Military recruiters now banned from High School

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

By its very definition, democracy does equate to universal suffrage. Neither the Greek or Venetian, were democracies.  The American style of government is not a true democracy either.

340091[/snapback]

 

By its pure definition, democracy equates to universal suffrage. By its practical application - by the Athenians, for example, who DID have a democratic form of governance - it never does. Nor can it, most likely.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Revised Syllogism

 

Democracy is government by the people

Veterans protect government by the people

Veterans are the only people

340093[/snapback]

 

The "people" would still enjoy all their freedoms without any additional responsibility.

 

They just would not have earned the right to participate in the process.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

By its pure definition, democracy equates to universal suffrage.  By its practical application - by the Athenians, for example, who DID have a democratic form of governance - it never does.  Nor can it, most likely.

340098[/snapback]

 

Exactly. And the Athenian culture thrived for a very long time without "universal sufferage".

 

Q: Exactly what benefit has lowering the voting age to 18 reaped in our society?

[Reuben Gant]

The "people" would still enjoy all their freedoms without any additional responsibility.

 

They just would not have earned the right to participate in the process.

340109[/snapback]

 

You can have it, just please don't call it democracy or America.

 

Congratulations: you have just created the militaristic state.

Tojo would be proud.

 

Militarism is an ideology which claims that military strength is the source of all security, and that the military represents the forward direction of the society as a whole, as it expands into the world, asserting its influence. Militarism asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon (and thereby must be subservient to) the needs and goals of its military. While military preparedness may refer to agreeable and practical matters related to defense, "militarism" connotes the more broad doctrinal views which claim the notion of "peace through strength" as supreme among the interests of society — overriding all others, including diplomacy and issues related to social welfare.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You can have it, just please don't call it democracy or America.

 

Congratulations: you have just created the militaristic state.

Tojo would be proud.

 

Militarism is an ideology which claims that military strength is the source of all security, and that the military represents the forward direction of the society as a whole, as it expands into the world, asserting its influence. Militarism asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon (and thereby must be subservient to) the needs and goals of its military. While military preparedness may refer to agreeable and practical matters related to defense, "militarism" connotes the more broad doctrinal views which claim the notion of "peace through strength" as supreme among the interests of society — overriding all others, including diplomacy and issues related to social welfare.

340137[/snapback]

 

Wrong again....

 

No suspension of civil liberties to those who don't vote. They are just absolved from the RESPONSIBILITY which most of them have already abdicated. They're free to have their opinions, vapid though they may be.

 

In a true militaristic society, no one would have the right to vote, not even eeterans. have you even read Starship troopers?

[Reuben Gant]

Wrong again....

 

No suspension of civil liberties to those who don't vote. They are just absolved from the RESPONSIBILITY which most of them have already abdicated. They're free to have their opinions, vapid though they may be.

 

In a true militaristic society, no one would have the right to vote, not even eeterans. have you even read Starship troopers?

340144[/snapback]

never read starship Troopers.

Only Locke, Jefferson, Montesque, and Federalist Papers,

and the Misouri Compromise...

 

How about giving the non-veterans at least 3/5 of a vote?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

never read starship Troopers.

Only Locke, Jefferson, Montesque, and Federalist Papers,

and the Misouri Compromise...

 

How about giving the non-veterans at least 3/5 of a vote?

340160[/snapback]

 

Oh how witty. Yes, let's inject RACE into the discussion. None of those brilliant men whom you've read could have possibly predicted the idiocy that is pervasive in today's America. Like those who would vote for a man who would have cut funding to our troops in a warzone just because some talking head in the media told them the war was wrong.

 

meanwhile, kids who are out there protecting this mindelss herd get torn to shreds by those same talking heads. the culmination of this negative feedback loop is incredibly detrimental to our society.

 

I think if someone wants the RIGHT to vote, they should have to face the RESPONSIBILITY of protecting the nation that they'd be a citizen of.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Q: Exactly what benefit has lowering the voting age to 18 reaped in our society?

340111[/snapback]

 

What benefit did having it at 21 have to our society? Either way, we keep electing the same idiots.

 

The Athenians at least discriminated on the basis of land ownership. If you owned a piece of Athens, you had a say. At the very worst, that method is only as stupid as discriminating by age.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

What benefit did having it at 21 have to our society?  Either way, we keep electing the same idiots.

