For Rhino - Americans Funding Terrorists

[billvon 3,120]

>The objective has already been stated clearly -- to drive Hussein out of power . . .

Might want to mention that to Bodypilot, who is going on about freeing Iraq and finding his WMD's. I have heard about half a dozen objectives in Iraq, starting with disarmament. We were claiming that was, in fact, our goal until a few days ago.

>I don't think the Pres cares a whit where Hussein ends up, as long as
> it is into obscurity.

Is it your belief that if we go into Iraq and can't find Hussein, our president will stop worrying about him? Hmm. Should we stop worrying about Bin Laden?

[jraf 0]

Quote

Quote

How about leaving them to boil in their own sauce. You seem to care a lot about Iraq. I don't, definitely not enough to have my friends sent over there to "free" them.

it's not only about freeing them but of reducing the threat to the world

We definitely are permanently going to free a whole bunch of Iraquis including their children if we reduce their threat to the world.

Why don't we free the Libians?
Why don't we free the Koreans?
Why don't we free the Cubans?
Why don't we free the Chinese?

Let's free the world, establish the United States of Earth, and under our Pax Americana let's free the Clingeons. I bet you would like to be Captain Kirk.

How old are you? 15?

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I have heard about half a dozen objectives in Iraq, starting with disarmament. We were claiming that was, in fact, our goal until a few days ago.

Sure, there are lots of "sub-objectives", all of which follow the primary goal of getting SH out of power.

First, there is minimizing the damage he may try to inflict on the oilfields and perhaps his own people. Next, there is the question of who/what kind of government will replace him. If there is a definite plan of action for a new government, I sure have missed it, but short term goals like disarmament will be acheived as the new ruling power falls into place.

The biggest wildcard I can think of is the long term effect of our action. I think we are doing the right thing, but there are too many variables in play to make a prediction about the long term effects. Will this war have been the right thing to do? Who knows.

Quote

Is it your belief that if we go into Iraq and can't find Hussein, our president will stop worrying about him?

Yes. In my opinion, Hussein will not have much of a following, or be much of a threat when he falls.

Quote

Should we stop worrying about Bin Laden?

No. OBL is still a very worthy prize for several reasons.

. . =(_8^(1)

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

First, there is minimizing the damage he may try to inflict on the oilfields and perhaps his own people. Next, there is the question of who/what kind of government will replace him. If there is a definite plan of action for a new government, I sure have missed it, but short term goals like disarmament will be acheived as the new ruling power falls into place.

It's their country, and the education level is halfway reasonable. Why should their government be up to us, unless they ask for help?

As far as long term thoughts, we're about to go bomb them. They're thousands of miles away, and we're calling them an imminent danger. This isn't like Japan during WW2. Iraq doesn't have any significant allies unless we piss them off enough (hey -- give us time!).

If we haven't thought really long and hard about the long-term effects, then we'd damn well better start.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rgoper 0]

Quote

Let's free the world, establish the United States of Earth

i'm starting to think it's on the agenda. a lot of people running off at the mouth here weren't but 10-15 years of age during the gulf war.

Quote

it's not only about freeing them but of reducing the threat to the world

yeah, attacking iraq will certainly insure the decreased risks to the USA and the rest of the world. or NOT. let's see, ol Wyatt even said the war could spur increased attacks on the USA and other parts of the globe, BUT i can see how attacking iraq will certainly sugnifigantly lower the possibility of any attacks on our soil, yeah, i think that's a logical statement.

--Richard--
"We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist"

[billvon 3,120]

>The biggest wildcard I can think of is the long term effect of our
> action. I think we are doing the right thing, but there are too many
> variables in play to make a prediction about the long term effects.
> Will this war have been the right thing to do? Who knows.

I think that's very true. There will be some good effects i.e. the elimination of a very destabilizing and anti-humanitarian force in the Middle East. There will be some bad effects - increased terrorism as the war drives more arabs into groups like Al Qaeda, loss of life of both US troops and Iraqis, and sabotage to oil fields/pipelines etc. Which will be more significant? Hard to say.

