KATO33 0 #126 March 9, 2003 QuoteHe declared war on the people who took it upon themselves to come to this country and inflict pain and suffering on us. We never once provoked this. I seriously doubt that this was unprovoked. It's the dirty little deeds we do that don't get press. Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,565 #127 March 9, 2003 It depends on your definition of "provoked." It wasn't deserved -- something like 9/11 never deserved. Never. But just like jostling someone on the sidewalk can be considered "provocation" by some people, the US can be considered "provoking" to some people. Some of those people are terrorists. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #128 March 9, 2003 QuoteAnd when you have even a shred of proof the two were involved, you might have a leg to stand on.... I have to stop sitting around...maybe I should stand up or something... Quoteand if we do find it, then we have all the reason we need to invade Maybe I should sit back down. I mean, Bill, what would you consider a connection? What would you consider proof? And in what form? From what source? Please answer. I am really curious. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #129 March 9, 2003 QuoteWhere do you stand? with the red, white and blue. no mas~ via con' dios--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #130 March 9, 2003 QuoteI really didn't think I would get anyones attention.. hmph about what I thought.. you were wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,123 #131 March 9, 2003 Published on Sunday, January 5, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times: The Lies We Are Told About Iraq by Victor Marshall  OAKLAND -- The Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force. Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein's penchant for lies against the administration's own record. Based on recent history, that's not an easy choice. The first Bush administration, which featured Dick Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Colin L. Powell at the Pentagon, systematically misrepresented the cause of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq's conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Persian Gulf War. Like the second Bush administration, it cynically used the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era. When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the first President Bush likened it to Nazi Germany's occupation of the Rhineland. "If history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms," he declared. The administration leaked reports that tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were massing on the border of Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of the world's major oil fields. The globe's industrial economies would be held hostage if Iraq succeeded. The reality was different. Two Soviet satellite photos obtained by the St. Petersburg Times raised questions about such a buildup of Iraqi troops. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable. The administration's estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday's Susan Sachs called Iraq the "phantom enemy": "The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn't be found." Students of the Gulf War largely agree that Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was primarily motivated by specific historical grievances, not by Hitler- style ambitions. Like most Iraqi rulers before him, Hussein refused to accept borders drawn by Britain after World War I that virtually cut Iraq off from the Gulf. Iraq also chafed at Kuwait's demand that Iraq repay loans made to it during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Administration officials seemed to understand all this. In July 1990, U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad April Glaspie told Hussein that Washington had "no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait," a statement she later regretted. The National Security Council's first meeting after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was equally low key. As one participant reportedly put it, the attitude was, "Hey, too bad about Kuwait, but it's just a gas station -- and who cares whether the sign says Sinclair or Exxon?" But administration hawks, led by Cheney, saw a huge opportunity to capitalize on Iraq's move against Kuwait. The elder Bush publicly pronounced, "a line has been drawn in the sand," and he called for a "new world order ... free from the threat of terror." His unstated premise, as noted by National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, was that the United States "henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree" as it attempted "to pursue our national interests." The administration realized that a peaceful solution to the crisis would undercut its grand ambitions. The White House torpedoed diplomatic initiatives to end the crisis, including a compromise, crafted by Arab leaders, to let Iraq annex a small slice of Kuwait and withdraw. To justify war with Hussein, the Bush administration condoned a propaganda campaign on Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait. Americans were riveted by a 15-year-old Kuwaiti so-called refugee's eyewitness accounts of Iraqi soldiers yanking newborn babies out of hospital incubators in Kuwait, leaving