 

The Athenians at least discriminated on the basis of land ownership.  If you owned a piece of Athens, you had a say.  At the very worst, that method is only as stupid as discriminating by age.

340187[/snapback]

 

So what's your thought on limiting sufferage to those who've served the country militarily?

 

IMO, that would weed out the irresponsible and ill-informed from muddying the ballot box with their mindless vote.

 

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your analysis of Heinlein's masterpiece of SF.

 

[Reuben Gant]

Oh how witty. Yes, let's inject RACE into the discussion. None of those brilliant men whom you've read could have possibly predicted the idiocy that is pervasive in today's America. Like those who would vote for a man who would have cut funding to our troops in a warzone just because some talking head in the media told them the war was wrong.

 

meanwhile, kids who are out there protecting this mindelss herd get torn to shreds by those same talking heads. the culmination of this negative feedback loop is incredibly detrimental to our society.

 

I think if someone wants the RIGHT to vote, they should have to face the RESPONSIBILITY of protecting the nation that they'd be a citizen of.

340178[/snapback]

 

My bad. 3/5ths comment is racially loaded, not my intention.

I am going to disagree with any idea to disenfranchise 90% of voters.

 

Of course that was inevitable, as I believe that there should be no standing army.

 

Afghanistan I believe was a justifiable war, but to claim that

the whole iraq thing is protecting the "herd's" rights is wrongminded.

 

Our soldiers in Iraq are protecting and dying for our Geopolitical Interests

not our rights.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Our soldiers in Iraq are protecting and dying for our Geopolitical Interests

not our rights.

340199[/snapback]

 

our geopolitical interests are directly tied to our rights and our way of life. if we ever want to live in a free, stable world, the Arab world has to be dealt with, and not nicely either.

 

this was just one step in a war to defeat Arab extrmism.

[Reuben Gant]

our geopolitical interests are directly tied to our rights and our way of life. if we ever want to live in a free, stable world, the Arab world has to be dealt with, and not nicely either.

 

this was just one step in a war to defeat Arab extrmism.

340203[/snapback]

 

none of our rights were threatened by Saddam Hussein

 

We had the bastard contained.

 

This war was volitional. And I can't think any right

I have that is more secure now than 5 years ago.

 

I think that if anything, our civil rights have been threatened

because of this war.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

none of our rights were threatened by Saddam Hussein

 

We had the bastard contained.

 

This war was volitional. And I can't think any right

I have that is more secure now than 5 years ago.

 

I think that if anything, our civil rights have been threatened

because of this war.

340210[/snapback]

 

it needn't have been that way if our military was not constrained by know-nothing politicians elected by an ignorant populace.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

So what's your thought on limiting sufferage to those who've served the country militarily?

 

 

My thinking is that it's an oversimplification of Heinlein's point so gross it's ignorant.

 

Oh, and I'm still waiting for your analysis of Heinlein's masterpiece of SF.

 

340197[/snapback]

 

1) It is, unquestionably, a masterpiece.

 

2) Last I checked, I don't answer to you, so I choose not to share my analysis.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

My thinking is that it's an oversimplification of Heinlein's point so gross it's ignorant.

1) It is, unquestionably, a masterpiece.

 

2) Last I checked, I don't answer to you, so I choose not to share my analysis. 

340230[/snapback]

 

Really, now? Well, it's a shame that you think so. One would think that someone with such a firm grasp on literary ideas would be willing to share their lofty ideas with those less fortunate in that area.

 

I mean, I could have gone into the whole idea of eugenic selection, vocational tracking, sacrifice of the self for the greater good, etc.. but I chose to keep it simple so that those who haven't read it wcould have a very basic synopsis of an radical idea presented through a work of fiction.

 

1) I see your grasp of the obvious is as strong as ever.

 

2) As i said above, that's a shame. because I was really looking forward to it.

[SilverNRed]

none of our rights were threatened by Saddam Hussein

 

We had the bastard contained.

340210[/snapback]

Contained at what cost? The UN estimated that 50,000 Iraqi children died annually thanks to the embargo against their country and all the while Saddam was living in perfect luxury thanks to some bribes and the Oil-for-Food scandal. His weapons programs were dormant but ready to go as soon as he gave the order (not dismantled like he was required to do following Gulf I).

