went to war, is just as, if not more preposterous     
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #92 on: February 14, 2007, 08:21:29 PM »
<<And the idea that Tee keeps propping that pathetic distortion up as the reason we went to war, is just as, if not more preposterous >>

Why would any sane, normal (i.e. non-paranoid) individual ever believe that Saddam Hussein, even if he HAD weapons of mass destruction, would take the suicidal step (for both himself and his whole country) of attacking the U.S.A. with them?  Considering that the U.S.A. not only has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and abundant means of delivery, but could not conceivably be knocked out of action by any Iraqi first strike, and is the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons on its enemies, not once but twice?  Only a nut could believe that there was any danger of an Iraqi WMD attack on the U.S.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #93 on: February 14, 2007, 08:44:56 PM »
<<And the idea that Tee keeps propping that pathetic distortion up as the reason we went to war, is just as, if not more preposterous >>

Why would any sane, normal (i.e. non-paranoid) individual ever believe that Saddam Hussein, even if he HAD weapons of mass destruction, would take the suicidal step (for both himself and his whole country) of attacking the U.S.A. with them?  

Because that's (one more time) NEVER BEEN THE CLAIM (that he was prepping to attack america).  Nor would most sane people consider Saddam sane to the point of fearing America.  I'll go one better though.  Prove me wrong.  Show me the claim by Bush co, that we had to go into Iraq to prevent Saddam from taking out the likes of Boston.  Not some nebulous reference to a mushroom cloud, with your then tee-leaf application of what it meant.  Quotes in complete context, if you don't mind.
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #94 on: February 14, 2007, 11:59:12 PM »
Show me the evidence that the Iraqi Government had dealings with al-Qaeda. You've yet to show me this evidence, but you continue to make the assertion.

Iraq-al-Qaida links go back decade
CIA reports show nearly 100 examples of cooperation, says reporter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 11, 2002
CIA reports of Iraqi-al-Qaida cooperation number nearly 100 and extend back to 1992, according to a reporter for Vanity Fair whose sources include senior Pentagon officials.

David Rose, writing for the magazine and the United Kingdom's Evening Standard, says he is convinced of the links between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's Baghdad regime.

"My own doubts emerged more than a year ago, when a very senior CIA man told me that, contrary to the line his own colleagues were assiduously disseminating, there was evidence of an Iraq-al-Qaida link," Rose writes. "He confirmed a story I had been told by members of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress – that two of the hijackers, Marwan Al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, had met Mukhabarat officers in the months before 9-11 in the United Arab Emirates. This, he said, was a pattern of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida which went back years."

Rose reveals in the new issue of Vanity Fair that the Pentagon established a special intelligence unit to re-examine evidence of an Iraq-al-Qaida connection earlier this year. The CIA cooperated by supplying the unit with copies of its reports going back a decade.

"I have spoken to three senior officials who have seen its conclusions, which are striking," he writes. "'In the Cold War,' says one of them, 'often you'd draw firm conclusions and make policy on the basis of just four or five reports. Here there are almost 100 separate examples of Iraq-al-Qaida cooperation going back to 1992.'"

Assertions that Iraq is cooperating and supporting al-Qaida are supported by the findings of a new book by a top terrorism expert.

Yossef Bodansky, author of "The High Cost of Peace," says joint preparations by Hussein, Yasser Arafat and al-Qaida for a new wave of anti-U.S. terror began last spring. The model for the terrorism campaign is Arafat's Black September Organization of the 1970s.

The initiative for the alliance came from Palestinian Islamists based in Lebanon and Syria, according to Bodansky, the U.S. Congress' top terrorism adviser. The response from al-Qaida came April 2, says Bodansky.

"A group calling itself the bin Laden Brigades-Palestine issued a statement formally integrating the Islamist and Fatah wave of anti-Israel terrorism into bin Laden's global jihad," he writes in his new book. "The bin Laden Brigades announced that their forces were now at the disposal of 'Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and fighter commander Marwan al-Barghouti' to fight 'alongside the Brigades' fighters and the Islamic factions.' The statement emphasized that numerous Palestinian factions, specifically including al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, '[had] become part of the International Front for Fighting Jews and Christians, led by Osama bin Laden.' They now '[had] found the path of Islam and adopted the line of genuine resistance of the jihad movement and Islamic resistance, that is the path of jihad and martyrdom for the sake of God, and discarded forever the lies of the alleged peace and the myths of negotiations.'"

