If you cannot defeat the US then strike at its supporters

[FishForLunch]

I fear Europe is in for their own 9/11 's, but the dumb fools think appeasement will save them. The Islamists understand only thing absolute crushing power, if you give them one inch they will take over and destroy you. I think no American politician will back away from the challenge of terrorism not even Kerry (hope he will grow a spine if he becomes the president)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIN LADEN'S VICTORY IN SPAIN: It's a spectacular result for Islamist terrorism, and a chilling portent of Europe's future. A close election campaign, with Aznar's party slightly ahead, ended with the Popular Party's defeat and the socialist opposition winning. It might be argued that the Aznar government's dogged refusal to admit the obvious quickly enough led people to blame it for a cover-up. But why did they seek to delay assigning the blame on al Qaeda? Because they knew that if al Qaeda were seen to be responsible, the Spanish public would blame Aznar not bin Laden! But there's the real ironic twist: if the appeasement brigade really do believe that the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda, then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection? The answer is obvious: the removal of the Taliban and the Saddam dictatorship were two major blows to the cause of Islamist terror. They removed an al Qaeda client state and a potential harbor for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. So it's vital that the Islamist mass murderers target those who backed both wars. It makes total sense. And in yesterday's election victory for the socialists, al Qaeda got even more than it could have dreamed of. It has removed a government intent on fighting terrorism and installed another intent on appeasing it. For good measure, they murdered a couple of hundred infidels. But the truly scary thought is the signal that this will send to other European governments. Britain is obviously next. The appeasement temptation has never been greater; and it looks more likely now that Europe - as so very often in the past - will take the path of least resistance - with far greater bloodshed as a result. I'd also say that it increases the likelihood of a major bloodbath in this country before the November elections. If it worked in Spain, al Qaeda might surmise, why not try it in the U.S.?

[dude1394]

This is what happens when you let your defenses fall down. Right now the euro's couldn't defend against al queda even if they wanted to. It's the old story about a bear in the woods and one person has a gun while the other has a knife. The one with the knife will accept that the bear MIGHT eat him and try their best not to stir him up. The person with the gun will NOT accept that the bear will eat him and he will hunt it down and take care of the problem once and for all.

[Fidel]

I do not agree with some of the stuff that you usually post Fish, but this summary of the situation is pretty good. Whatever one might think about the war against Iraq, to remove the spanish troops now after the madrid bombings is the worst thing the new socialist governement could possibly do. They give in to those motherfuckers, and removing the troops now will further destabilize the situation in Iraq.

Actually when dealing with those islamic fanatics/terrorists appeasement politics will spell disaster. Why? Because those motherfuckers will only use the easy going of countrys like Germany (yeah my homecountry) to gain more ground. Their final goal is absolutely clear because they talk about it all the time: kill all infidels, worldwide. So when dealing with those assholes it´s us or them, nothing else. I´d say that doesn´t leave much room for appeasement.


And dude, I don´t think it was a matter of letting the defense fall down in Spain. It can happen anywhere, anytime. But I still agree that the terrorists need to be hunted down, rather then hoping they will not attack.

[Mavdog]

The Socialist's election in Spain was not totally unexpected, the Popular Party had only about a 3 to 4% lead going into the election, and the manner in which the government tried to lay the total blame for the terrorist attack on the ETA wasn't well received.

Polls show that 90% of the Spanish voters were against the Spanish government's involvement in Iraq. This may very well be an example of when the government didn't listen to the voters, and the voters spoke at the ballot box by rejecting that government.

But there's the real ironic twist: if the appeasement brigade really do believe that the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda, then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection? The answer is obvious: the removal of the Taliban and the Saddam dictatorship were two major blows to the cause of Islamist terror. They removed an al Qaeda client state and a potential harbor for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. So it's vital that the Islamist mass murderers target those who backed both wars. It makes total sense.

"total sense" except to those who can actually see the forest for the trees!

The suggestion that the attack on Spain validated the connection between the Iraqis and the Islamist terrorist is ridiculous, as ridiculous as the suggestion above that Iraq was one an "al Queda client state" and two that Iraq was a "potential harbor for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction".
Anybody with an understanding of mid east politics (count the writer of this piece among those NOT understanding) was able to predict that an attack on Iraq would forment a response from the islamist who saw such an attack as a part of the "crusade" against Islam. That does in no way prove, support, validate or any other way connect the Saddamite Iraq to the radical Islamist terror network, except of course to those who are using the Spanish attacks to futher their own goals and self interest.

