PDA

View Full Version : That BUSH sure is a popular guy isnt he??haha


reeds
05-28-2004, 03:18 PM
Italy braces for trouble during Bush visit to Rome next week

ROME (AFP) - Italian authorities are bracing for possible disturbances during US President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s controversial visit to Rome next week, Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said citing "serious threats".

"Serious threats, which worry us but do not frighten us, are emerging for ... Bush's visit," Pisanu told the party congress of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's conservative Forza Italia.

"You have only to scan the Internet, let alone other signals, to get an idea of how the threats to security and public order are piling up," he said Friday.

An alliance of anti-globalization groups along with the Greens and the Communists said earlier this month that they planned mass demonstrations to greet Bush when he comes to Rome next Friday and Saturday ahead of appearances in Paris and Normandy, France, for celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the June 6, 1994, D-Day landings.

The Iraq (news - web sites) war is deeply unpopular in Italy, which in February 2003 saw up to three million people take to the streets of Rome to protest the impending US-led invasion.

Pisanu said Friday: "We are ready to confront them without straying one millimeter from our golden rule, the rule of the constitution: to guarantee to all the right to demonstrate their opinions peacefully and without weapons, while guaranteeing to everyone else the right to lead a normal daily life."

The interior minister added: "I want it to be clear to everyone that we will make no room for violence. The state cannot allow violent, subversive people, national and international terrorists to interfere with the free political choice of the citizens, compromising the very democratic vitality of the country."

Bush "is coming to Italy and to Europe to find a reasonable resolution to the Iraqi tragedy, to consolidate peace and to restore freedom and soverignty to a people victimized by dictatorship and three wars over these past 20 years," he said.

Police chief Gianni de Gennaro said "around 200 to 300 violent people will try to create disorder and provoke clashes to achieve the maximum exposure in the media."

Italian secret service operatives have stepped up surveillance of mosques fearing attacks by Islamic extremists, press reports said.

A 10,000-strong security contingent will be deployed in addition to US forces, of whom several dozen arrived in Rome several weeks ago to prepare the ground for Bush's visit, which is to include an audience with Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II.

Next Friday is also the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Rome by US and Allied forces.

City officials said that in addition to uniformed police drafted from all over the country, around 100 plainclothes police will mingle with the crowds during the visit, whose exact itinerary is being kept secret for security reasons.

madape
05-28-2004, 03:21 PM
Let them protest. It's not like they have a job to go to. This is Europe after all.

reeds
05-28-2004, 03:22 PM
The whole freaking WORLD HATES HIM... you republicans should be proud

chumdawg
05-28-2004, 05:43 PM
Do they hate him, or do they fear him?

dude1394
05-28-2004, 06:37 PM
The world is engaged and is moving towards WWIV, the global fight against islamofacism. Unlike the French in WWII, President Bush and the United States don't play appeasement crap.

It's only natural that people who are afraid and are not willing to confront evil in the world would attack the person whom they think is stirring up the islamofacists. They would much rather feed the alligator and pray that he doesn't eat them rather than confront it.

George Bush's aggressive move to head-off islamofacism will (imho) save millions of lives in the next 30 years and possibly avert this WWIV. The left is AGAIN on the wrong side of history, as they have always been when it comes to foreign affairs and confronting true evil. He has already freed almost 50 million souls from tyranny.

FishForLunch
05-28-2004, 10:07 PM
It seems you are the only one is bothered that the world hate Bush.

reeds
05-28-2004, 10:13 PM
"It seems you are the only one is bothered that the world hate Bush. " bothered?? I luv the fact that the world hates BUSH..the more americans that realize it, the better the chance he is not re-elected...

FullBurst41
05-29-2004, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by: madape
Let them protest. It's not like they have a job to go to. This is Europe after all.
LOL, no need to mouth off now that the job market is growing again in the US, matey.

FullBurst41
05-29-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
The world is engaged and is moving towards WWIV, the global fight against islamofacism. Unlike the French in WWII, President Bush and the United States don't play appeasement crap.

It's only natural that people who are afraid and are not willing to confront evil in the world would attack the person whom they think is stirring up the islamofacists. They would much rather feed the alligator and pray that he doesn't eat them rather than confront it.

George Bush's aggressive move to head-off islamofacism will (imho) save millions of lives in the next 30 years and possibly avert this WWIV. The left is AGAIN on the wrong side of history, as they have always been when it comes to foreign affairs and confronting true evil. He has already freed almost 50 million souls from tyranny.

Wow, talk about an over-the-top thought. You'd makea great Flemmish bloc militant, I hope you're proud of it.

Islamofascism, eh? Is that the sort of country that sacrifices freedom to maintain stability? Like Saudi Arabia, or Usbekistan, perhaps? Boy, am I happy I live quite some distance from that area, because it's going to go up in smoke real soon if you had anything to do with it.

toucandave
05-29-2004, 12:22 PM
Reeds, if you don't want Bush re-elected, I would think that you should find a worthy opponet for him, rather than hope that the American public cares what the "world" thinks of him.

FullBurst41
05-29-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by: toucandave
Reeds, if you don't want Bush re-elected, I would think that you should find a worthy opponet for him, rather than hope that the American public cares what the "world" thinks of him.

Agreed.

reeds
05-29-2004, 01:35 PM
"Reeds, if you don't want Bush re-elected, I would think that you should find a worthy opponet for him, rather than hope that the American public cares what the "world" thinks of him. "

I should?? Ok-I'll get right on that....

LRB
05-29-2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
The whole freaking WORLD HATES HIM... you republicans should be proud


Talk about pure fabrication. While Bush certainly has his detractors at home and abroad, many of his opponents stop well short of hate. But Bush also has a great many supporters at home and abroad. American by no means has a monopoly of those who love and support Bush.

But let's take John Kerrry. Outside of the US only an incredibly small percentage even know who he is. So even if Bush were hated, we're back to the old axiom "better the devil that you know than the one that you don't."

I'd rather that have president who was hated abroad for standing up to do the right thing, than one who command little to no respect as did the Great Fornicator, Bill Clinton.

FullBurst41
05-29-2004, 02:50 PM
While your point is valid, you should know that this is the case with all new presiential candidats that I could remember. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore (to a lesser extent) were all unknowns to me when they placed their bid to become US president. Using that argument against Kerry doesn't say a whole lot.

reeds
05-29-2004, 03:13 PM
"I'd rather that have president who was hated abroad for standing up to do the right thing, than one who command little to no respect as did the Great Fornicator, Bill Clinton. "

The only thing Bill Clinton did that the other presidents and politicians didnt do was get caught..Not ALL, but MOST...

LRB
05-30-2004, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
While your point is valid, you should know that this is the case with all new presiential candidats that I could remember. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore (to a lesser extent) were all unknowns to me when they placed their bid to become US president. Using that argument against Kerry doesn't say a whole lot.


FB the point that I was making is that every US President who has run for reelection has had detractors abroad. That argument against Bush just doesn't say a whole lot either. It would be highly stupid of the American public to vote for a man just because his opponent has generated some detrators in other nations. Ronald Regan aguably had more detractors than Bush, and he was one of the most popular US presidents ever. You should vote for or against your leader based upon which you, not some citizens from another nation, think will do the best job. Now if people think that Bush is needlessly antagonizing other nations, then that could be a legitimate concern about his fitness. But that would mean that you disagree with his reasons and methods of conducting our relations with other nations, such as France. And most Americans would just as soon take a crap on France's doorstep that give them the time of day. France is nothing but a whiny, backstabbing, good for nothing but a pain in the @$$ "friend".

FullBurst41
05-30-2004, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
While your point is valid, you should know that this is the case with all new presiential candidats that I could remember. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore (to a lesser extent) were all unknowns to me when they placed their bid to become US president. Using that argument against Kerry doesn't say a whole lot.


FB the point that I was making is that every US President who has run for reelection has had detractors abroad. That argument against Bush just doesn't say a whole lot either. It would be highly stupid of the American public to vote for a man just because his opponent has generated some detrators in other nations. Ronald Regan aguably had more detractors than Bush, and he was one of the most popular US presidents ever. You should vote for or against your leader based upon which you, not some citizens from another nation, think will do the best job. Now if people think that Bush is needlessly antagonizing other nations, then that could be a legitimate concern about his fitness. But that would mean that you disagree with his reasons and methods of conducting our relations with other nations, such as France. And most Americans would just as soon take a crap on France's doorstep that give them the time of day. France is nothing but a whiny, backstabbing, good for nothing but a pain in the @$$ "friend".