The anti-U.S. coalition also includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

A communique issued on April 2 from the Unified Leadership of the Intifadah – an umbrella organization representing Arafat's Fatah groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other members of the Palestine Liberation Organization – called for attacks on U.S. interests.

"The United States is backing the Israeli assault on the Palestinians," it said. "Therefore, U.S. facilities, targets and interests throughout the world should be harmed."

Unit 999 of Iraqi intelligence has helped train both Arafat's shock troops and bin Laden's Islamists for suicide operations utilizing weapons of mass destruction. According to Bodansky's book, some of these terrorists have already "succeeded in infiltrating several Arab countries. They are provided with instructions, secret codes and advanced weapons."

According to Israeli sources, the Iraqis permitted the terrorist trainees to test chemical weapons in southern Kurdistan.

More ties to ignore


Iraq, al-Qaida linked by administration
Fleischer hints at more coming on connection
Posted: January 28, 2003

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer confirmed yesterday terrorist detainees from Afghanistan have implicated Iraq in providing training and support to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

Fleischer said the U.S. knows Iraq has supported al-Qaida in the past and there have been "contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of the al-Qaida organization, going back for quite a long time."

"We know, too, that several of the detainees, particularly some of the high-level detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida and chemical weapons development," said Fleischer. "There are contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history of terrorism in general. And again, if you are waiting for the smoking gun, the problem is, when you see the smoke coming out of the gun, it's too late; the damage has been done."

Fleischer hinted that more would be forthcoming on this connection – perhaps even in tonight's State of the Union address.

"One factor I think you also have to consider is given the fact that Afghanistan provided a very large training ground and operational ground to al-Qaida, many of their needs were taken care of in Afghanistan until Sept. 11, and then their activities in Afghanistan have been widely disrupted," he said. "And this is an unfolding story, and I think you'll hear more of it."

President Bush is expected to spell out the threat Iraq poses to U.S. interests, explain why he has dispatched some 150,000 U.S. troops to the Gulf, insist that he does not want war, but assert that Baghdad is running out of time to disarm. Reportedly, the president will leave it to Secretary of State Colin Powell to build the U.S. case that Iraq has ties to bin Laden's network.

"The information that we can divulge in greater detail, we will be divulging in the days ahead," Powell told reporters yesterday.

Iraq has no links to al-Qaida, said Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri at a press conference yesterday following remarks by Powell and Fleischer

And still more references


And that's just the intel we've been privvy to, for public consumption.  Now, what will your response be, I wonder? 


Quote
Your gamble, though personally speaking, given what Bush knew at the time, I'm appreciative he didn't take that one

You asked the question Sirs and I gave the answer. "Preventive war" is not just war. Iraq was not an immediate threat to this country, nor any of her neighbors. We couldn't even use "defence of others" as an argument. The war was unjustified.

Well, as I saw it, given what we knew at the time, I can't see Bush doing anything else, but what he did.  And for that I appplaud his leadership, realizing the absolute repercussions that could come about from such decision making
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #95 on: February 15, 2007, 12:02:20 AM »
<<And the idea that Tee keeps propping that pathetic distortion up as the reason we went to war, is just as, if not more preposterous >>

Why would any sane, normal (i.e. non-paranoid) individual ever believe that Saddam Hussein, even if he HAD weapons of mass destruction, would take the suicidal step (for both himself and his whole country) of attacking the U.S.A. with them?  Considering that the U.S.A. not only has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and abundant means of delivery, but could not conceivably be knocked out of action by any Iraqi first strike, and is the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons on its enemies, not once but twice?  Only a nut could believe that there was any danger of an Iraqi WMD attack on the U.S.


Are we even clear on the concept?

Why do North Korea and Iran want WMD if they are no real deterant?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #96 on: February 15, 2007, 12:08:52 AM »
<<Not some nebulous reference to a mushroom cloud, with your then tee-leaf application of what it meant.  Quotes in complete context, if you don't mind.>>

Nebulous?  "We can't wait until the smoking gun turns into a mushroom cloud" MEANS an atomic attack.  On America, of course.  That's what ANYBODY would understand from that and you too, whether or not you want to admit it.