them on a cold floor to die. The public didn't know that the eyewitness was the daughter of Kuwait's ambassador to the United States, and that her congressional testimony was reportedly arranged by public relations firm Hill & Knowlton and paid for by Kuwait as part of its campaign to bring the United States into war. To this day, most people regard Operation Desert Storm as remarkably clean, marked by the expert use of precision weapons to minimize "collateral damage." While American TV repeatedly broadcast pictures of cruise missiles homing in on their targets, the Pentagon quietly went about a campaign of carpet bombing. Of the 142,000 tons of bombs dropped on Iraq and Kuwait in 43 days, only about 8% were of the "smart" variety. The indiscriminate targeting of Iraq's civilian infrastructure left the country in ruins. A United Nations mission in March 1991 described the allied bombing of Iraq as "near apocalyptic" and said it threatened to reduce "a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society ... to a preindustrial age." Officially, the U.S. military listed only 79 American soldiers killed in action, plus 59 members of allied forces. A subsequent demographic study by the U.S. Census Bureau concluded that Iraq probably suffered 145,000 dead -- 40,000 military and 5,000 civilian deaths during the war and 100,000 postwar deaths because of violence and health conditions. The war also produced more than 5 million refugees. Subsequent sanctions were estimated to have killed more than half a million Iraqi children, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and other international bodies. The Gulf War amply demonstrated the merit of two adages: "War is hell" and "Truth is the first casualty." To date, nothing suggests that a second Gulf War would prove any less costly to truth or humans. Victor Marshall, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a public policy group, is the author of "To Have and Have Not: Southeast Asian Raw Materials and the Origins of the Pacific War." Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KATO33 0 #132 March 10, 2003 QuoteYes I agree with you that the US has been and still is the top dog. But we did not bring 9/11 on ourselves Are you sure Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KATO33 0 #133 March 10, 2003 Has anyone asked themselves why a group of terrorist would would hijack planes and crash them into buildings on US soil? Was it an invasion or was it retaliation?????? Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #134 March 10, 2003 QuoteHas anyone asked themselves why a group of terrorist would would hijack planes and crash them into buildings on US soil? Was it an invasion or was it retaliation?????? I don't care what it was. They fucked with the wrong country. Now they are running with tales between legs praying to Allah.. Dear Allah, don't let Uncle Sam drop a laser guided bomb up my ass!! Allah responds. Sorry fool.. I don't fuck with U.S. Marines... Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KATO33 0 #135 March 10, 2003 QuoteI don't care what it was. They fucked with the wrong country. Now they are running with tales between legs praying to Allah.. Dear Allah, don't let Uncle Sam drop a laser guided bomb up my ass!! Allah responds. Sorry fool.. I don't fuck with U.S. Marines... Rhino Way to keep it Gully!!!! Think Man Think!!! Blue Skies Black Death Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #136 March 10, 2003 >I mean, Bill, what would you consider a connection? Evidence that Hussein helped Bin Laden plan, fund or execute the 9/11 hijacking. >What would you consider proof? I don't want ironclad proof. Just evidence. Say, an intercepted email. An intercepted phone conversation. An intercepted letter. A letter they found later. A bank transfer. Records of Iraqi flight training for terrorists. A picture of a 9/11 terrorist leaving Iraq just before 9/11. A check stub. Anything. Pat Robertson gave Charles Taylor millions, and Charles Taylor, a pretty nasty dictator, harbored Al Quaeda before, during and after 9/11. Can't we even find evidence that tenuous? Can't we even show Hussein was more connected to 9/11 than Pat Robertson? Surely we should be able to come up with something better than "they're both bad" or "they both like terrorism." Do you have anything better? >And in what form? From what source? UN would be ideal, US intelligence wouldn't be bad either. Rush Limbaugh is probably not a good source, and Ann Coulter is even worse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #137 March 10, 2003 >I don't care what it was. They fucked with the wrong country. And you're fucking back against the wrong people, if you think invading Iraq will avenge us for 9/11. You might as well attack New Zealand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #138 March 10, 2003 Quote Pat Robertson gave Charles Taylor millions, and Charles Taylor, a pretty nasty dictator, harbored Al Quaeda before, during and after 9/11. I'm not going to discuss Pat Robertson...that is a side issue. And I understand why you used that as an example. That is a very tenuous connection, my friend, and I think what is missing is intention from Pat Robertson to support AQ...and your continual use of it tells me you are willing to believe tenuous connections. QuoteEvidence that Hussein helped Bin