[Chiwas]

But why did they seek to delay assigning the blame on al Qaeda? Because they knew that if al Qaeda were seen to be responsible, the Spanish public would blame Aznar not bin Laden! But there's the real ironic twist: if the appeasement brigade really do believe that the war to depose Saddam is and was utterly unconnected with the war against al Qaeda, then why on earth would al Qaeda respond by targeting Spain? If the two issues are completely unrelated, why has al Qaeda made the connection? The answer is obvious: the removal of the Taliban and the Saddam dictatorship were two major blows to the cause of Islamist terror. They removed an al Qaeda client state and a potential harbor for terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. So it's vital that the Islamist mass murderers target those who backed both wars. It makes total sense. And in yesterday's election victory for the socialists, al Qaeda got even more than it could have dreamed of. It has removed a government intent on fighting terrorism and installed another intent on appeasing it. For good measure, they murdered a couple of hundred infidels.

Excellent deductions. This guy knows politicians and terrorists.

But the truly scary thought is the signal that this will send to other European governments. Britain is obviously next.

I thought the same just the day it happened: Not ETA, but Al Qaeda, and the next is the UK.

I'd also say that it increases the likelihood of a major bloodbath in this country before the November elections. If it worked in Spain, al Qaeda might surmise, why not try it in the U.S.?

No way. The US is not Europe, much less since 9/11. And the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq harmed in a great extent Al Qaeda and some of its most important branches. The leaders of Al Qaeda are not dummies, a new attack on the US in the same level or close to that of 9/11 would mean its doom, cause Bush would win easily the elections since he is firmly determined to attack and finish the terrorism and even the Democrats know this. Neither the US is Spain nor Bush -to the eyes of the Americans- is Aznar -like he is to the eyes of the Spaniards. The author here contradicted himself.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Fidel
I do not agree with some of the stuff that you usually post Fish, but this summary of the situation is pretty good. Whatever one might think about the war against Iraq, to remove the spanish troops now after the madrid bombings is the worst thing the new socialist governement could possibly do. They give in to those motherfuckers, and removing the troops now will further destabilize the situation in Iraq.

Actually when dealing with those islamic fanatics/terrorists appeasement politics will spell disaster. Why? Because those motherfuckers will only use the easy going of countrys like Germany (yeah my homecountry) to gain more ground. Their final goal is absolutely clear because they talk about it all the time: kill all infidels, worldwide. So when dealing with those assholes it´s us or them, nothing else. I´d say that doesn´t leave much room for appeasement.


And dude, I don´t think it was a matter of letting the defense fall down in Spain. It can happen anywhere, anytime. But I still agree that the terrorists need to be hunted down, rather then hoping they will not attack.

Not in paritcular spain. But europe in general is much more apt to appease aggressors because they really couldn't prosecute this war even if they wanted to. Their thougt process is that you shouldn't disturb the bear because it might eat you. So they are appeasing the terrorists.

[FishForLunch]

And here's a chilling piece of evidence of how pre-meditated this entire atrocity was. Back in December, the plans were in place:

CNN also has obtained a document posted on an Internet message board analysts believe is used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers that spells out the terrorist group's plan to separate Spain from the U.S.-led coalition on Iraq.
The strategy spelled out in the document, posted last December on the Internet, calls for using terrorist attacks to drive Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's Partido Popular from power and replace it with the Socialists.
That was expected to drive a wedge between Washington and Madrid and result in the withdrawal of Spanish military forces from Iraq.
"We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it," the al Qaeda document says.
"If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed - and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto."

Now why would al Qaeda want the disintegration of the transition in Iraq? Because they understand how that transition is the most formidable blow to their hopes of transforming the entire Middle East. When clever anti-war types insist there is not and never has been any connection between the fight for democracy in Iraq and the war against terror, they are thinking in terms of legalities and technicalities - not strategy. The only way to meaningfully defang Islamist terror is to transform the region. If we don't, we will simply be putting out small fires for ever, instead of dealing with root causes. The root cause is the lack of democracy in the region, which gives these religious fanatics the oxygen they need. Al Qaeda understand the stakes. So must we. Iraq is the battlefield. We cannot, must not, falter. In fact, we must ramp up the pressure. Alone, if needs be.