I think one of the worst things to come out of this will be a reduction of the UN's power. We may well need them in the future; dealing with a North Korea that has ICBM's that can reach the US might be a lot easier with a strong international organization dedicated to peace.

>Yes. In my opinion, Hussein will not have much of a following, or be
>much of a threat when he falls.

If he disappears with a few Republican Guard units and a suspected cache of WMD's I think we will care about where he is.

>No. OBL is still a very worthy prize for several reasons.

I can think of several reasons too, but which ones apply to OBL but don't apply to Hussein?

[Jib 0]

Quote

>Yes. In my opinion, Hussein will not have much of a following, or be
>much of a threat when he falls.

If he disappears with a few Republican Guard units and a suspected cache of WMD's I think we will care about where he is.

I think there's a difference between a charismatic leader like OBL and an oppressive dictator like SH. Take away the power and I doubt they will follow. On the other hand, if he snuck away with some power aka WMD, they could become strange bedfellows.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

It's their country, and the education level is halfway reasonable. Why should their government be up to us, unless they ask for help?

they have, I posted the link, do you want to see it?

Quote

As far as long term thoughts, we're about to go bomb them. They're thousands of miles away, and we're calling them an imminent danger.

well the fact that the train, arm terrorists and have been linked to 9-11 does not make them a threat.

Quote

This isn't like Japan during WW2. Iraq doesn't have any significant allies unless we piss them off enough (hey -- give us time!).

they (the gov't) hate us and will keep arming thugs.

Quote

If we haven't thought really long and hard about the long-term effects, then we'd damn well better start.

I am sure we have. Do you think for one sec GW wants this war? I don't.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

Might want to mention that to Bodypilot, who is going on about freeing Iraq and finding his WMD's. I have heard about half a dozen objectives in Iraq, starting with disarmament. We were claiming that was, in fact, our goal until a few days ago.

There are more than one objective. Primary is SH and freeing Iraq (1st one does the 2ed)

Quote

Is it your belief that if we go into Iraq and can't find Hussein, our president will stop worrying about him? Hmm. Should we stop worrying about Bin Laden?

No we will hunt him down just like we are Bin Laden.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

It's their country, and the education level is halfway reasonable. Why should their government be up to us, unless they ask for help?

We should help because we are the force that is going to make the new government necessary. I think a majority of the Iraqi citizenry will welcome us (and our allies') assistance in putting it back together.

Quote

If we haven't thought really long and hard about the long-term effects, then we'd damn well better start.

I agree, and I think your sentiment is right regardless of the outcome of this war, or that it ever even happened.

The world is getting to be a more dangerous place every day, thanks largely to the proliferation of high tech weaponry to cultures that lack the skills to sit on it prudently. I understand the record of the US and others who've had nukes for a long time isn't spotless, but the world DOES still exist.

Nukes and other WMDs in the hands of Hussein, Jong Il, and the like makes the probability of us being alive far into the future a LOT less likely. So what do we do? Diplomacy may be the best thing, but I don't think it works with dictators like Hussein. Years of diplomacy with him have proven fruitless; it's like dealing with a delinquent little kid. Well, to steal a thought from a previous thoughtful poster, it is now little-kid-Hussein that is being offered a choice of red or green socks.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I think one of the worst things to come out of this will be a reduction of the UN's power. We may well need them in the future; dealing with a North Korea that has ICBM's that can reach the US might be a lot easier with a strong international organization dedicated to peace.

Good point, and one I hadn't considered much.

I think the fact that we need the UN in the future, and just as importantly the fact that the UN needs us too, will drive the healing process after this episode in history. My prediction: we will come out of this smelling like a rose (crossing fingers) (disregarding radical Islam), which will also drive the UN healing process.

Quote

I can think of several reasons too, but which ones apply to OBL but don't apply to Hussein?

OBL has an existing underground network that, despite it's recent weakening, still exists and is still a threat to us. Capturing or killing him would be a huge black eye to that network from both tactical and spiritual perspectives.

SH's network is centered around him, and is about to be shown the door along with him.

. . =(_8^(1)

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

So what did the US do in support of their allies to stop this support of terrorists from misguided US citizens? Sweet F. A.