Right. I can understand how "many Americans" might feel towards the French. That's geopolitics for you. Funny no one hits on the personality of Islam Karimov, or the totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia. But hey, at least you don't stab anyone in the back doing that, except perhaps not-so-free people.

dude1394
05-30-2004, 06:16 PM
It's only natural that people who are afraid and are not willing to confront evil in the world would attack the person whom they think is stirring up the islamofacists.

This section would be describing you fullburst.

LRB
05-30-2004, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
While your point is valid, you should know that this is the case with all new presiential candidats that I could remember. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore (to a lesser extent) were all unknowns to me when they placed their bid to become US president. Using that argument against Kerry doesn't say a whole lot.


FB the point that I was making is that every US President who has run for reelection has had detractors abroad. That argument against Bush just doesn't say a whole lot either. It would be highly stupid of the American public to vote for a man just because his opponent has generated some detrators in other nations. Ronald Regan aguably had more detractors than Bush, and he was one of the most popular US presidents ever. You should vote for or against your leader based upon which you, not some citizens from another nation, think will do the best job. Now if people think that Bush is needlessly antagonizing other nations, then that could be a legitimate concern about his fitness. But that would mean that you disagree with his reasons and methods of conducting our relations with other nations, such as France. And most Americans would just as soon take a crap on France's doorstep that give them the time of day. France is nothing but a whiny, backstabbing, good for nothing but a pain in the @$$ "friend".


Right. I can understand how "many Americans" might feel towards the French. That's geopolitics for you. Funny no one hits on the personality of Islam Karimov, or the totalitarian regime in Saudi Arabia. But hey, at least you don't stab anyone in the back doing that, except perhaps not-so-free people.

Check out current US policy. Saudia Arabia has been put on notice that business as usual, aka supporting terroism, better stop. Iraq was a not so subtle message to them and all the world as to what our policy for that is. As for human rights and democratic freedom, pressure is being put on them to inact reforms.

Of course you're probably pissed because we didn't envade them as well so you have some else to bitch and moan about. But dude very nicely addressed this issue above.

LRB
05-30-2004, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
"I'd rather that have president who was hated abroad for standing up to do the right thing, than one who command little to no respect as did the Great Fornicator, Bill Clinton. "

The only thing Bill Clinton did that the other presidents and politicians didnt do was get caught..Not ALL, but MOST...

Wrong. Clinton lied, he cheated, he fornicated, and he didn't give a damn about it. He displayed no moral character during his entire time in the White House, nor have I seen him do so since. Name another President who has knowingly committed perjury in a federal court while under oath? We can thank Clinton for 9/11 because he lacked the moral courage, leadership, and decisiveness to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Clinton always thought about how an action would make him look 1st. Then he thouth about it 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, ..., 1,000,000 th, then maybe he thought about what was the right thing to do. Clinton was incredibly chrarismatic, but commanded precious little respect. Those who liked him in the international community did so primarily because he caved in to their wisheds most time. The last, and I do mean absolutely last, thing I want in a President is one who will so causually cave in to international pressure. Clinton conducted foreign policy the same way he did domestic policy. He took a pole and followed it. Except with international policy, Clinton poled the international community instead of the US. I want a leader not some perverted backboneless coward.

FullBurst41
05-31-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394

It's only natural that people who are afraid and are not willing to confront evil in the world would attack the person whom they think is stirring up the islamofacists.

This section would be describing you fullburst.

Rather than trying to crucicy me, perhaps you would respond to the points made. Unless you don't want to, of course, since in all your wisdom you have nothing worthwhile to respond to.

FullBurst41
05-31-2004, 12:27 AM
LRB, your assumption that I'm "pissed" because you did not invadea countrylike Saudi Arabia is silly. I do not wish such a thing to happen to any people if at all possible. I live in a country that, throughout its history, has been invaded and occupied a gazillion times.

What bothers me is the double standard that is being put in place by the US. Warning Saudi Arabia obviously isn't helping. Now you've got a royal family on shaky ground and terrorists trying to exploit it. But, I ask you again, what's the deal with Uzbekistan? They're in a totally different league than Saudi Arabia if you ask me. You don't really have to fear the government going to fund terrorists as much as the country exploding into a very bloody civil war, which is unlikely as it is.;

This is a country where freedom has not existed in recent history (about the last 100 years). First, they've been occupied by the Russians and later the Soviets for a long time. Now the Uzbek people find themselves lead by a power monger who sees the economic benefit of supporting the war on terrorism. When Islam Kharimov dies, who will succeed him? It is going to be hard to put a stable government in his place, since no political opposition is allowed. So it's either going to be one of his cronies, or some fundamentalist nut who's subsequently going to become a danger to the United States. Doesn't that sort of remind you of old times?

If I had wanted you to invade Saudi Arabia and/or Uzbekistan, I would also have advocated the invasion of other countries, like Turkmenistan, Iran, Bellarus, Zimbabwe, etc. I do not want yout to do so; In some cases you can apply pressure through other means, in others you might have to put the curse of Political Isolation on them, or ask local leaders to broker a deal In many cases (in this list), military action might prove less fruitful than good, old diplomacy.

LRB
05-31-2004, 12:51 AM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
LRB, your assumption that I'm "pissed" because you did not invadea countrylike Saudi Arabia is silly. I do not wish such a thing to happen to any people if at all possible. I live in a country that, throughout its history, has been invaded and occupied a gazillion times.

What bothers me is the double standard that is being put in place by the US. Warning Saudi Arabia obviously isn't helping. Now you've got a royal family on shaky ground and terrorists trying to exploit it. But, I ask you again, what's the deal with Uzbekistan? They're in a totally different league than Saudi Arabia if you ask me. You don't really have to fear the government going to fund terrorists as much as the country exploding into a very bloody civil war, which is unlikely as it is.;

This is a country where freedom has not existed in recent history (about the last 100 years). First, they've been occupied by the Russians and later the Soviets for a long time. Now the Uzbek people find themselves lead by a power monger who sees the economic benefit of supporting the war on terrorism. When Islam Kharimov dies, who will succeed him? It is going to be hard to put a stable government in his place, since no political opposition is allowed. So it's either going to be one of his cronies, or some fundamentalist nut who's subsequently going to become a danger to the United States. Doesn't that sort of remind you of old times?

If I had wanted you to invade Saudi Arabia and/or Uzbekistan, I would also have advocated the invasion of other countries, like Turkmenistan, Iran, Bellarus, Zimbabwe, etc. I do not want yout to do so; In some cases you can apply pressure through other means, in others you might have to put the curse of Political Isolation on them, or ask local leaders to broker a deal In many cases (in this list), military action might prove less fruitful than good, old diplomacy.


FB I know that you don't advocate us invading anyone else, but you bring up the point that we have a supposed "double standard". So what DO you wish us to do with Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan? You're complaining so, and obviously you don't want us to invade them. So what do you want?

FullBurst41
05-31-2004, 09:51 AM
There are several options you could exploit. What about diplomatic pressure? The position you are in now gives you the possibility to have the Uzbek government listen to you. Had you not been involved with the Uzbeks in the first place, there really is little you could do. There are ups and downs to leaving the Uzbeks alone. A possible upside is that the chance of Islamic radicals taking over after the current administration finally falls is significantly reduced. This would also mean that cannot be accused of cursing one country, and rightfully so, while turning a blind eye to another. The downside tot his is obviously that nothing is going to change there for a few years at least. To put it crudely though, that wouldn't be the only country where the West at large doesn't pay heed to, so I guess that would become another statistic.

As for the Saudis, I do not believe the US is pushing hard enough to get some real reforms happening in the country, though one could ask the question if the country is ready for any significant change. I also think the US should seriously consider redrawing its troops, now that Iraq is no longer a threat to the Saudis and the economic wealth they possess. This would not be giving in to the terrorists as far as I am concerned, though they might want to exploit the situation and say tha it is.