 

At the very minimum, this war was about cleaning up a mess that we left a decade before - and that many of our 'allies' were helping to maintain.

[Reuben Gant]

Contained at what cost?  The UN estimated that 50,000 Iraqi children died annually thanks to the embargo against their country and all the while Saddam was living in perfect luxury thanks to some bribes and the Oil-for-Food scandal.  His weapons programs were dormant but ready to go as soon as he gave the order (not dismantled like he was required to do following Gulf I).

 

At the very minimum, this war was about cleaning up a mess that we left a decade before - and that many of our 'allies' were helping to maintain.

340235[/snapback]

But not about our rights.

[Tux of Borg]

But not about our rights.

340245[/snapback]

 

So Iraq didn't provided safe haven to Al-Zarqawi and other terrorists?

[Reuben Gant]

So Iraq didn't provided safe haven to Al-Zarqawi and other terrorists?

340487[/snapback]

NOPE.

[Alaska Darin]

none of our rights were threatened by Saddam Hussein

 

We had the bastard contained.

 

This war was volitional. And I can't think any right

I have that is more secure now than 5 years ago.

 

I think that if anything, our civil rights have been threatened

because of this war.

340210[/snapback]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

 

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a Rosen course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

[Reuben Gant]

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

 

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Former Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a Rosen course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

340520[/snapback]

 

All based on the majority reports from intel.

The senators had it wrong.

The real question is why were the minority reports suppressed.

Even if there were WMD Saddam had shown no intent to use them

on us. He didn't use them in 91. It would have been suicide.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

The real question is why were the minority reports suppressed.

340523[/snapback]

 

 

 

Unbelievable...

[Alaska Darin]

All based on the majority reports from intel.

The senators had it wrong.

The real question is why were the minority reports suppressed.

Even if there were WMD Saddam had shown no intent to use them

on us. He didn't use them in 91. It would have been suicide.

340523[/snapback]

Keep trying.

[Reuben Gant]

 

Unbelievable...

340535[/snapback]

Is it really? Robin Cook, British secretary of State had the same info as Colin Powell, and resigned, saying there was absolutely nothing there.

[SilverNRed]

Even if there were WMD Saddam had shown no intent to use them

on us.

340523[/snapback]

Of course not! Because he's such a sane, even-handed, and sensible guy. Hell, we should let him build whatever he wants as long as he probably won't threaten us with it and only kill people on that side of the world. Being the world's only superpower, it's not like problems on the other side of the world have a way of making their way over to our neighborhood.

[Reuben Gant]

Of course not!  Because he's such a sane, even-handed, and sensible guy.  Hell, we should let him build whatever he wants as long as he probably won't threaten us with it and only kill people on that side of the world.  Being the world's only superpower, it's not like problems on the other side of the world have a way of making their way over to our neighborhood. 

340545[/snapback]

Lets see: no stockpiles, no delivery system, no enriched uranium,

no program in progress....

 

no intent that is traceable to a scintilla of evidence.

The embargo worked. The no-fly zones worked.

This guy had no ability to project power throughout his country let

alone upon neighbors.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Lets see: no stockpiles, no delivery system, no enriched uranium,

no program in progress....

 

no intent that is traceable to a scintilla of evidence.

The embargo worked. The no-fly zones worked.

This guy had no ability to project power throughout his country let

alone upon neighbors.

340553[/snapback]

 

Unbelievable!

 

Keep trying!

 

If you mentioned this before the Iraq invasion... You would have been "stirring the pot."

 

[Alaska Darin]

The embargo worked. The no-fly zones worked.

You tell that to the 5K children PER MONTH that were dying because of those sanctions (UNICEF Report). While you're at it, laud the Germans, Russians, French, and UN for doing such a humanitarian service.

 

This guy had no ability to project power throughout his country let alone upon neighbors.

340553[/snapback]

Really? I guess sponsoring terrorism doesn't fit your criteria. How very simplistic of you.

 

Abu Nidal was in Iraq when he committed "suicide" (if shooting yourself in the head 4 times can be considered suicide)? AP reporter S. Yacoub reported that Nidal arrived in IRAQ with the full knowledge of the Iraqi government. Ever take the time to wonder why Nidal would shoot himself in the head 4 times? Can't be because he refused to reengage in his prior activities at the behest of his hosts (the government of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein). Nah.