FBI agent to give evidence at Special Criminal Court

4:08:15 PM

FBI agent David Rupert who is due to give evidence against the alleged leader of the Real IRA Michael McKevitt ``represents a very serious threat to a very dangerous organisation’’, the Special Criminal Court was told today.

Prosecuting counsel Mr George Birmingham SC said that the State had concerns about Mr Rupert and was anxious to get an early trial for McKevitt.

Mr Birmingham said:``He is somebody who represents a very serious threat to a very dangerous organisation. That is something we are very conscious of.’’

Mr Birmingham added:``We are conscious of the fact that Mr Rupert is somebody who set out to infiltrate at the highest level the leadership of the Real IRA. That is an act of bravery and courage.’’

Mr Rupert, who worked for the FBI and British intelligence, is the chief prosecution witness in the forthcoming trial of Mc Kevitt who is the first person charged in the Republic with directing terrorist activity.

Last December the court provisionally fixed June 4 next as the date for Mc Kevitt's trial which is expected to last at least four weeks.

But the defence have sought disclosure of material from the prosecution relating to Mr Rupert and have said it is unlikely the trial will go ahead on June 4.

Mr Birmingham told the court today that contact was made with the FBI concerning two criminal investigations that Mr Rupert was the subject of and this material had been furnished to the defence.

He said that one channel remained to be explored with the British authorities and the prosecution wanted to be satisfied that the material was relevant before furnishing it to the defence.

Mr Justice Robert Barr, presiding, said that it might be necessary for the court to look at that material to see if it was relevant.

Mr Birmingham said that the State accepted that this was a case where there should be extensive disclosure and very extensive disclosure has taken place.

The court was told earlier that the defence has already been furnished with over 2,000 e-mails relating to the case by the prosecution.

The court was also told at an earlier hearing that the main prosecution witness is Mr David Rupert, who worked for the FBI and British intelligence, and that he was observed by gardaí meeting Michael McKevitt on a number of occasions.

The court also heard that he successfully infiltrated the Real IRA leadership and attended their Army Council meetings.

The court has also heard that Mc Kevitt allegedly met Mr Rupert over a two year period and asked him to acquire equipment for the dissident republicans.

Michael Mc Kevitt, aged 51, of Beech Park, Blackrock, Dundalk, Co Louth is charged that between August 29, 1999 and March 28, 2001, within the State, he was a member of an unlawful organisation styling itself the Irish Republican Army, otherwise the IRA, otherwise Oglaigh na hEireann and that he directed the activities of the same organisation.

It is the first prosecution for directing terrorism under new legislation brought in after the 1998 Omagh bombing and anyone convicted of the offence faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Mc Kevitt was remanded in continuing custody until May 16 when the case will be mentioned again.

Here is another one

http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4380641,00.html

You'll notice this operation began in the early 90s. More is and has been going on than we'll know for some time.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[billvon 3,120]

>OBL has an existing underground network that, despite it's recent
> weakening, still exists and is still a threat to us. Capturing or killing
> him would be a huge black eye to that network from both tactical
> and spiritual perspectives.

>SH's network is centered around him, and is about to be shown the
> door along with him.

I think that's partly true. But we don't have a good idea how many troops he has, what WMD's he has (if any) how many mobile launchers he has etc. If we invade Baghdad and we battle Hussein to the death, then there won't be any question. If we come close and he flees in a jeep, again, no problem. But if we show up in Baghdad and there's an eerie silence, just some perfunctory fighting and a quick surrender? And Hussein is nowhere to be found, and no WMD's are found? I think we will worry that, perhaps, we haven't seen the last of him. Iraq is a big country, with lots of places to hide.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

what WMD's he has (if any)

you don't think he does?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Nukes and other WMDs in the hands of Hussein, Jong Il, and the like makes the probability of us being alive far into the future a LOT less likely. So what do we do? Diplomacy may be the best thing, but I don't think it works with dictators like Hussein. Years of diplomacy with him have proven fruitless; it's like dealing with a delinquent little kid. Well, to steal a thought from a previous thoughtful poster, it is now little-kid-Hussein that is being offered a choice of red or green socks.