I am no politician, and I won't pretend I know everything concerning either country, but I think there are certainly options to be explored.

dude1394
05-31-2004, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41

Originally posted by: dude1394

It's only natural that people who are afraid and are not willing to confront evil in the world would attack the person whom they think is stirring up the islamofacists.

This section would be describing you fullburst.

Rather than trying to crucicy me, perhaps you would respond to the points made. Unless you don't want to, of course, since in all your wisdom you have nothing worthwhile to respond to.

Hmmm.... You mean the points below?? There are no points there, just some sort of misdirection. You bring up Saudi Arabia and Usbekistan to try and misdirect the point of my post. It was an honest post and you provided no thought about why it was wrong/right indifferent, just that you didn't agree with it. Then you threw up the red herring about saudia arabia, uzbekistan to try and discredit the iraqi edeavor by that over-used proposition that we should not attack iraq because we are not attacking saudi arabia, uzbekistan. I guess iran, n.korea. etc. It's just as I said however, an attempt to do NOTHING. To put your head in the sand and hope the bad guys won't break into your house tonight. If we can't cure all cancers I guess we shouldn't try to cure any.

My point is that this is very serious business. If the islamofacists (I'm sure you've heard of that term and it seems accurate) manage to get ahold of multiple wmd weapons and use them against western interests what exactly do you think our response would have to be? You think we would get nuked with the possiblity of it happening over and over again we would try to "negotiate" and start an investigation of who did it? I do not, nor does bush, therefore you can tackle it now (which is DAMN hard with the folks of the world really wanting to put their heads in the sand and party-on dudes) or you try to find a way to avert that.

Bush tried to get the UN and Iraq to do this peacefully, but they also were not willing to do what needed to be done, so we did. If the un (france, russia, germany) had presented a solid front this invasion may have been averted, but they also didn't want to do much more than stick their heads in the sand and continue to collect their food-for-oil dollars.



Wow, talk about an over-the-top thought. You'd makea great Flemmish bloc militant, I hope you're proud of it.

Islamofascism, eh? Is that the sort of country that sacrifices freedom to maintain stability? Like Saudi Arabia, or Usbekistan, perhaps? Boy, am I happy I live quite some distance from that area, because it's going to go up in smoke real soon if you had anything to do with it.

FullBurst41
05-31-2004, 12:53 PM
Before we continue, would you agree with this very wise man?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6485

dude1394
05-31-2004, 01:49 PM
To be honest.... I don't have enough information to agree/disagree with him. Let me try to state my position. There is a movement in the world which is dedicated to the killing or subjugating of all people who are not of the same religion as these people. These people believe that they are ordained by Allah to re-conquer the ancient empire up to spain. Of course once that is done, the rest of the world must also be conquered. These people are willing to kill innumerable civilians, to commit any atrocity to obtain their goal.

Now do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you disagree then I would like to hear what you call these people.

If you agree, then what better term to call them than islamofacist? A religiously based movement dedicated to overthrow of current countries and putting those civilians under their totalitarian rule.

mavsman
05-31-2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by: LRB We can thank Clinton for 9/11 because he lacked the moral courage, leadership, and decisiveness to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance.
I'm only asking out of curiosity, not to stir an argument: Do you really believe that taking out Bin Laden before 2000 could have prevented 9/11? Don't you think that his successors already wait in line? But where are they? Pakistan? Iran, maybe? Libya? Or are they already taking flight lessons in the US, Great Britain, France or Germany?

dude1394
05-31-2004, 07:52 PM
To be honest I don't begrudge clinton that much about bin laden or terrorism before 9/11 EXCEPT when he was offerred him by I think sudan and he declined. That one was pretty inexcusable. I think if bin laden were dead or in a jail cell somewhere he wouldn't have initiated 9/11 or he wouldn't have been involved in recruitement/planning etc. But as you surmise, it might have happened anyway, but the odds would have been reduced I think.

So although I don't know if it would/would not I think it would have had an effect. Nothing guaranteed obviously.

But the country certainly wouldn' t have stood a more aggressive tact by clinton against terrorism before 9/11. Many in our country in fact seem to have already lost the stomach for what needs to be done to actually eliminate this threat.

mavsman55
05-31-2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
The whole freaking WORLD HATES HIM... you republicans should be proud

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anybody say. There's never going to be an American president that isn't brutally hated by the rest of the world. Remember, thanks to Bill Clinton, the US image all over the world is spoiled already. Who even cares what people overseas think of George Bush... after all, he is the president of the UNITED STATES pal. I couldn't care less if a bunch of angry, pissed-off islamic radicals want to kill him... he's your president and you should be doing nothing less than supporting him. Have you any idea the decisions that were put before this guy? No matter what he chose to do regarding the war in Iraq, people like you would be bashing him and saying stupid crap like this that you are incapable of backing up. My suggestion to you is to stop your whining and support the freaking United States.

mavsman55
05-31-2004, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: reeds
"I'd rather that have president who was hated abroad for standing up to do the right thing, than one who command little to no respect as did the Great Fornicator, Bill Clinton. "

The only thing Bill Clinton did that the other presidents and politicians didnt do was get caught..Not ALL, but MOST...

Wrong. Clinton lied, he cheated, he fornicated, and he didn't give a damn about it. He displayed no moral character during his entire time in the White House, nor have I seen him do so since. Name another President who has knowingly committed perjury in a federal court while under oath? We can thank Clinton for 9/11 because he lacked the moral courage, leadership, and decisiveness to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Clinton always thought about how an action would make him look 1st. Then he thouth about it 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, ..., 1,000,000 th, then maybe he thought about what was the right thing to do. Clinton was incredibly chrarismatic, but commanded precious little respect. Those who liked him in the international community did so primarily because he caved in to their wisheds most time. The last, and I do mean absolutely last, thing I want in a President is one who will so causually cave in to international pressure. Clinton conducted foreign policy the same way he did domestic policy. He took a pole and followed it. Except with international policy, Clinton poled the international community instead of the US. I want a leader not some perverted backboneless coward.

Woohoo! Sing it LRB... hit the nail right on the head.

FullBurst41
05-31-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
To be honest.... I don't have enough information to agree/disagree with him. Let me try to state my position. There is a movement in the world which is dedicated to the killing or subjugating of all people who are not of the same religion as these people. These people believe that they are ordained by Allah to re-conquer the ancient empire up to spain. Of course once that is done, the rest of the world must also be conquered. These people are willing to kill innumerable civilians, to commit any atrocity to obtain their goal.

Now do you agree or disagree with this statement? If you disagree then I would like to hear what you call these people.

If you agree, then what better term to call them than islamofacist? A religiously based movement dedicated to overthrow of current countries and putting those civilians under their totalitarian rule.
I believe your terminology is flawed. I do not believe that, in essenc<e, you can put Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden in an all-encasing category called "islamofascism." I would say that by using the term "islamofascism," you are oversimplifying a very complex Middle East. I do think you're right in saying that there is in general a movement that would like the West as dead as a pier, but to throw them all in the same basket is generalisation, the kind that gets people killed, a lot fo people actually.

The article shows you generalisation going to work in a very, very bad manner. If you want me to analyze it from a Belgian perspective, just let me know.

LRB
06-01-2004, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by: mavsman

Originally posted by: LRB We can thank Clinton for 9/11 because he lacked the moral courage, leadership, and decisiveness to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance.
I'm only asking out of curiosity, not to stir an argument: Do you really believe that taking out Bin Laden before 2000 could have prevented 9/11? Don't you think that his successors already wait in line? But where are they? Pakistan? Iran, maybe? Libya? Or are they already taking flight lessons in the US, Great Britain, France or Germany?

Would taking out Bin Laden before 200 have 100% guaranteed that 9/11 wouldn't have happened? Of course it wouldn't have. But it certainly would have created a strong possibility. If nothing else Bin Laden's death could have created a possible internal power struggle. It would be naive to underestimte the effect of a charismatic leader like Bin Laden has on an organization like Al Queda.

But if Clinton had taken up pursuing the terrorists who attacked us pre 9/11 it's likely we could have but them on the run enough that 9/11 might not have happened. No, it's not a sure thing. But what is a sure thing that doing nothing would have made sure that it happened.

LRB
06-01-2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41
There are several options you could exploit. What about diplomatic pressure? The position you are in now gives you the possibility to have the Uzbek government listen to you. Had you not been involved with the Uzbeks in the first place, there really is little you could do. There are ups and downs to leaving the Uzbeks alone. A possible upside is that the chance of Islamic radicals taking over after the current administration finally falls is significantly reduced. This would also mean that cannot be accused of cursing one country, and rightfully so, while turning a blind eye to another. The downside tot his is obviously that nothing is going to change there for a few years at least. To put it crudely though, that wouldn't be the only country where the West at large doesn't pay heed to, so I guess that would become another statistic.

As for the Saudis, I do not believe the US is pushing hard enough to get some real reforms happening in the country, though one could ask the question if the country is ready for any significant change. I also think the US should seriously consider redrawing its troops, now that Iraq is no longer a threat to the Saudis and the economic wealth they possess. This would not be giving in to the terrorists as far as I am concerned, though they might want to exploit the situation and say tha it is.

I am no politician, and I won't pretend I know everything concerning either country, but I think there are certainly options to be explored.


OK so now I know what you would like done, in very general terms, with these two governments. However this has nothing to do with Iraq. As Dude as so aptly pointed out, you are trying to misdirect the topic.

reeds
06-01-2004, 04:07 PM
"Wrong. Clinton lied, he cheated, he fornicated, and he didn't give a damn about it. He displayed no moral character during his entire time in the White House, nor have I seen him do so since. Name another President who has knowingly committed perjury in a federal court while under oath? We can thank Clinton for 9/11 because he lacked the moral courage, leadership, and decisiveness to take out Bin Laden when he had the chance. Clinton always thought about how an action would make him look 1st. Then he thouth about it 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, ..., 1,000,000 th, then maybe he thought about what was the right thing to do. Clinton was incredibly chrarismatic, but commanded precious little respect. Those who liked him in the international community did so primarily because he caved in to their wisheds most time. The last, and I do mean absolutely last, thing I want in a President is one who will so causually cave in to international pressure. Clinton conducted foreign policy the same way he did domestic policy. He took a pole and followed it. Except with international policy, Clinton poled the international community instead of the US. I want a leader not some perverted backboneless coward."

LRB- whatever...everything is CLINTONS fault as for as you righties go..What a joke..9-11 is ALL CLINTONS fault..even if he had taken out Bin Laden- would that have stopped 9-11?? You CANT PROVE THAT- period..and as far as taking out BIN LADEN- It must not be too easy since your all might Mr. BUSH hasnt got that job done yet either..

And as far as Clinton being a liar, cheater and fornicator- my reply is simply this..many many people every day cheat, lie and Fornicate..how many of them kill thousands by declaring WAR on innocent people??? Ill take the cheater and Liar OVER what BUSH did every DAY....

u2sarajevo
06-01-2004, 04:33 PM
Reeds - Bush never "declared war". Bush removed a ruthless leader of a Country after 12 years of appeasement failed.

FullBurst41
06-01-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
There are several options you could exploit. What about diplomatic pressure? The position you are in now gives you the possibility to have the Uzbek government listen to you. Had you not been involved with the Uzbeks in the first place, there really is little you could do. There are ups and downs to leaving the Uzbeks alone. A possible upside is that the chance of Islamic radicals taking over after the current administration finally falls is significantly reduced. This would also mean that cannot be accused of cursing one country, and rightfully so, while turning a blind eye to another. The downside tot his is obviously that nothing is going to change there for a few years at least. To put it crudely though, that wouldn't be the only country where the West at large doesn't pay heed to, so I guess that would become another statistic.

As for the Saudis, I do not believe the US is pushing hard enough to get some real reforms happening in the country, though one could ask the question if the country is ready for any significant change. I also think the US should seriously consider redrawing its troops, now that Iraq is no longer a threat to the Saudis and the economic wealth they possess. This would not be giving in to the terrorists as far as I am concerned, though they might want to exploit the situation and say tha it is.

I am no politician, and I won't pretend I know everything concerning either country, but I think there are certainly options to be explored.


OK so now I know what you would like done, in very general terms, with these two governments. However this has nothing to do with Iraq. As Dude as so aptly pointed out, you are trying to misdirect the topic.
Oh come on, you're telling me you can't see the connection? Didn't you remember our siscussion abvout the "double standard?"

madape
06-01-2004, 04:59 PM
And as far as Clinton being a liar, cheater and fornicator- my reply is simply this..many many people every day cheat, lie and Fornicate..how many of them kill thousands by declaring WAR on innocent people??? Ill take the cheater and Liar OVER what BUSH did every DAY....

The president of the United States has more power today than any one man has ever had in the history of mankind. He has the power to change the course of history, to lead the world in any direction he sees fit. Some presidents have used this power to confront evil, to advance democracy and freedom, and to try to make the world a safer and better place for our children. Others have used this power to get BJs from fatties.

LRB
06-01-2004, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
There are several options you could exploit. What about diplomatic pressure? The position you are in now gives you the possibility to have the Uzbek government listen to you. Had you not been involved with the Uzbeks in the first place, there really is little you could do. There are ups and downs to leaving the Uzbeks alone. A possible upside is that the chance of Islamic radicals taking over after the current administration finally falls is significantly reduced. This would also mean that cannot be accused of cursing one country, and rightfully so, while turning a blind eye to another. The downside tot his is obviously that nothing is going to change there for a few years at least. To put it crudely though, that wouldn't be the only country where the West at large doesn't pay heed to, so I guess that would become another statistic.

As for the Saudis, I do not believe the US is pushing hard enough to get some real reforms happening in the country, though one could ask the question if the country is ready for any significant change. I also think the US should seriously consider redrawing its troops, now that Iraq is no longer a threat to the Saudis and the economic wealth they possess. This would not be giving in to the terrorists as far as I am concerned, though they might want to exploit the situation and say tha it is.

I am no politician, and I won't pretend I know everything concerning either country, but I think there are certainly options to be explored.


OK so now I know what you would like done, in very general terms, with these two governments. However this has nothing to do with Iraq. As Dude as so aptly pointed out, you are trying to misdirect the topic.
Oh come on, you're telling me you can't see the connection? Didn't you remember our siscussion abvout the "double standard?"

double standard does not apply to Iraq. It may apply to some other nation that should arguably be treated as Iraq. But there are tons of differences between Iraq and the most similar nation to it in the world. The decision to invade Iraq was not made lightly, nor without considering many different pieces of of the puzzle. What we do or don't do towards Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan has no direct bearing on how we conduct our foreign relations with Iraq. Each is a seperate and unique case. However, even if we were to treat either Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan inappropriately, that would in no way invalidate what we did in Iraq.

Essentially it appears that you have no valid argument except misdirection.

LRB
06-01-2004, 06:19 PM
And as far as Clinton being a liar, cheater and fornicator- my reply is simply this..many many people every day cheat, lie and Fornicate..how many of them kill thousands by declaring WAR on innocent people??? Ill take the cheater and Liar OVER what BUSH did every DAY....



Just who in your screwed up world do you believe that we declared war on that was innocent?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif

Saddam? The mass murder of 100's of thousands of innocents just because they dared disagree with him. Bin Laden the architect behing the deaths of thousands of innocents because of his demented religious beliefs. The Taliban who killed women for merely showing their faces in public and forbade women the right to medical attention? If they're about as innocent as Hitler. Oh wait that's your hero isn't he? i/expressions/rolleye.gif

And if I knew anyone who lied, cheated, and fornicate away while refusing to do what was right to save thousands of innocents to feed his own selfish pleasures as Clinton did, I'd spit in their face and refuse to have anything to do with them. Without a doubt, Clinton was the most immoral man to ever call the Oval office home. And we've had some real scum bags in there.

I guess I'll just keep support President Bush for killing all thoses "innocent" terrorists and "innocent" mass murders. Hell I hope that I'm never found innocent in your eyes Reeds, or if I am someone shoots me because I'd rather be dead than be what you term "innocent". i/expressions/face-icon-small-disgusted.gif

mavsman55
06-01-2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
and as far as taking out BIN LADEN- It must not be too easy since your all might Mr. BUSH hasnt got that job done yet either..


Alright, so now it's ok to blame bush personally because the army wasn't able to scope out Bin Laden in his little 10x10 hole in the ground in the middle of Afghanistan? You do know that Mr. Bush never went to Afghanistan himself and hunted, right? Think about these dumb things before you say them.


Originally posted by: reeds
And as far as Clinton being a liar, cheater and fornicator- my reply is simply this..many many people every day cheat, lie and Fornicate..how many of them kill thousands by declaring WAR on innocent people??? Ill take the cheater and Liar OVER what BUSH did every DAY....

Ok reeds, George Bush never declared war on Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, or Terrorism in general. His only point in doing this was to kill innocent people and declare war on them. Got it.

What a joke. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

FullBurst41
06-02-2004, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41

Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41
There are several options you could exploit. What about diplomatic pressure? The position you are in now gives you the possibility to have the Uzbek government listen to you. Had you not been involved with the Uzbeks in the first place, there really is little you could do. There are ups and downs to leaving the Uzbeks alone. A possible upside is that the chance of Islamic radicals taking over after the current administration finally falls is significantly reduced. This would also mean that cannot be accused of cursing one country, and rightfully so, while turning a blind eye to another. The downside tot his is obviously that nothing is going to change there for a few years at least. To put it crudely though, that wouldn't be the only country where the West at large doesn't pay heed to, so I guess that would become another statistic.

As for the Saudis, I do not believe the US is pushing hard enough to get some real reforms happening in the country, though one could ask the question if the country is ready for any significant change. I also think the US should seriously consider redrawing its troops, now that Iraq is no longer a threat to the Saudis and the economic wealth they possess. This would not be giving in to the terrorists as far as I am concerned, though they might want to exploit the situation and say tha it is.

I am no politician, and I won't pretend I know everything concerning either country, but I think there are certainly options to be explored.


OK so now I know what you would like done, in very general terms, with these two governments. However this has nothing to do with Iraq. As Dude as so aptly pointed out, you are trying to misdirect the topic.
Oh come on, you're telling me you can't see the connection? Didn't you remember our siscussion abvout the "double standard?"

double standard does not apply to Iraq. It may apply to some other nation that should arguably be treated as Iraq. But there are tons of differences between Iraq and the most similar nation to it in the world. The decision to invade Iraq was not made lightly, nor without considering many different pieces of of the puzzle. What we do or don't do towards Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan has no direct bearing on how we conduct our foreign relations with Iraq. Each is a seperate and unique case. However, even if we were to treat either Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan inappropriately, that would in no way invalidate what we did in Iraq.

Essentially it appears that you have no valid argument except misdirection.

Just because you perceive it to be "misdirection" does not mean it is. I sure do not wish to misdirect the discussion in any way. I just think this applies to IRaq as well. Wasn't it you who said that the United States had more reasons to go into Iraq and clean house, except the WMD issue, though that was a top issue (though you've consistently failed to name them). Now, let us presume that the other things that the US went into Iraq for could be related to the "Stability for freedom" policy, which was obviously used by the Hussein regime.

At this point in time, the WMD's are a non-issue. Now you can tell me all you want that you had credible intelligence suggesting that the Iraqis DID have these weapons, I do not think that's the whole story. I do have some respect for sppooks, even if I don't like them. If weapons are not found, that will have been an error on a grand scale. Use of false "facts" used in speeches doesn't help there (I'm talking the Niger transfer here).

So, at this poitn in time, that leaves us with the human rights issue. In that case, I think the double standards argument is not misdirected at all.

reeds
06-02-2004, 05:22 PM
MAVSMAN- Some on here have earned the right to disagree with me and question my takes on politics- You have NOT..You are by far the DUMBEST republican in this room- without question... So right back at ya- your clueless

mavsman55
06-02-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
MAVSMAN- Some on here have earned the right to disagree with me and question my takes on politics- You have NOT..You are by far the DUMBEST republican in this room- without question... So right back at ya- your clueless

How are you going to prove that I'm the dumbest republican on this forum and "clueless" without disproving anything I say? The fact remains, it's not too bright to blame Bush personally for the army not being able to oust Bin Laden. Why you would blame him after he did everything in his power is beyond me. And up to this point, I don't believe you have any motivation on this thread except to bash George Bush for random unexplainable reasons. So please, I apologize for making fun of you and shouldn't have done that. But just think about things before you say them.

reeds
06-02-2004, 08:56 PM
I have already disproved something you said, you just fail to remember

mavsman55
06-02-2004, 09:08 PM
No. You never disproved anything, just read back every post in this thread, you have said nothing about my "stupidity". I don't want this to turn into a fighting match... once again, sorry for making fun of you... now let's get back to a normal debate.

FullBurst41
06-03-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by: reeds
MAVSMAN- Some on here have earned the right to disagree with me and question my takes on politics- You have NOT..You are by far the DUMBEST republican in this room- without question... So right back at ya- your clueless
Who are you to say who can disagree with you and who cannot? At least he doesn't call you a "stupid socialist." You just shot your own toe off, matey.

LRB
06-03-2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41



Just because you perceive it to be "misdirection" does not mean it is. I sure do not wish to misdirect the discussion in any way. I just think this applies to IRaq as well. Wasn't it you who said that the United States had more reasons to go into Iraq and clean house, except the WMD issue, though that was a top issue (though you've consistently failed to name them). Now, let us presume that the other things that the US went into Iraq for could be related to the "Stability for freedom" policy, which was obviously used by the Hussein regime.

At this point in time, the WMD's are a non-issue. Now you can tell me all you want that you had credible intelligence suggesting that the Iraqis DID have these weapons, I do not think that's the whole story. I do have some respect for sppooks, even if I don't like them. If weapons are not found, that will have been an error on a grand scale. Use of false "facts" used in speeches doesn't help there (I'm talking the Niger transfer here).

So, at this poitn in time, that leaves us with the human rights issue. In that case, I think the double standards argument is not misdirected at all.

And just because you say that it is not midirection does not mean that it is not. It does apear that you either intentionally or at the very least unintentionally wish to misdirect the discussion. This US did have more reasons to invade Iraq than just WMD. There was it's links to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations and information that it was supporting them in their efforts including 9/11. There was the refusal of Iraq to adhere to the cease fire agreements it agreed to at the end of the 1st Gulf War. There was the threat that Saddam poised to the stability of the region. There was the need that the US had to keep troops in the region in countries other than Iraq to keep Saddam in check causing a diplomatic dependency that was cumbersome to our goals in the war on terrorism. There were many more reasons. Fixing the civil rights issues in Iraq was not one of our state reasons for invading Iraq. It was one of the stated objectives our outcomes that we wanted, but not one of the reasons for the invasion.

Furthermore WMD do not need to be ever found to prove that we had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq over concern of WMD's. It was the threat and evidence that we had that it was a threat. It was the best and most accurate evidence that we had at the time. Further more Saddam had reneged on his agreement to allow full international inspections to prove that he did not have such weapons. Even if he did not have WMD's at the time of the invasion, it was clear that he was working on creating the opportunity to develop them in secret through his refusal. And it cannot be proved that he did not have WMD's and that they are eith well hidden or were removed from the country before it became entierly under US control. However the best case scenario was that we invaded and took control before such weapons could be produced. I would be estatic if this was conclusively proved. What is clear is that we could not 100% determine if Saddam did or did not have WMD's at the time of the invasion. What is also clear is that we know that he did have them in the past. That it was never proven to the standards enacted by the UN that those WMD's were destroyed before the invasion. That Saddam ignored numers UN resolutions to validate that he had destroyed the WMD's. That on more than one occasion that Saddam had committed acts of agression on other countries. That evidence linking the Saddam regime and Al Queda has been uncovered and made public. That Saddam made it know publicly in multiple instance his hatred for the US and desire to inflict injury on the US. That Saddam used WMD's on internal and extrenal enemies killing hundreds of thousands of each category.

Now if you want to defend him as being "innocent", then and only then does the human rights issue come in to play. And that would mean that even if we did make a "mistake" in invading Iraq, so what? Saddam was one of the worst despotic rulers and mass murders in history. Big F#$%ing deal if we removed his sorry ass by "mistake". It is not the reason that we did remove him for power, but it is one of the biggest reasons why he should never be considered innocent. This by no means should be construed that everyone guilty of such widespread and gross human rights violations should be invaded, but if they are it is hardly fair to term them as being "innocent".

reeds
06-03-2004, 01:58 PM
"Who are you to say who can disagree with you and who cannot? At least he doesn't call you a "stupid socialist." You just shot your own toe off, matey."