 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (terrorist) was known to be in Iraq before the war and was treated in Baghdad for injuries suffered in Afghanistan.

 

Ramzi Yousef (terrorist) traveled to America on an Iraqi passport.

 

Abu Abbas (terrorist) was captured in Baghdad.

 

It is a well documented fact that the Iraqi government paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers (terrorists). 11 Americans are known dead because of these bombings (by terrorists).

 

Khala al Salahat (terrorist) who furnished the semtex that killed 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 surrendered to the 1st Marine Division in IRAQ.

 

Coalition Troops shut down at least 3 terrorist camps including Salman Pak, a base 15 miles from Baghdad. There was a full mock up passenger plane there used for training terrorists. The camp specialized in training terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States according to PBS' Frontline and testimony from Iraqi's in front of Congress in the spring of 2002.

 

The Phillipino government expelled a high ranking Iraqi diplomat after seizing cell phone records showing conversations between the official and leaders of Abu Sayyaf (terrorists).

 

Farouk Hijazi (terrorist) was captured by US forces in IRAQ, near the Syrian border this year. He admitted to meeting with Al Qaeda on Saddam's behalf various times since 1994.

 

Keep up the good work...

[RkFast]

You tell that to the 5K children PER MONTH that were dying because of those sanctions (UNICEF Report).  While you're at it, laud the Germans, Russians, French, and UN for doing such a humanitarian service.

Really?  I guess sponsoring terrorism doesn't fit your criteria.  How very simplistic of you.

 

Abu Nidal was in Iraq when he committed "suicide" (if shooting yourself in the head 4 times can be considered suicide)? AP reporter S. Yacoub reported that Nidal arrived in IRAQ with the full knowledge of the Iraqi government. Ever take the time to wonder why Nidal would shoot himself in the head 4 times? Can't be because he refused to reengage in his prior activities at the behest of his hosts (the government of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein). Nah.

 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (terrorist) was known to be in Iraq before the war and was treated in Baghdad for injuries suffered in Afghanistan.

 

Ramzi Yousef (terrorist) traveled to America on an Iraqi passport.

 

Abu Abbas (terrorist) was captured in Baghdad.

 

It is a well documented fact that the Iraqi government paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers (terrorists). 11 Americans are known dead because of these bombings (by terrorists).

 

Khala al Salahat (terrorist) who furnished the semtex that killed 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 surrendered to the 1st Marine Division in IRAQ.

 

Coalition Troops shut down at least 3 terrorist camps including Salman Pak, a base 15 miles from Baghdad. There was a full mock up passenger plane there used for training terrorists. The camp specialized in training terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States according to PBS' Frontline and testimony from Iraqi's in front of Congress in the spring of 2002.

 

The Phillipino government expelled a high ranking Iraqi diplomat after seizing cell phone records showing conversations between the official and leaders of Abu Sayyaf (terrorists).

 

Farouk Hijazi (terrorist) was captured by US forces in IRAQ, near the Syrian border this year. He admitted to meeting with Al Qaeda on Saddam's behalf various times since 1994.

 

Keep up the good work...

340559[/snapback]

 

Facts suck.

[Reuben Gant]

Facts suck.

340571[/snapback]

 

facts do suck: but I aint gonna convert anyone, I am just pissed off that two members of my family have gone off to war and one just aint the same.

 

Were we duped by the INC, I think we were, so I am not all that irrational, secondly, yes the sactions killed kids, but they were designed to stop proliferation, and albiet ugly, they contained Saddam.

 

From Columbia Jounalism Review:

 

In a chapter entitled "Saddam Hussein’s Support for International Terrorism," the White House paper claimed that, "Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations." This allegation came from two INC-supplied defectors, Sabah Khalifa Khodada Alami, a former Iraqi army captain, and Brig. Gen. Abu Zeinab al Quairy, the purported commander of the training facility. Both men were rejected as unreliable by U.S. intelligence professionals. Nevertheless, the White House published their claims. Their claims, including suggestions that the September 11 hijackers may have been trained at the alleged facility, also appeared in the American and British media. After the invasion, the only training facility found at Salman Pak was determined by U.S. officials to have been used by Iraqi counter-terrorism units.