I am old enough to remember a crazy dictator, with way more WMD's than Hussein could dream of, banging his shoe on the table at the UN and threatening to bury us. He also installed nuclear ballistic missiles just off the US coast. We managed to contain Kruschev without invasion.

I also remember listening to Joe McCarthy on the radio when I was a kid. Some of what I hear and read these days is SCARILY similar to McCarthy's rhetoric.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jraf 0]

That is so sadly true. Joe McCarthy was all for the American way of life and all against our enemies. As long as he could write the rules of the American way of life, he was all for it.

I would like to remind all what the American way of life is: It is a multiracial, multireligious society where all strive for a better life in tollerance and where freedom of speach is one of the fundamental laws. Freedom of speach means freedom of consience.

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I am old enough to remember a crazy dictator, with way more WMD's than Hussein could dream of, banging his shoe on the table at the UN and threatening to bury us. He also installed nuclear ballistic missiles just off the US coast. We managed to contain Kruschev without invasion.

We are all very fortunate things worked out the way they did back then, that's for sure. Thank god for Kennedy's big brass balls.

But this is a different day, with an entirely different set of circumstances. We will invade Iraq because we can, thankfully before we reach the point that we can't. Kruschev was ultimately a very civilized, sane leader compared to the likes of SH and Jong Il and whoever is next in the lineup of wigged out dictators. I'll bet the looming confrontation with N Korea is going to make this Iraq adventure look like a picnic.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

We should help because we are the force that is going to make the new government necessary. I think a majority of the Iraqi citizenry will welcome us (and our allies') assistance in putting it back together.

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if another country tried to force a change of government on the USA by attacking with a huge army and superior weapons?

[jraf 0]

Dude that would suck - I would have to skip the border and become a wetback in Mexico

jraf

Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui.
Muff #3275

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

We should help because we are the force that is going to make the new government necessary. I think a majority of the Iraqi citizenry will welcome us (and our allies') assistance in putting it back together.

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if another country tried to force a change of government on the USA by attacking with a huge army and superior weapons?

I'd be very angry about it -- enough to take up arms and try to repel the invaders.

Why? Are you actually thinking there is any legitimate comparison between the relatively free and prosperous people of the USA and the citizens of Iraq? If so, please make your case.

You'll have trouble convincing me though, because too many independent sources of information have already led me to believe that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis themselves can't wait for us to come liberate them. Heck, even liberal newsman Tom Brokaw had an Iraqi man on the street whispering to him "when do you think the Americans will get here?" during a recent visit. Brokaw told that story on David Letterman a few weeks ago.

. . =(_8^(1)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Dude that would suck - I would have to skip the border and become a wetback in Mexico

But on the other hand IFlyMe, if an invasion would cause illegal aliens and jraf to head back south accross the border, I might welome it.

. . =(_8^(1)

[rhino 0]

Quote

I am old enough to remember a crazy dictator, with way more WMD's than Hussein could dream of, banging his shoe on the table at the UN and threatening to bury us. He also installed nuclear ballistic missiles just off the US coast. We managed to contain Kruschev without invasion.

No comparison to the current situation.. Do I need to break it down?

[kiltboy 0]

Excellent post.

Thank you for countering a genaralization with some resorced material.

David

[billvon 3,120]

>you don't think he does?

I don't know if he does or not; neither do you. The #1 expert on the issue (Blix) has not found any. The most senior defector from Iraq's government to date claimed Hussein destroyed them all after the first gulf war - and you've indicated you believe Iraqi defectors.

Did he make more? Probably. Is it a sure thing? No.

Which leads back to the question - let's say you're in charge. You invade. There is minor resistance in Baghdad, then the troops surrender. No Hussein, no elite republican guard. You can find no WMD's. What do you do then?

[billvon 3,120]

>I'll bet the looming confrontation with N Korea is going to make this
>Iraq adventure look like a picnic.

I agree, and I hope we get better at diplomacy before that happens. We will eventually run into someone we can't invade without risking our _own_ people.