If you want to pretend those words don't refer to a nuclear attack on America, you go right ahead.  I can't debate against that kind of dishonesty.  The words are right in front of you, and you want to pretend that they don't mean what everybody knows they mean. 

I wouldn't waste another minute on debating the meaning of those words.  All the spin in the world can't change it.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #97 on: February 15, 2007, 01:11:18 AM »
<<Not some nebulous reference to a mushroom cloud, with your then tee-leaf application of what it meant.  Quotes in complete context, if you don't mind.>>

Nebulous?  "We can't wait until the smoking gun turns into a mushroom cloud" MEANS an atomic attack.  On America, of course.  

Yea, as its always been in reference to the region, and always been in reference of preventing Saddam from reaching that level of WMD ability.  Only morons (and apparently that includes those on the left that believed it too), believe it was some imminent attack to American soil

So, basically, we have no quotes to provide.  Only the continued perpetual grotesque distortion of what Condi referenced.  Lame tactic by the left.  Claim something that Bush did/said, then provide examples refuting what never was said. 


 
I wouldn't waste another minute on debating the meaning of those words. 

Smart move
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #98 on: February 15, 2007, 10:32:05 AM »
Let's look at this evidence, shall we?

First, the "evidence" from a Vanity Fair report.

Quote
there are almost 100 separate examples of Iraq-al-Qaida cooperation going back to 1992

Quote
Assertions that Iraq is cooperating and supporting al-Qaida are supported by the findings of a new book by a top terrorism expert...joint preparations by Hussein, Yasser Arafat and al-Qaida for a new wave of anti-U.S. terror began last spring

The timing seems a little off. By the way, it seems very odd that the PLO would wish to engage in a joint operation with al-Qaeda in an operation that calls itself this: International Front for Fighting Jews and Christians. Some of the highest ranking members of the PLO are and were Christians. Reckon they'd support such a nasty endeavor?

Quote
A communique issued on April 2 from the Unified Leadership of the Intifadah – an umbrella organization representing Arafat's Fatah groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other members of the Palestine Liberation Organization – called for attacks on U.S. interests.

Where to begin?

Hamas has never been a member of the PLO. Neither has Islamic Jihad. One of the main differences in those groups is that the PLO recognizes Israel, whereas Islamic Jihad and Hamas did not. Intifadah sounds like a menacing, evil word, but it is merely Arabic for "uprising" (very few of the Palestinian uprisings are "unified" ;) ). Fatah is a secular political party and though they had terrorist activities in the 70's, I doubt they made plans with Islamic Jihad (though I concede it is very possible).

But so what? Saddam Hussein has always supported the PLO, and likely especially Fatah, which includes Baathist elements. This is news? This has no links to handing over WMD to al-Qaeda. The United States likely receives threats from two-bit Middle East terrorist organisations all the time. Clearly we did not take those seriously and none ever came to fruition.

Let's not forget that if we accept this version of connections since 1992 (which I've yet to see any real evidence), nothing happened! It only proves that the two groups found no compatibility. The WTC bombing and the 9/11 attacks needed no state help. Their evil genuis was in their very simplicity.

Quote
Unit 999 of Iraqi intelligence has helped train both Arafat's shock troops and bin Laden's Islamists for suicide operations utilizing weapons of mass destruction.

According to Yossef Bodansky, an Israeli-American who publishes books on defence studies. I'm sure it is a completely objective analysis. By the way here is another quote from Bodansky:

Quote
al-Qaida has not carried out a second major attack on the US until now for internal psychological and ideological reasons, but after the reelection of President George W. Bush, it has gotten the green light to do so from leading Islamic religious luminaries, as well as from the elites of the Arab world.

Interesting.

An article with Powell and Fleischer as the source? Really? Powell who gave the grand show at the United Nations showing the "mobile weapons labs" and detailing the tonnage of the chemical weapons Saddam Hussein definitely had in his posession?

The President would give more detail in the State of the Union address?

You aren't serious.