FullBrust- what are you talking about?? I NEVER said a person couldnt disagree- just dont go spouting off about "do you have any idea of what your talking about" that type of crap- which is what MavsMAN said..

Mind your own business and go start something with someone else

FullBurst41
06-03-2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41



Just because you perceive it to be "misdirection" does not mean it is. I sure do not wish to misdirect the discussion in any way. I just think this applies to IRaq as well. Wasn't it you who said that the United States had more reasons to go into Iraq and clean house, except the WMD issue, though that was a top issue (though you've consistently failed to name them). Now, let us presume that the other things that the US went into Iraq for could be related to the "Stability for freedom" policy, which was obviously used by the Hussein regime.

At this point in time, the WMD's are a non-issue. Now you can tell me all you want that you had credible intelligence suggesting that the Iraqis DID have these weapons, I do not think that's the whole story. I do have some respect for sppooks, even if I don't like them. If weapons are not found, that will have been an error on a grand scale. Use of false "facts" used in speeches doesn't help there (I'm talking the Niger transfer here).

So, at this poitn in time, that leaves us with the human rights issue. In that case, I think the double standards argument is not misdirected at all.

And just because you say that it is not midirection does not mean that it is not. It does apear that you either intentionally or at the very least unintentionally wish to misdirect the discussion. This US did have more reasons to invade Iraq than just WMD. There was it's links to Al Queda and other terrorist organizations and information that it was supporting them in their efforts including 9/11. There was the refusal of Iraq to adhere to the cease fire agreements it agreed to at the end of the 1st Gulf War. There was the threat that Saddam poised to the stability of the region. There was the need that the US had to keep troops in the region in countries other than Iraq to keep Saddam in check causing a diplomatic dependency that was cumbersome to our goals in the war on terrorism. There were many more reasons. Fixing the civil rights issues in Iraq was not one of our state reasons for invading Iraq. It was one of the stated objectives our outcomes that we wanted, but not one of the reasons for the invasion.

Furthermore WMD do not need to be ever found to prove that we had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq over concern of WMD's. It was the threat and evidence that we had that it was a threat. It was the best and most accurate evidence that we had at the time. Further more Saddam had reneged on his agreement to allow full international inspections to prove that he did not have such weapons. Even if he did not have WMD's at the time of the invasion, it was clear that he was working on creating the opportunity to develop them in secret through his refusal. And it cannot be proved that he did not have WMD's and that they are eith well hidden or were removed from the country before it became entierly under US control. However the best case scenario was that we invaded and took control before such weapons could be produced. I would be estatic if this was conclusively proved. What is clear is that we could not 100% determine if Saddam did or did not have WMD's at the time of the invasion. What is also clear is that we know that he did have them in the past. That it was never proven to the standards enacted by the UN that those WMD's were destroyed before the invasion. That Saddam ignored numers UN resolutions to validate that he had destroyed the WMD's. That on more than one occasion that Saddam had committed acts of agression on other countries. That evidence linking the Saddam regime and Al Queda has been uncovered and made public. That Saddam made it know publicly in multiple instance his hatred for the US and desire to inflict injury on the US. That Saddam used WMD's on internal and extrenal enemies killing hundreds of thousands of each category.

Now if you want to defend him as being "innocent", then and only then does the human rights issue come in to play. And that would mean that even if we did make a "mistake" in invading Iraq, so what? Saddam was one of the worst despotic rulers and mass murders in history. Big F#$%ing deal if we removed his sorry ass by "mistake". It is not the reason that we did remove him for power, but it is one of the biggest reasons why he should never be considered innocent. This by no means should be construed that everyone guilty of such widespread and gross human rights violations should be invaded, but if they are it is hardly fair to term them as being "innocent".
I find that all rather hard to digest. Threat to other countries in the region? He's always been a threat to other countries in the region, and that includes the 1980s. Links to Al Qaeda? Possible, not certain. And what beats it all: it wasn't important if he HAD WMD's, rather the evidence that you collected that he had? Well, of course, since otherwise you wouldn't know he had them, only he didn't have them so something went brutally wrong with the evidence, or somebody has been attending creativity lessons, I don't know.


What I really do not understand is your constant emphasis on me defending Saddam or calling him innocent. You seem to be suffering from a rather large "lback & white" complex, that when I'm not openly accusing him of having WMD's, I'm suddenly defending him. Can I get a break, just now?

Therefore, I do not quite understand the final part of your post. Since I did not call lSaddam innocent, and do not think that he is, it makes ze'ro sense to me, maybe you would mind explaining it again?

That said, I also do not understand why what I have pointed out is in anyway a misdirection of the discussion. Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan both play big parts in the war on terror, Iraq obviously did as well. The United States government went out of its way and almost tripped all over itself getting rid of Saddam, while they consistently turn a blind eye to their allies in the Middle East (and this includes the Israelis, mind you, but that's another discussion). Where's the misdirection?

FullBurst41
06-03-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by: reeds
"Who are you to say who can disagree with you and who cannot? At least he doesn't call you a "stupid socialist." You just shot your own toe off, matey."

FullBrust- what are you talking about?? I NEVER said a person couldnt disagree- just dont go spouting off about "do you have any idea of what your talking about" that type of crap- which is what MavsMAN said..

Mind your own business and go start something with someone else
You're a funny man, reeds. It's like you just used a large knife to cut a man's throat, and then wave it high while crossing the street saying it wasn't you. I copied this from the post you can see ont he same page as this one, you can check yourself:

MAVSMAN- Some on here have earned the right to disagree with me and question my takes on politics- You have NOT..

And yet you come here and say you're not saying who can and cannot disagree with you? I'll gladly get my nose out of this, because it seems one cannot argue with you in any reasonable way.

sike
06-03-2004, 04:08 PM
ahhh political debate....it far too often turns into foolish name calling...

LRB
06-03-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41

I find that all rather hard to digest. Threat to other countries in the region? He's always been a threat to other countries in the region, and that includes the 1980s. Links to Al Qaeda? Possible, not certain. And what beats it all: it wasn't important if he HAD WMD's, rather the evidence that you collected that he had? Well, of course, since otherwise you wouldn't know he had them, only he didn't have them so something went brutally wrong with the evidence, or somebody has been attending creativity lessons, I don't know.

1st of all there is no positive proof that Saddam did not have WMD's at the time of the US invasion or shortly before. Failure to find them does not prove that they didn't exist. In fact we know of at least one chemical weapon that remained hidden. If one could remain hidden why not 2? If 2 why not 3? Why not 100?

But it doesn't really matter whether he had them or not because it was clear his intentions was to acquire them and he was working on creating the environment where he could do so without the international community being able to verify for certain that he had them by anything short of a full scale invasion and possibly not even then.

We do know that he won't be developing them now.

As to the threats to other countries, Saddam was consistently failing to adhere to the cease fire agreement of his last invasion of a neighbor, Kuwaite, and was failing to follow the UN resolutions that were passed as a result of that. These resoultions promised severe consequences if he didn't comply. I think that giving him 12 years to comply was more than amply.


Originally posted by: FullBurst41

What I really do not understand is your constant emphasis on me defending Saddam or calling him innocent. You seem to be suffering from a rather large "lback & white" complex, that when I'm not openly accusing him of having WMD's, I'm suddenly defending him. Can I get a break, just now?

Therefore, I do not quite understand the final part of your post. Since I did not call lSaddam innocent, and do not think that he is, it makes ze'ro sense to me, maybe you would mind explaining it again?




It's not becasue you won't say that he had WMD's, I really could care less what you think on that. It's because you say that liberating a country from a monster such as Saddam was wrong. Huge difference there.


Originally posted by: FullBurst41

That said, I also do not understand why what I have pointed out is in anyway a misdirection of the discussion. Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan both play big parts in the war on terror, Iraq obviously did as well. The United States government went out of its way and almost tripped all over itself getting rid of Saddam, while they consistently turn a blind eye to their allies in the Middle East (and this includes the Israelis, mind you, but that's another discussion). Where's the misdirection?

The misdirection is that they are entirely different situations than Iraq. If nothing else neither government is as openly hostile as Iraq. Neither government is in violation of a UN resolution promising severe consquences for noncompliance. Neither country invaded their neighbor and had to be forcibly removed by the US within recent history and are consequently in violation of the cease fire agreement. Neither country has used WMD's to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

To compare the two the way you have is a crass attempt at misdirection and an example of extreme ignorance. Had Saddam simply adhered to the UN resolutions, it's highly unlikely that we would have invaded as we did. However, he adamantly refused for 12 years to fully comply. Why would he do that if he didn't have WMD's and had no intention of developing more?

LRB
06-03-2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by: sike
ahhh political debate....it far too often turns into foolish name calling...

Ah shutup you stupid michael jackson looking alien!!! i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

reeds
06-03-2004, 05:28 PM
"And yet you come here and say you're not saying who can and cannot disagree with you? I'll gladly get my nose out of this, because it seems one cannot argue with you in any reasonable way."

You got me- he is the EXCEPTION...lol...

mavsman55
06-03-2004, 08:42 PM
Haha. Ok reeds, Ok.

FullBurst41
06-05-2004, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by: LRB

Originally posted by: FullBurst41

I find that all rather hard to digest. Threat to other countries in the region? He's always been a threat to other countries in the region, and that includes the 1980s. Links to Al Qaeda? Possible, not certain. And what beats it all: it wasn't important if he HAD WMD's, rather the evidence that you collected that he had? Well, of course, since otherwise you wouldn't know he had them, only he didn't have them so something went brutally wrong with the evidence, or somebody has been attending creativity lessons, I don't know.

1st of all there is no positive proof that Saddam did not have WMD's at the time of the US invasion or shortly before. Failure to find them does not prove that they didn't exist. In fact we know of at least one chemical weapon that remained hidden. If one could remain hidden why not 2? If 2 why not 3? Why not 100?

But it doesn't really matter whether he had them or not because it was clear his intentions was to acquire them and he was working on creating the environment where he could do so without the international community being able to verify for certain that he had them by anything short of a full scale invasion and possibly not even then.

We do know that he won't be developing them now.

As to the threats to other countries, Saddam was consistently failing to adhere to the cease fire agreement of his last invasion of a neighbor, Kuwaite, and was failing to follow the UN resolutions that were passed as a result of that. These resoultions promised severe consequences if he didn't comply. I think that giving him 12 years to comply was more than amply.


Originally posted by: FullBurst41

What I really do not understand is your constant emphasis on me defending Saddam or calling him innocent. You seem to be suffering from a rather large "lback & white" complex, that when I'm not openly accusing him of having WMD's, I'm suddenly defending him. Can I get a break, just now?

Therefore, I do not quite understand the final part of your post. Since I did not call lSaddam innocent, and do not think that he is, it makes ze'ro sense to me, maybe you would mind explaining it again?




It's not becasue you won't say that he had WMD's, I really could care less what you think on that. It's because you say that liberating a country from a monster such as Saddam was wrong. Huge difference there.


Originally posted by: FullBurst41

That said, I also do not understand why what I have pointed out is in anyway a misdirection of the discussion. Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan both play big parts in the war on terror, Iraq obviously did as well. The United States government went out of its way and almost tripped all over itself getting rid of Saddam, while they consistently turn a blind eye to their allies in the Middle East (and this includes the Israelis, mind you, but that's another discussion). Where's the misdirection?

The misdirection is that they are entirely different situations than Iraq. If nothing else neither government is as openly hostile as Iraq. Neither government is in violation of a UN resolution promising severe consquences for noncompliance. Neither country invaded their neighbor and had to be forcibly removed by the US within recent history and are consequently in violation of the cease fire agreement. Neither country has used WMD's to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

To compare the two the way you have is a crass attempt at misdirection and an example of extreme ignorance. Had Saddam simply adhered to the UN resolutions, it's highly unlikely that we would have invaded as we did. However, he adamantly refused for 12 years to fully comply. Why would he do that if he didn't have WMD's and had no intention of developing more?

Ah, the frustration, it's getting to me again. It never fails to amaze me how illiterate some people can be at the moments of their own chhosing.

I never said that removing Saddam Hussein was "wrong" as much as it was an act of hypocrisy, that's a huge difference as well. There's always a middle road, LRB, and that includes written English.

This si mroe a question on my part than an accusation, because you obviously know womsething I don't, but how exactly did Hussein consistently break the cease-fire? Because his forces fired upon US and UK aircraft every now and again and afterwards got their butts bombed fifty meters below the ground? I sure do not remember him attacking Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Israel or any other country in any shape or form.

the United States knew that Iraq was trying to acquire WMD's... not from Niger, by any chance? and... if not, then where exactly? Or from whom? If you're going to use that artillery shell again to try and prove a point, then we better stop this discussion right now. It's like Belgian fascists saying that Muslims are criminals just because they caught one breaking into a house. Another "bad comparison," but we'll get to that in a moment.

Actually, I talked to a guy from the States just before the Iraq war, and he said something about reading an article that Russia had shipped in chemical weapons prior to the invasion, so as to beef up Iraq's existing arsenal (which has suddenly disappeared). If that's not bad journalism, I'm not sure what is (why hasn't Moscow been bombed yet?).

As for the comparison, you're right, it's not a good comparison, but what do you expect? Comparisons almost never are decent. Besides, even though Hussein gassed his own people (except if he doesn't see Kurds as his own), this was not a reason to invade the country, right? So why should those other countries be any different? Perhaps you'll accuse me of wrongly comparing Saddam to someone like Islam Karimov because he doesn't look like him.

dude1394
06-05-2004, 11:40 AM
Posted by fullburst.

There's always a middle road, LRB, and that includes written English.

Too much star trek fb. Sometimes there is NOT a middle road.

FullBurst41
06-05-2004, 04:00 PM
Well then, perhaps, Dude, you might want to elaborate on why there is no middle road available in this situation, so as to keep the debate alive...

dude1394
06-05-2004, 05:29 PM
I'm not even sure what the "debate" is anymore. But I'll assume that it's iraq, since everything else is.

To me iraq had a few options.
1. Do the same.
2. Put more pressure on sadaam to try and get him to abide by resolutions.
3. Get rid of the bastard.

The problem with these "3" options in my mind is that they are actuallyl only 2. Because 2 cannont be done unless you are actually willing to get rid of the bastard.

Doing the same was beginning to unravel. Sadaam had kicked out the inspectors, refused to account for his wmds, had compartmenalized his weapons programs to be sort of "just in time" wmd programs it seems. As soon as the boycott was finally broken I think he would have accelerated those programs and hooked up with islamofacists to provide them with weaponry and money to continue attacking the west, all over the world.

Number 2 was done by bush HOWEVER he finally did number 2 and made it PLAIN to the democrats, the UN, france, germany, the world that he meant business. That either sadaam was going to disarm and be transparent or he was going to be either dead or captured. He didn't hide his intentions, the idea that kerry for example voted to go to war but really didn't mean it is ridiculous and eliminates him for me from consideration as president. (Just my opinion however).

You might say that there was a third way and that was to let the inspectors continue searching, but it's an untenable position in my mind. We couldn't keep 100,000 soldiers poised to invade forever? There was absolutlely no evidence to me that this wouldn't have been another arabic stalling game that arafat has been playing forever. Give a little, stall a little, stall a little more, until the leftists to undermined bush's resolve until we left. Bad move by sadaam, but that was his strategy especially with his french friends running interference for him.

So I reject that there was a third way, there was only go along until the blockade was finally broken or get rid of him. Two choices. I think the right one was made and although it's been tough, not nearly as tough as a lot of wobbly conservatives had said. But americans in general don't care much for police work, they just don't feel that it's worth our soldiers. They sort of think the iraqis should either rat out the terrorists or basically they get what they deserve.

LRB
06-06-2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by: FullBurst41



Ah, the frustration, it's getting to me again. It never fails to amaze me how illiterate some people can be at the moments of their own chhosing.