[Mavdog]

Now why would al Qaeda want the disintegration of the transition in Iraq? Because they understand how that transition is the most formidable blow to their hopes of transforming the entire Middle East.

To an extent, yes, that is correct. More important to the Isalamist is the westerner's presence in an Arab country. The results after a year show the invasion of Iraq has produced MORE radicals than it has taken out.

When clever anti-war types insist there is not and never has been any connection between the fight for democracy in Iraq and the war against terror, they are thinking in terms of legalities and technicalities - not strategy.

Are "legalities and technicalities" the correct label for misinformation from our current administration on a connection between Al Queda and the Iraq? Has the removal of the Saddamites from power in Iraq stopped the terrorist campaign?

I wonder how the ascension into power of a radical Islamist party via democratic elections in Iraq would be seen? Certainly not as a success against radical Islamics I would guess...

The only way to meaningfully defang Islamist terror is to transform the region. If we don't, we will simply be putting out small fires for ever, instead of dealing with root causes. The root cause is the lack of democracy in the region, which gives these religious fanatics the oxygen they need. Al Qaeda understand the stakes. So must we. Iraq is the battlefield. We cannot, must not, falter. In fact, we must ramp up the pressure. Alone, if needs be

Looking at the accused in the Spanish bombings it is interesting to note that none of them were from the "region", they are Morrocans and Indians.

The "root cause" is NOT the authoritarian regimes, and it is NOT the lack of democracy IMHO. It is a society where change is viewed as heresy, where the spiritual leaders are given the position of unquestioned authority/autocratic obedience by the masses, and where a centuries old "war" against the non-believers grants these leaders the ability to send its young to their deaths in a perceived holy act.

Regime change isn't going to change these factors tho, as the Iraqi invasion has shown.

[Drbio]

Regime change isn't going to change these factors tho, as the Iraqi invasion has shown.

Hasn't shown anything. Al Quaeda was not in charge of Iraq. Saddam was. Saddam was removed due to his actions. The murdering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's at his pleasure, the raping of women, the midnight kidnapping and forced enrollment into the army, a link to Al Quaeda etc etc etc.


Al Quaeda was not in charge of Iraq. Their actions are clearly linked to regional and global instability. The Iraq correction by Bush was the right thing to do on a humanitarian level. Don't try to muddy the lines by making broad sweeping inaccurate statements.

[Mavdog]

(regime change)Hasn't shown anything.

The change in the Iraqi regime HAS NOT prevented additional terrorist attacks. Hence it HAS shown that the Islamist terrorist network did not depend on the Iraqis. The supposed "connection" has been shown to be a fabrication.

Al Quaeda was not in charge of Iraq. Saddam was. Saddam was removed due to his actions. The murdering of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's at his pleasure, the raping of women, the midnight kidnapping and forced enrollment into the army, a link to Al Quaeda etc etc etc.

I certainly agree that he was a tyrant, a despot, and a murderer of his own people. That is true, although certainly not the basis for our invading Iraq, as there are numerous other countries who suffer under similar regimes. Are we going to invade every one of these?

"forced enrollment into the army" is called the draft here in the US....

Again, there is NO link to al queda. You merely regurgatate a manufactured connection promulgated by the current administration, and never substantiated.

Al Quaeda was not in charge of Iraq. Their actions are clearly linked to regional and global instability. The Iraq correction by Bush was the right thing to do on a humanitarian level. Don't try to muddy the lines by making broad sweeping inaccurate statements.

So are we going to act like "humanitarians" and invade Myanmar? What about Saudi Arabia? Most of Africa? They aren't democracies and certainly NOT humanitarian...

As you insisted, "don't ry to muddy the lines by making broad sweeping inaccurate statements" like you do with an alledged link between Iraq and Al quada which have been shown to be at the least inaccurate and at the worst dishonest.

[Drbio]

Mavdog said: "The change in the Iraqi regime HAS NOT prevented additional terrorist attacks. Hence it HAS shown that the Islamist terrorist network did not depend on the Iraqis. The supposed "connection" has been shown to be a fabrication.

The change in the Iraqi regime was not designed to prevent additional terrorist attacks other than those perpetuated on an oppressed Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein's reign of horror. It is well established that Al Quaeda members have been in contact wiht Hussein. Maybe not Bin LAden, but noone uttered that name here. It is not a fabrication. The accusation of fabrication is being perpetuated by desperate dimocraps who are struggling to bash Bush.

I certainly agree that he was a tyrant, a despot, and a murderer of his own people. That is true, although certainly not the basis for our invading Iraq, as there are numerous other countries who suffer under similar regimes. Are we going to invade every one of these?

Glad to hear you acknowledge the fact that Hussein was tyrannical. A lot of liberals will not. As for your spin on our reasons for invading Iraq, it has always been the primary justifications. The dimocraps want to spin the "No WMD's" as their mantra to belittle Bush's presidency. We all know Saddam needed to go. I wish that WMD's had been found, but we were certainly justified in invading Iraq for the liberation of their people alone.

"forced enrollment into the army" is called the draft here in the US....

I'd rather be drafted than see my wife raped over and over and the raping only being stopped by my "agreement" to serve in the Hussein army. I'd rather be drafted than to see my father, son or daughter kidnapped until my "agreement to serve" in the Iraqi army was submitted and my service time completed. I'd rather be drafted than to see family members burned, tortured, etc until I "agreed" to serve. We could go on and on but you get the point.

Again, there is NO link to al queda. You merely regurgatate a manufactured connection promulgated by the current administration, and never substantiated.

Horse poo. Liberals love to use Bin Laden and Al Queada synonymously. They are not. Al Queada links are well established to Hussein. There is nothing to manufacture. Yet another spin attempt.

So are we going to act like "humanitarians" and invade Myanmar? What about Saudi Arabia? Most of Africa? They aren't democracies and certainly NOT humanitarian...

I certainly hope not.

As you insisted, "don't ry to muddy the lines by making broad sweeping inaccurate statements" like you do with an alledged link between Iraq and Al quada which have been shown to be at the least inaccurate and at the worst dishonest.

How you can believe this drivel amazes me. The facts are clear. Ignore them wiht your liberal buddies if you must, but it isn't even a point worht arguing about.

[Mavdog]

Al Queada links are well established to Hussein.

Please show just ONE.

Also, why is it justifiable to invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds but then not support the commensurate invasion of other countries who deny basic human rights to its citizens? Seems incredibly inconsistent, an inconsistentcy that is inherent in the Bush Doctrine and why it is poor foreign policy.

[dude1394]

Are "legalities and technicalities" the correct label for misinformation from our current administration on a connection between Al Queda and the Iraq? Has the removal of the Saddamites from power in Iraq stopped the terrorist campaign?

Gosh talking to you libs is such a whip. Of cource is hasn't "stopped the terrorist campaign". If you were a ceo you would be accused of thinking only about the next quarter. This is a long-term investment in transforming the middle-east. The middle-east is an absolute mess and either has to be reformed or maybe turned to glass if this continues. We can't sit around and do the appeasser song all the while that the middle-eastern states fund and support terrorist organizations. Sooner or later one of those nuts is going to have a bomb in nyc and he will be broadcasting probably before an election that he's going to blow it up unless we do xyz.

So what do we do then. Appeal to his feminine side. Beg him not to do it.

Your inability to think long-term is distressing. But I suspect you are just trying to score political points, like most libs and dims.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Please show just ONE.

Also, why is it justifiable to invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds but then not support the commensurate invasion of other countries who deny basic human rights to its citizens? Seems incredibly inconsistent, an inconsistentcy that is inherent in the Bush Doctrine and why it is poor foreign policy.

Why here's one..

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- In an audiotape broadcast Tuesday on the Arabic television network Al-Jazeera, a voice purported to be that of Osama bin Laden called on Muslims to fight any U.S.-led attack on Iraq and warned leaders of Islamic nations not to help the so-called enemy.

"We are following very carefully the preparation of the crusaders to invade the Iraqi land and take the wealth of the Muslims and install a regime that has Tel Aviv and Washington on its head to run you, in preparation for the establishment of greater Israel, God forbid," it said.

cnn

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Please show just ONE.

Also, why is it justifiable to invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds but then not support the commensurate invasion of other countries who deny basic human rights to its citizens? Seems incredibly inconsistent, an inconsistentcy that is inherent in the Bush Doctrine and why it is poor foreign policy.