LOL - I went to the link on your first article and at the bottom is this:
Quote
Related special offer:

Purchase Yossef Bodansky's "The High Cost of Peace."

No, no Bodansky has no interest other than getting the truth out surely!!


Quote
And that's just the intel we've been privvy to, for public consumption.  Now, what will your response be, I wonder?

Link

I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #99 on: February 15, 2007, 11:03:27 AM »
Let's look at this evidence, shall we?.....

The point of the evidence being that there were connections, both direct and indirect to Terrorists, including thse of AlQeada.  At no time have I claimed it was a working relationship (neither has Bush).  At no time have I claimed that Saddam was involved in 911 (neither has Bush).  At no time did I cliam examples of Saddam selling/giving arms to AlQeada (neither has Bush).  You can try to minimize those connections all you want, even try to kill one of the messengers (of the book documenting many of these links), the point being they exist, and have for a decade+ while Saddam was in power.

THAT's the point that I was cliaming (which Bush was as well)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #100 on: February 15, 2007, 11:04:59 AM »
First, the "evidence" from a Vanity Fair report.

What a shame. Mikey has told us that Vanity Fair articles are well researched.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #101 on: February 15, 2007, 11:27:32 AM »
Quote
The point of the evidence being that there were connections, both direct and indirect to Terrorists, including thse of AlQeada.  At no time have I claimed it was a working relationship (neither has Bush).  At no time have I claimed that Saddam was involved in 911 (neither has Bush).  At no time did I cliam examples of Saddam selling/giving arms to AlQeada (neither has Bush).  You can try to minimize those connections all you want, even try to kill one of the messengers (of the book documenting many of these links), the point being they exist, and have for a decade+ while Saddam was in power.

THAT's the point that I was cliaming (which Bush was as well)

In other words the "evidence" is that there were connections, but nothing showing any working relationship, arms deals, or really anything but something akin to the six degrees of Kevin Bacon (that's a joke by the way)?

You really expect this flimsy argument to be enough to send a nation to war and invade another sovereign state? I'm asking sincerely Sirs. Even you admit that the evidence isn't really anything more than a "connection" and nothing involving a working relationship of any kind.

What am I supposed to do with this? In a criminal trial, what would this establish? I'd love to hear Domer's view of what this "evidence" means.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #102 on: February 15, 2007, 11:36:20 AM »
Quote
The point of the evidence being that there were connections, both direct and indirect to Terrorists, including those of AlQeada. ....You can try to minimize those connections all you want, even try to kill one of the messengers, the point being they exist, and have for a decade+ while Saddam was in power.  THAT's the point that I was cliaming

In other words the "evidence" is that there were connections, but nothing showing any working relationship.....

Isn't that what I just said?  FINALLY.  Miracles do happen     ;D


What am I supposed to do with this? In a criminal trial, what would this establish?

Nothing, since this isn't some petty criminal activity.  We're fighting a war.  Whole host of different parameters are involved, if you didn't know
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #103 on: February 15, 2007, 11:55:02 AM »
Quote
Nothing, since this isn't some petty criminal activity.  We're fighting a war.  Whole host of different parameters are involved, if you didn't know

Indeed. One would think the burden of proof would require more than just a "connection."

By the way: Saddam Hussein was portrayed by Jerry Heleva in Hot Shots part Deux which starred Charlie Sheen who starred in Young Guns with Kiefer Sutherland who teamed up with Kevin Bacon in Flatliners.

And that's about as useful as your "connection" theory on justifying warfare.

 
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: To war, or not to war......that is the question
« Reply #104 on: February 15, 2007, 12:10:39 PM »
Quote
Nothing, since this isn't some petty criminal activity.  We're fighting a war.  Whole host of different parameters are involved, if you didn't know

One would think the burden of proof would require more than just a "connection."

As I said, this isn't a criminal activity.  You can't fight a war like it's simply a crime.  And after 911, we had more to go with than just "a connection", than you very much.


By the way: Saddam Hussein was portrayed by Jerry Heleva in Hot Shots part Deux which starred Charlie Sheen who starred in Young Guns with Kiefer Sutherland who teamed up with Kevin Bacon in Flatliners.  And that's about as useful as your "connection" theory on justifying warfare.

In reality no, thankfully there was far more than that
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle