The Hunting of the (terrorist) Snark

[Xavier_Onassis]

Iraq had nothing whatever to do with 9-11.

There were no weapons of mass destruction that threatened the US in any way.

Iraq has elections, but that is just one feature of a democratic state.

There was no good reason to invade Iraq.
The only legitimate justification for staying is to prevent someone else getting all that oil, and Iran having undue influence on Iraq's government. That, and so we can say that the US never loses and these colors don't run and other such silly horsesh*t.

The illegitimate reason is to allow US companies to grab the oil. And perhaps to make Israel happy.

------------------------------

[sirs]

- No one has said other wise

- No one has claimed otherwise

- Good start

- Yes, there was

- thank you for the completely unsubstantiated opinion

[hnumpah]

No one has claimed otherwise

You know that's a lie. At the time, the biggest excuse given was WMD. Condibird even mentioned the spectre of a mushroom cloud rising from a terrorist bomb. Powell, bless his poor, trusting heart, stood up in front of the world and pointed out 'mobile chemical labs'. Cheney, at one point, even claimed we knew exactly where the WMDs were.

[sirs]

No one has claimed otherwise

You know that's a lie.

Clarity H.  Xo is nearly always referencing a WMD that could be launched from Iraq, by Iraq, that would decimate the U.S., as per the Bush administration.  Which NO ONE has claimed, or even implied.  Sorry for the confusion

If he were to stun me and actually be referencing WMD, (i.e. mustard gas or sarin or botulin toxin) in the hands of terrorists that would use them in the U.S., I'd have to commend him, and rephrase my response

[Universe Prince]

Ooook

"I recommended that we basically hunt down the people who have actually done something to us,"

President Bush has done this in spades. In hindsight it might be pointed out one or another thing that could have been done better choices made diffrently , but hindsight is an unfair advantage. Attacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .

Bzzzz. No, but thank you for playing. No, attacking al-Qaeda in Iraq was not going after the people who attacked us, even if we allow the assertion that attacking al-Qaeda was a reason for war with Iraq in the first place.

Allowing for the advantage of hindsight what could you have done better?

Don't say not invadeing Iraq , because you also said "leave them no ground to hide in," which I assume means leave them no ground to hide in, don't say No I don't mean invadeing Packistan , Phillipines , Saudi Arabia etc. because you have also said " leave no hideing places" which I assume means "leave them no ground to hide in,".

Well, I have to burst your bubble, because I am going to say not invading Iraq. You're still assuming things, Plane. When I said "hunt down the people who have actually done something to us" you quite apparently assumed that means hunting down the whole of al-Qaeda. Here is a clue: that is not what it means. What my plan would have done better is focus in accomplishing a specific goal of capturing or killing those who were responsible for the attack on us, rather than start up a scatter shot war on a concept that we apply to anyone we please.

And I have to say that I don't understand your assumption, because I don't know what part of "people who have actually done something to us" is unclear.

In reply 15 you said "You're assuming all detainees are captured on the battlefield. That is an incorrect assumption."

This is an incorrect assumption on your part, I already knew that many of those picked up were picked up from police work , I already knew that most of the battlefeild captures were left in local prisons .

Something you could have mentioned well before now. Perhaps back when I explained, "You seem, so far as I can tell, to give no acknowledgment that many of the detainees are not captured on the battlefield. So I'm not assuming anything. I made a reasonable conclusion based on your comments." If my conclusion was incorrect, you have only yourself to blame.

Police work? As I understand it was not so much police work as hearsay and snitches. Which is not the same as police work, not by a long shot.

But while you advocate makeing all captures from police work only --- wait is that an assumption?
Since you advocate useing Armed forces in co-ordination with police work -- I gotta assume it is one or the other.
Either you advocate doing something innefective or you advocate doing the Bush program.
Depending on which you mean .

That is a false dichotomy. You have not shown my suggestion to be ineffective for one, and for another, you're still assuming that Bush's chosen course of action is the only effective means of achieving, well, apparently anything. So the reasonable decision here is to reject your false dichotomy as laughable at best.

[Universe Prince]

Attacking Al Queda in Iraq was going after the People that attacked us .

Is that why we invaded Iraq?

I don't see how it could be. We have been assured many times over that the Bush administration never linked Iraq to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

[Plane]

When I said "hunt down the people who have actually done something to us" you quite apparently assumed that means hunting down the whole of al-Qaeda. Here is a clue: that is not what it means. What my plan would have done better is focus in accomplishing a specific goal of capturing or killing those who were responsible for the attack on us, rather than start up a scatter shot war on a concept that we apply to anyone we please.

And I have to say that I don't understand your assumption, because I don't know what part of "people who have actually done something to us" is unclear.[/color]





[/quotte]

Aaah that is much more clear, you want to pick up only the individuals that actually have carried out an operation or pulled a trigger?

That is not the Bush plan at all. President Bush tried to smash the organisation , freeze their funding and deny them places to hide or train. The programs of the past had a lot of success at locateing guilty individuals and bringing them to trial , so your suggestion is to return to the most effectivce policys we had in the years leading up to the 9-11 event. No invasions , no disruptions of sponsor nations , no breaking up of the main organisation or killing of their leadership.

  It seems that you are reccomending all the things that 9-11 proved the effectiveness of.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't see how it could be. We have been assured many times over that the Bush administration never linked Iraq to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

============================
Before the invasion, pretty much all the Juniorbushies did was imply that Iraq was payback for 9-11.

Had 9-11 never happened, there was NO WAY the Congress would have approved a preemptive war, and NO WAY even 30% of the people would have stood for it.

[Plane]

Had 9-11 never happened, there was NO WAY the Congress would have approved a preemptive war, and NO WAY even 30% of the people would have stood for it.

That strikes me as accurate.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Had 9-11 never happened, there was NO WAY the Congress would have approved a preemptive war, and NO WAY even 30% of the people would have stood for it.

That strikes me as accurate.

----------------------------------------
And because of this, the Iraq invasion was a direct result of 9-11, even though not one of the terrorists had any links to Iran.

[Plane]

Had 9-11 never happened, there was NO WAY the Congress would have approved a preemptive war, and NO WAY even 30% of the people would have stood for it.

That strikes me as accurate.

----------------------------------------
And because of this, the Iraq invasion was a direct result of 9-11, even though not one of the terrorists had any links to Iran.

I think you are still accurate.

[Cynthia]

No one has claimed otherwise

You know that's a lie. At the time, the biggest excuse given was WMD. Condibird even mentioned the spectre of a mushroom cloud rising from a terrorist bomb. Powell, bless his poor, trusting heart, stood up in front of the world and pointed out 'mobile chemical labs'. Cheney, at one point, even claimed we knew exactly where the WMDs were.

You know that's a lie.

No, I don't think he does. Sirs has listened to his own rhetoric for so long now.......that he's gone WMDdeaf. Come on, Sirs. You KNOW THAT'S A LIE. geeez.

[Universe Prince]

Aaah that is much more clear, you want to pick up only the individuals that actually have carried out an operation or pulled a trigger?

So "people who have actually done something to us" was not clear?

That is not the Bush plan at all.

Finally.

It seems that you are reccomending all the things that 9-11 proved the effectiveness of.

No, not really, but if that helps you sleep at night, then you go with that.

[Plane]

Aaah that is much more clear, you want to pick up only the individuals that actually have carried out an operation or pulled a trigger?

So "people who have actually done something to us" was not clear?

That is not the Bush plan at all.

Finally.

It seems that you are recommending all the things that 9-11 proved the effectiveness of.

No, not really, but if that helps you sleep at night, then you go with that.

Yes really, The guys that bombed the Towers in 93 were rounded up , the guy that shot the CIA employees was picked up in his home country the police and FBI did what they did and caught most of the people who actually had come the the USA after they committed a crime. Leaving their organisation unscathed in Afganistan.

You are just being nostalgic for a system s it used to be, forgetting its failures as nostalgia will do.


I am afaraid I did assume faslely that you could not mean arresting triggermen only , I must be giveing your thinking to much credit for being thought out.

[hnumpah]

No, I don't think he does. Sirs has listened to his own rhetoric for so long now.......that he's gone WMDdeaf.

I think you're right, despite his assertion that 'Xo is nearly always referencing a WMD that could be launched from Iraq, by Iraq, that would decimate the U.S., as per the Bush administration' (I've long known he feels he has the ability to read minds). I think he's repeated the administration's and his own bullshit for so long that he can no longer believe anything else. To do so would be to admit he was wrong, and complicit in the murders of over 4000 American troops who swore to protect and defend the United States, but instead were ordered to illegally invade another sovereign country simply because our president wanted to be a war president, and because the leader of the other country threatened to kill his pa. But mostly he'd have to admit he was wrong.