 

We could cite other examples of exaggerated and bogus INC-supplieddefector claims appearing in official U.S. government materials and American and international news media. Chalabi and his organization insist that they did their best to check the backgrounds and claims by defectors before passing them on to American officials. That may well be true. But Chalabi is wrong to suggest that the Silberman-Robb report absolves him or the INC of responsibility for the dissemination of erroneous or fabricated information about Iraqi weapons programs and ties to terrorism that some officials in the Bush administration used in making their case for pre-emptive war. Knight Ridder stands by its reporting on pre-war intelligence, and we will continue to report on the subject.

[Chilly]

Right...because that was really my point. You show me where in this thread I specificially where I said my point applies to ALL people on the Left, and Ill show you how to get your real handle back, Mr. Genius. Funny...you scoffed at me becuase I didnt get your "sublety" a while back, but youre too dense to understand the basic idea that we're not talking in absolutes here.

 

, indeed.

 

Same goes for YOU, bluefire and Campy. Where did I exactly say "EVERYONE"?

 

So many people here who love to pat themselves on the back about how "smart" they are, but still too stupid to undertsand the difference between "(some of) those on" and "all of them".

340018[/snapback]

 

Where did you not say everyone? You made a general statement about people, therefore it includes everyone that feels that way. If you'd like to make it specific to the article, I suggest you change it to say so.

[Campy]

You tell that to the 5K children PER MONTH that were dying because of those sanctions (UNICEF Report).  While you're at it, laud the Germans, Russians, French, and UN for doing such a humanitarian service.

And there are similar reports that conditions are worse now they were before the invasion due to the lack of electricity, potable water and access to healthcare.

 

Abu Nidal was in Iraq when he committed "suicide" (if shooting yourself in the head 4 times can be considered suicide)? AP reporter S. Yacoub reported that Nidal arrived in IRAQ with the full knowledge of the Iraqi government. Ever take the time to wonder why Nidal would shoot himself in the head 4 times? Can't be because he refused to reengage in his prior activities at the behest of his hosts (the government of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein). Nah.

To quote an Alaskan friend of mine, "...and the media never lies. "

 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (terrorist) was known to be in Iraq before the war and was treated in Baghdad for injuries suffered in Afghanistan.

Doesn't really justify an invasion, does it? In fact, some might say it means nada.

 

Ramzi Yousef (terrorist) traveled to America on an Iraqi passport.

Would you expect a terrorist to use his real passport? Maybe, just maybe, it was a forgery!

 

Abu Abbas (terrorist) was captured in Baghdad.

Terrorist Posada Carriles, wanted for downing an airplane in Cuba in an attempt to kill Castro was just captured in the US, so does that mean the US is a terrorist regime?

 

It is a well documented fact that the Iraqi government paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers (terrorists). 11 Americans are known dead because of these bombings (by terrorists).

I'm not sure if "well documented fact" is the right choice of words or if "widely-reported allegations" would be more accurate.

 

Khala al Salahat (terrorist) who furnished the semtex that killed 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 surrendered to the 1st Marine Division in IRAQ.

Again, Posada Carriles and the US "terrorist regime."

 

Just got a phone call, I have to go pick up my Jeep from the shop, so I'm afraid I'll have to cut short this post, but it seems to me that there were fundamentalists in Iraq who may have aided terrorists and that most of your examples are circumstantial at best. I honestly didn't think you'd be one to buy into this type of lahjik. You've mentioned before that you were opposed to the war. If you really believe all of the above to be an indictment of Iraq, how could you have opposed the war? But no matter I guess. We're there now, knee deep.

 

Hmm, I wonder why the US is so keen to go after states that support terrorism, like we did in Iraq, but never invaded Saudi Arabia? Afterall, they hate freedom, they are the only Islamic state that doesn't allow women to vote, and Saudi nationals made up the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers, didn't they?

 

Why have UK officials, including the PM, admitted that the intel used to justify the invasion of Iraq was erroneous, yet here in America people tenuously cling to any circumstantial "fact" they can scrape together to try and defend the war.

 

It's either very funny or very sad that so many otherwise intelligent people, both here and in the UK, have fallen for this ruse.