I never said that removing Saddam Hussein was "wrong" as much as it was an act of hypocrisy, that's a huge difference as well. There's always a middle road, LRB, and that includes written English.

This si mroe a question on my part than an accusation, because you obviously know womsething I don't, but how exactly did Hussein consistently break the cease-fire? Because his forces fired upon US and UK aircraft every now and again and afterwards got their butts bombed fifty meters below the ground? I sure do not remember him attacking Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Israel or any other country in any shape or form.

the United States knew that Iraq was trying to acquire WMD's... not from Niger, by any chance? and... if not, then where exactly? Or from whom? If you're going to use that artillery shell again to try and prove a point, then we better stop this discussion right now. It's like Belgian fascists saying that Muslims are criminals just because they caught one breaking into a house. Another "bad comparison," but we'll get to that in a moment.

Actually, I talked to a guy from the States just before the Iraq war, and he said something about reading an article that Russia had shipped in chemical weapons prior to the invasion, so as to beef up Iraq's existing arsenal (which has suddenly disappeared). If that's not bad journalism, I'm not sure what is (why hasn't Moscow been bombed yet?).

As for the comparison, you're right, it's not a good comparison, but what do you expect? Comparisons almost never are decent. Besides, even though Hussein gassed his own people (except if he doesn't see Kurds as his own), this was not a reason to invade the country, right? So why should those other countries be any different? Perhaps you'll accuse me of wrongly comparing Saddam to someone like Islam Karimov because he doesn't look like him.

As dude has aptly pointed out, there really was not middle ground here. Either we removed Saddam or we didn't. So either it was wrong to remove him or it wasn't. Pick one position, but sitting in the middle really isn't a valid option.

As for the cease fire and how Saddam broke it, he did so in many ways. He attacked his own people, the Kurds, with his military weapons. He had agreed not to do this as part of the cease fire. He refused access to international weapons inspectors. he had agreed to do this as part of the cease fire. He fired on or targeted US and other allies planes patroling no flys zones, something that he had a greed not to do as part of the cease fire. He absolutely refused to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that he had no more WMD's nor the capability of making them, something that he had agreed to do as part of the cease fire. He purchase illegal military items with the oil that was supposed to be dedicated to food for his people, another violation. That's all that I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure I could find tons more with a little research.

As Dude has so eloquently pointed out above, we could not indefinitely keep an invasion force poised to invade Iraq as a threat to keep Saddam from resuming his aggressions. Saddam was using his allies, France, Germany, and Russia, to break down the UN sanctions so that he could rearm. He was also working to become completely free of WMD inspections so that he could resume those programs. Of course this is exactly what France, Germany, and Russia wanted. That way they could make millions selling Saddam military technology and possibly even WMD's themselves.

Now that covers why the US felt it had to invade Iraq. The only alternative was not to invade Iraq. We felt and still do that not invading would have been too dangerous for the US because it would have given Saddam the freedom to rearm and suppy the muslim terrorists with WMD's to directly attack the US and here true allies.

Now let's come to the part that many of our socalled European "allies" played. They could have just disagreed with the plan to invade Iraq and stepped back and refused to participate. That would have been fine. However this is not the case. They actively supported Saddam in the political arena. They condemned any plan to invade and during the invasion tried to get the US and allies to pull out using every political ploy they could think of. Furthermore they supplied Saddam with military weapons, parts, and advisors up to and even after the invasion started. Supplying Saddam was illegal according to international agreements that those countries had signed themselves. This is hardly neutral behavior. This was support of Saddam. This is why I make that accusation.

FullBurst41
06-09-2004, 03:57 PM
sorry for the short reply, I'm in the middle of exams....

Could somebody present me with any proof at all (and I mean independant, please) that any European country supplied Saddam Hussein with military equipment (and if by chance you come up with Ukraine, start laughing at yourself).

Evilmav2
06-09-2004, 04:22 PM
Could somebody present me with any proof at all (and I mean independant, please) that any European country supplied Saddam Hussein with military equipment (and if by chance you come up with Ukraine, start laughing at yourself).

So no Euro's sold Iraq any of it's military equipment? I guess helicopter gunships, fighter aircraft, and air-to-surface missiles don't count (I wonder just how many innocent Kurds were murdered by these French-made weapons)...


"After 1980, however, in an effort to diversify its sources of advanced armaments, Iraq turned to France for Mirage fighters and for attack helicopters. Between 1982 and 1987, Iraq received or ordered a variety of equipment from France, including more than 100 Mirage F-1s, about 100 Gazelle, Super-Frelon, and Alouette helicopters, and a variety of air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles, including Exocets. Other attack helicopters purchased included the Soviet Hind equipped with AT-2 Swatter, and BO-105s equipped with AS-11 antitank guided weapons. In addition, Iraq bought seventy F-7 (Chinese version of the MiG-21) fighters, assembled in Egypt. Thus Iraq's overall airpower was considerable.

Between 1977 and 1987, Paris contracted to sell a total of 133 Mirage F-1 fighters to Iraq. The first transfer occurred in 1978, when France supplied eighteen Mirage F-1 interceptors and thirty helicopters, and even agreed to an Iraqi share in the production of the Mirage 2000 in a US$2 billion arms deal. In 1983 another twenty-nine Mirage F-1s were exported to Baghdad. And in an unprecedented move, France "loaned" Iraq five SuperEtendard attack aircraft, equipped with Exocet AM39 air-to- surface missiles, from its own naval inventory. The SuperEtendards were used extensively in the 1984 tanker war before being replaced by several F-1s. The final batch of twenty-nine F1s was ordered in September 1985 at a cost of more than US$500 million, a part of which was paid in crude oil. Iraq also bought more than 400 Exocet AM39 air-to-surface missiles and at least 200 AS30 laserguided missiles between 1983 and 1986. "
-Federation of American Scientists- Iraqi Airforce (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/agency/af.htm)

Mavdog
06-09-2004, 04:47 PM
without trying to place words in other's mouths, it seems the question (when looked at in the context of the discussion) is what European countries sold Iraq weapons/weapon systems after the UN sanctions were put in effect, after 1991.

During the time periods mentioned in the post above the US was selling Saddam as much if not more than europe...Rumsfield was part of that program ironically.

Evilmav2
06-09-2004, 05:22 PM
Point taken about the timing of the Euro sales Mavdog. I didn't read all of the earlier posts, and was merely responding to FB's last post...

That said, allegations that the Russians violated the Iraqi arms embargo are well documented, and both the Serbian Republic and Muslim-Croat Federation have both admitted to their own illegal arms sales (not to mince words, but any assertions that the Dalmatian republics are not European would be absurd).Yugo-Iraqi Illegal Arms Sales (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2415867.stm). It also appears likely that the Ukrainians (http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/160208.shtml) were involved in illegal arms exports to Iraq following the 1991 cease-fire...

Evidently many materials that could be used in various military applications (chemicals, machine parts, etc... ) did also find their way into Iraq by way of Western Europe, but as these materials do not technically constitute "military equipment", it would be unfair to point to that as being proof of Euro complicity in violating the UN sanctions.

FullBurst41
06-10-2004, 04:04 PM
Of course Ukraine had deals with Iraq. Ukraine is probably one of the most ... unpleasant regimes Europe has today. Probably ranks above Belarus and who knows what else. Ukraine's president sure has shown in the past that he's willing to do business with anyone, especially if he can get a bitt of enefit out of it.

As for the former Yugoslavia, of course they are part of Europe. The only thing is that they do not figure into this discussion very well. These are countries that are still not part of the European Union, and will not be part of it for some time to come. Furthermore, I would say that the political environment in these countries is by and large not favorable yet. Deals emerging out of these countries makes some sense, for them.

And now, as for Russia, I find this all very interesting. Didn't the weapon inspectors find some documents in Iraq concerning the sale of, what was it, fermentation, which could be used in food for anmals AND biological weapon,s? Nobody seems to know where it is though, and does anyone know about when that deal was set up? I think that does play some significant role. the Russians and Iraqis have always had some ties, just like the United States, but I think you could have a point when Russia is concerned, though it would seem we do not nearly know enough to be conclusive on this.

So... what about the others? I was sort of expecting people to overload the thread with links to French/German-Iraqi deals put together just before the war. Perhaps I was wrong. Oh well.