Laden plan, fund or execute the 9/11 hijacking. OBL supplied lots of spiritual leadership, charismatic mesmeration and financing. He is not the only bad guy...and as to the planning, would you accept a connection between Iraq and someone else high up in AQ? QuoteRecords of Iraqi flight training for terrorists I'm suprised with this, Bill...how about interviews with eyewitnesses (I think they're the same who've been working with the UN...) who've defected making clear that there is something like this? QuoteUN would be ideal, US intelligence wouldn't be bad either. Rush Limbaugh is probably not a good source, and Ann Coulter is even worse. Neither one would be a source reference for me, Bill, and I think you know that. Since you seem to not recognize that, let me make it plain...Rush Limbaugh is not someone I care for, and I am not sure who Ann Coulter is except someone who wrote a pretty inflammatory book, the kind which I don't read. By the way, what source do you have for the Pat Robertson financial support of Taylor knowing Taylor supported AQ? As I don't (nor do most of us) have access to UN intel, nor US intell, please give me more information as to what source you would accept. I appreciate it, Bill... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,090 #139 March 10, 2003 >I'm not going to discuss Pat Robertson...that is a side issue. OK. >OBL supplied lots of spiritual leadership, charismatic mesmeration >and financing. He is not the only bad guy... We agree there. >and as to the planning, > would you accept a connection between Iraq and someone else >high up in AQ? Sure! Present the evidence. >By the way, what source do you have for the Pat Robertson financial > support of Taylor knowing Taylor supported AQ? I thought you said you didn't want to discuss that. . . ah well. Source is the Washington Post, 12/24/02, "Report says Africans harbored Al Quaeda." It's expired from their 'free' on line articles so you might have to look it up in a library or do a better web search. Note that there is no evidence he knew his money would help finance the 9/11 terrorists, nor did I suggest that he knew. Funding terror is, of course, a risk you take any time you give millions to a tyrannical dictator who is known to fund terror. BTW since you do now seem to want to talk about it, it's interesting to note that Robertson and Falwell blamed the "gays, abortionists, pagans, feminists and lesbians" for 9/11 on their talk show a few days after the attacks. That's an example of someone I would consider an unreliable source. >As I don't (nor do most of us) have access to UN intel, nor US intell, >please give me more information as to what source you would accept. The US and the UN do occasionally give out information; you might consider checking out, say, the state of the union address, the whitehouse.gov website, or the thousands of reports the UN generates (available conveniently on unreports.com.) Or try any reliable newspaper; the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal are good ones, the Cato Institute newsletter or the Village Voice wouldn't be that reliable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #140 March 10, 2003 QuoteSure! Present the evidence. O.K. But it's a little late tonight...maybe in the morning before I go jumping... QuoteI thought you said you didn't want to discuss that. Actually, I don't. While I am well aware of what he said about the 9/11 things, I was simply trying to determine what type of source you rely on for your information. That's all. In other words, if I then quoted an article from the WP, you would not challenge the source. Perhaps the content, but not the source, right? Just trying to determine the parameters you're using and will accept. Quotethe Cato Institute newsletter or the Village Voice wouldn't be that reliable. Kato Calin has an Institute? LOL...don't even know if those two would be things I would bother reading... Have a good one, Bill... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MC208B 0 #141 March 10, 2003 for 8 of those 12 years the prez was getting blowjobs in the oval office and trying to define the meaning of what is is. I am a vet that served in a very unpopular war. But I do agree that most of the US population are looking to the gov for how to run their lives in the post Sept 11, 2001 world Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boudy 0 #142 March 10, 2003 For those who are operating under the assumption that opposition to the war originates and is propagated by bed wetting liberals, weak-kneed pacifists etc., the story in this link details a number of prominent conservatives who are against our rush to war. http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/1574023.php Here is a taste of it "Buchanan and columnists like Robert Novak, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts and Georgie Anne Geyer regularly skewer Bush on Iraq. So do Right mainstays like Lew Rockwell Jr., Alan Reynolds, Joe Sobran and Justin Raimondo, whose opinions appear on Townhall.com, Worldnetdaily.com, The American Conservative, the Chronicles, Americans Against World Empire, and in publications by the Cato and von Mises institutes. "Saddam Hussein is no Hitler; George Bush is no Winston Churchill. And this war will definitely not be our finest hour," Reese wrote. "Bush," wrote Geyer, "has a religiously inspired grandiosity of character which leads him to believe he has been called to a religious duty in the Middle East to rid the world of Saddam Hussein!" Congress has right-wing doves too. In the House, three GOP conservatives and three centrists voted against giving Bush authorization to use military force against Iraq. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), known for his dislike of the income tax, the Federal Reserve and the United Nations, called the undeclared war unconstitutional, costly and 'morally unjustifiable.' " Personally, I believe that we eventually would need to remove Saddam under any likely scenerio. Although I firmly believe we must support the troops in the coming months of war, I have grave reservations about the inadequately articulated motives, grand vision and religious zeal of those pushing the nation into this exercise of power. It does seem as though Sept 11 has been used as an excuse to implement a 1996 plan backed by Wolfowitz, Perle and others to conquer Iraq and reshape the mid-east into democracies to their liking. The 1996 mid-east plan is described in the following: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,901117,00.html Robert Novak's article http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak061.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boudy 0 #143 March 10, 2003 Maybe I've missed it in the thread, but there seems to be one extremely good piece of evidence that Saddam is not linked to OBL and al qaeda. With 300,000 troops massed in the area, $100s of billions of dollars allocated, thousands of lives to be lost, essential alliances in jeopardy, the prestige & integrity of the president & the nation on the line and perhaps even the risk of WW III and the mastermind of Sept 11 in custody, you'd think we'd have beaten the details of any link out of that son of bitch S.K. Mohammed within hours after we captured him. What do we hear about him? That he's probably been giving up info about future attack plans & OBL's whereabouts. We'd all jump on the bandwagon if the Administration produced evidence that he ratted on Saddam. There simply would not be an excuse to avoid an immediate war if there was a firm Sept 11 or even an al qaeda link but they've produced nothing. Seems we'd have heard the BIG FISH singing by now. Not that he isn't found of terrorism. Saddam's public support for Palestian suicide bombers does make a terrorism/saddam connection undeniable. Not to mention all alleged terrorism he personally had a hand in. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #144 March 10, 2003 QuoteSource is the Washington Post, 12/24/02, Hardly think the Washington Post is a credible source... You minus well believe the National Enquirer!! lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #145 March 10, 2003 Quoteyou'd think we'd have beaten the details of any link out of that son of bitch S.K. Mohammed within hours after we captured him. I'm sure we have.. You simply aren't prevy to the details... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mountainman 0 #146 March 10, 2003 After seeing what Saddam does to his own people, I think that alone justifies going in there and cleaning up. Those people who are being killed and opressed cannot do a lot about it. I say "go".http://www.brandonandlaura.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boudy 0 #147 March 10, 2003 What possible reason would there be for not telling the World that we had proof - proof mind you, not speculation, not inference but proof by way of an admission from the top operative scumbag in Al Qaeda that Saddam supported them? Right now nothing is more important than homefront support for this war to the adminstration. I'm sure there are tons we are not and should not be "privy" too but proof of an Al Qaeda / Saddam link is no one's right to keep secret. No I'm sure we nothing - unfortunately. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BPO 0 #148 March 10, 2003 Quote After seeing what Saddam does to his own people, I think that alone justifies going in there and cleaning up. Those people who are being killed and opressed cannot do a lot about it. unfortunately the ones most likely to get killed by 'cleaning up' are the ones you say the US is protecting.. But sure.. feel free to say "go" .. what ever rocks your boat.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #149 March 10, 2003 QuoteWhat possible reason Simple... Soldiers lives are at stake.. American, British "even" Canadian soldiers.. If that intel gets out it will kill our boys in the battle field. It will kill our sources.. Sure, let's let the intel out.. Then all the bad guys know who the snitches are and we have to start our intel all over again.. You can't be serious.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #150 March 10, 2003 "You can't be serious.. " "Secret intel" doesn't cut it with me Rhino, but it doesn't have to cut it with me. Take the secret intel to the other members of the security council, or pull the "sources" out. Fek me, Iraq must be the most photographed lump of sand in the world, where are the pictures? You know, like the ones that we had during the Cuban crisis. In ten days time you won't have to protect them anymore anyways. Show me the fek'n evidence!-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