[Tux of Borg]

It's not like we have a duty to make the world a safer place for our children. Let's leave the Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-Il's of the world alone. By the time they are a real threat, it will be our kids problem to deal with.

[Alaska Darin]

And there are similar reports that conditions are worse now they were before the invasion due to the lack of electricity, potable water and access to healthcare.

I'm quite sure the conditions in (insert any theater ever) were worse after war as well. Kinda goes with the whole "blowing sh-- up to win" thing.

 

To quote an Alaskan friend of mine, "...and the media never lies.   "

Anything's possible.

 

Doesn't really justify an invasion, does it?  In fact, some might say it means nada.

We're way past justifying something that happened over 2 years ago. Sorry, not wasting the time.

 

Would you expect a terrorist to use his real passport? Maybe, just maybe, it was a forgery!

Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn't. I don't know and neither do you. I don't like those kind of coincidences. Could have something to do with 12 years in that business.

 

Terrorist Posada Carriles, wanted for downing an airplane in Cuba in an attempt to kill Castro was just captured in the US, so does that mean the US is a terrorist regime?

Oh, I'm quite sure our government has sponsored things in the past that would be considered terrorism. It's one of the byproducts of giving them a ton of money with so little oversight. But I'm sure that'd change alot if anyone besides the Bush Adminstration was in the White House. [/sarcasm]

 

I'm not sure if "well documented fact" is the right choice of words or if "widely-reported allegations" would be more accurate.

Whatever.

 

but it seems to me that there were fundamentalists in Iraq who may have aided terrorists and that most of your examples are circumstantial at best. I honestly didn't think you'd be one to buy into this type of lahjik. You've mentioned before that you were opposed to the war.  If you really believe all of the above to be an indictment of Iraq, how could you have opposed the war?  But no matter I guess.  We're there now, knee deep. 

Few of the examples I just gave were publically available when the war was launched (though apparently many politicos had access to the information - including the previous administration). One of my biggest criticisms of the administration at the time was the way they attempted to sell the war - which was obviously a problem given the resulting fervor and lack of evidence of WMDs (at least publically).

 

Hmm, I wonder why the US is so keen to go after states that support terrorism, like we did in Iraq, but never invaded Saudi Arabia?  Afterall, they hate freedom, they are the only Islamic state that doesn't allow women to vote, and Saudi nationals made up the bulk of the 9/11 hijackers, didn't they?

Because as bad as the House of Saud is, the likely replacements would be far worse.

 

Why have UK officials, including the PM, admitted that the intel used to justify the invasion of Iraq was erroneous, yet here in America people tenuously cling to any circumstantial "fact" they can scrape together to try and defend the war.

Welcome to the 2 party system. Have to defend your own no matter what, because the other side is thought to be so much worse. Unless you're like me and realize they both suck.

 

The reality of Iraq is no one knows what this means in the grand scheme of things and likely won't for a decade.

[Ghost of BiB]

Is it really? Robin Cook, British secretary of State had the same info as Colin Powell, and resigned, saying there was absolutely nothing there.

340543[/snapback]

 

How do you know who had what information?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

How do you know who had what information?

340744[/snapback]

 

 

Thus, my " Incredible..."

[Reuben Gant]

How do you know who had what information?

340744[/snapback]

 

Cook described the US - British intelligence sharing relationship as one of near full transparency. And had suggested that their human intellegence assets appeared to be even better than America's - (which seems to ring true in hindsight). "Therefore it is often difficult when you look at intelligence assessments to spot which raw data originated in the (US or Britian"

 

His own words:

 

"The United States and the United Kingdom have a unique intelligence relationship, which has probably never existed in any period of history, in which on our side we have full transparency and we strive to secure full transparency on their side. Therefore, it is often difficult when you look at intelligence assessments to spot which raw data was originally gathered by the United Kingdom and which was originally gathered by the United States. As a rough rule of thumb, and it is very rough, we tend to be rather better at gathering human intelligence; and, although we have an excellent GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) station, the Americans are even more formidable in technological ways of gathering intelligence. That said, neither of us really had much human intelligence inside Iraq. The Americans were drawing heavily on exiles who were inside America.’

 

We conclude that it appears likely that there was only limited access to reliable human intelligence in Iraq, and that as a consequence the United Kingdom may have been heavily reliant on US technical intelligence, on defectors and on exiles with an agenda of their own.”

[KRC]

You tell that to the 5K children PER MONTH that were dying because of those sanctions (UNICEF Report).  While you're at it, laud the Germans, Russians, French, and UN for doing such a humanitarian service.

Really?  I guess sponsoring terrorism doesn't fit your criteria.  How very simplistic of you.

 

Abu Nidal was in Iraq when he committed "suicide" (if shooting yourself in the head 4 times can be considered suicide)? AP reporter S. Yacoub reported that Nidal arrived in IRAQ with the full knowledge of the Iraqi government. Ever take the time to wonder why Nidal would shoot himself in the head 4 times? Can't be because he refused to reengage in his prior activities at the behest of his hosts (the government of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein). Nah.

 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (terrorist) was known to be in Iraq before the war and was treated in Baghdad for injuries suffered in Afghanistan.

 

Ramzi Yousef (terrorist) traveled to America on an Iraqi passport.

 

Abu Abbas (terrorist) was captured in Baghdad.

 

It is a well documented fact that the Iraqi government paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers (terrorists). 11 Americans are known dead because of these bombings (by terrorists).

 

Khala al Salahat (terrorist) who furnished the semtex that killed 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 surrendered to the 1st Marine Division in IRAQ.

 

Coalition Troops shut down at least 3 terrorist camps including Salman Pak, a base 15 miles from Baghdad. There was a full mock up passenger plane there used for training terrorists. The camp specialized in training terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States according to PBS' Frontline and testimony from Iraqi's in front of Congress in the spring of 2002.

 

The Phillipino government expelled a high ranking Iraqi diplomat after seizing cell phone records showing conversations between the official and leaders of Abu Sayyaf (terrorists).

 

Farouk Hijazi (terrorist) was captured by US forces in IRAQ, near the Syrian border this year. He admitted to meeting with Al Qaeda on Saddam's behalf various times since 1994.

 

Keep up the good work...

340559[/snapback]

 

 

You forgot to add:

 

President Clinton had Iraq on the U.S. list of State sponsors of terrorism and the UN specifically listed Iraq (within resolutions) as a sponsor of terrorism.

 

Terrorist groups:

*Abu Nidal Organization – Received government sponsorship from Iraq

 

*Ansar al-Islam – Received safe haven in Iraq

 

*Arab Liberation Front – Formed and was stationed in Iraq. Iraq was the primary leader, and it is considered that this group was a proxy for the Iraqi government in the Palestinian Territories and in Lebanon.

 

*Movement of Islamic Action of Iraq – Formed in 1982, it was based in Iraq and Iran.

 

*Mujahedin-e-Khalq – Received military and financial support from Iraq, along with safe-haven.

 

*Palestine Liberation Front – Received financial support along with safe-haven.

[KRC]

The embargo worked.

 

Are you sure about that?

 

 

 

The no-fly zones worked.

340553[/snapback]

 

Funny, if people apply the same standards to the no fly zones as they did with Gulf War part Deux, then the no fly zones are illegal. The no fly zones were implimented without international approval. They were an act strictly conceived and enforced by Britain and the U.S. France was involved in the beginning, but bowed out within a few years.

[Reuben Gant]

Are you sure about that?

Funny, if people apply the same standards to the no fly zones as they did with Gulf War part Deux, then the no fly zones are illegal. The no fly zones were implimented without international approval. They were an act strictly conceived and enforced by Britain and the U.S. France was involved in the beginning, but bowed out within a few years.

340908[/snapback]

 

They did seem to protect the Kurds.

Residual effects of sanctions were bad, but the goal was containment,

and that was the main thrust of my comment.

 

Anyway if anyone has the time or inclination to look into how prewar

claims matched reality- the US senate report isn't too bad.

The commitee was highly critical of the sources for most of the terrorism link claims. Concluding that most were largely hypothetical in senarios of cooperation,

in the case that the US did invade. Contacts were reasonable, but cooperation questionable.

 

It is a large document, so if you have the inclination, and bandwith, have a lookie... also parts of it are heavily redacted. In PDF:

 

http://www.cfr.org/pdf/iraqreport2.pdf