Oh here's another one.. Hint go to google and type in "iraq and al queda link" You can find your own!! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

foxnews

Blair: Iraq Has Some Al Qaeda Links
Wednesday, February 05, 2003

LONDON — British Prime Minister Tony Blair asserted Wednesday that Iraq has some links with Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, despite a British Broadcasting Corp. report that British intelligence has discounted any ties.


Blair said, however, that he did not base his support for possible military action against Iraq on any such links.

The BBC said a leaked document, written by an intelligence unit at the Ministry of Defense three weeks ago, concluded there is "no current link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The document said a past effort by the two to work together had fallen apart over ideological differences.

Blair said he read the document Wednesday morning, denying the BBC report that he had been given the document earlier.

"It actually isn't primarily about Al Qaeda and Iraq at all," he said, answering questions in the House of Commons.

[Mavdog]

uh, dude, neither of these two articles supports/shows/proves/establishes a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein.

The fact that OBL was against the Iraqi invasion doesn't establish any link....the article about Blair actually doesn't have anything but denial by Blair that his decision was based on an association. Again, no facts showing a connection, but rather that Blair's own Ministry supports my assertion. Thanks for the validation.

[madape]

If Queda has no interest in Iraq, why are they bothering to kill thousands of innocent people to keep it from being free? The bombings in spain had everything to do with Iraq. The bombings in Baghdad today had everything to do with Iraq. How many more people will need to die before you can see the link? The terrorists want the coalition to fail for a reason. They are willing to kill you, me, and any 4 year old child, regardless of nationality, to ensure that islamic fasicst, freaks control Iraq forever. Iraq is where the battle against terror will be won or lost. If it wasn't apparent before, it should be now. Please start paying attention.

[FishForLunch]

So Clinton was wrong to intervene in Kosovo and Bosnia on humanitarian grounds. If liberals dont like to interfere in other people business why did the democrats support Clinton to go to Kosovo without UN approval. Some how I feel it is all politics to the democracts, they care shit about containing terrorists. They can only think short term. They have absolutely no long term plan to combat rouge nations and terrorists.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
uh, dude, neither of these two articles supports/shows/proves/establishes a link between Al Queda and Saddam Hussein.

The fact that OBL was against the Iraqi invasion doesn't establish any link....the article about Blair actually doesn't have anything but denial by Blair that his decision was based on an association. Again, no facts showing a connection, but rather that Blair's own Ministry supports my assertion. Thanks for the validation.

Sorry no smoking gun for you mavdog. Things cannot be boiled down to a courtroom. It's the big reason why prosecuting this as a WAR is much better than prosecuting it as a criminal case. When you see a bad guy you KILL HIM!! You don't go trying to find a way to arrest him.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
So Clinton was wrong to intervene in Kosovo and Bosnia on humanitarian grounds. If liberals dont like to interfere in other people business why did the democrats support Clinton to go to Kosovo without UN approval. Some how I feel it is all politics to the democracts, they care shit about containing terrorists. They can only think short term. They have absolutely no long term plan to combat rouge nations and terrorists.

You are right on about this fish. Ever since clintoon it's been nothing but all-politics-all-of-the-time for the dims. Meanwhile they continue to lose and lose and lose all across this country. Thirst for political power is not an agenda to govern on.

[Mavdog]

Sorry no smoking gun for you mavdog.

odd choice of words. So there is NO validation of one of the main rationales Bush made for attacking Iraq...oh, there's also the rationale of WMD, again no validation. Just why did we invade? Humanitarian reasons? not likely...

Things cannot be boiled down to a courtroom. It's the big reason why prosecuting this as a WAR is much better than prosecuting it as a criminal case. When you see a bad guy you KILL HIM!! You don't go trying to find a way to arrest him.

yeah, who needs facts or logical arguments when you have a bigger army...forget legalities, just attack!
Not what I wish my country stands for BTW. Talk about facism...

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

odd choice of words. So there is NO validation of one of the main rationales Bush made for attacking Iraq...oh, there's also the rationale of WMD, again no validation. Just why did we invade? Humanitarian reasons? not likely...

yeah, who needs facts or logical arguments when you have a bigger army...forget legalities, just attack!
Not what I wish my country stands for BTW. Talk about facism...

Mavdog you just continue to not think long-term. There are islamo-fascists around that will not stop unless the middle-east is again a caliphate of islam. That's period. Bin Laden has told us that until the ilamic world has thrown out all infidels and gone back to sharia law, his jihad continues. At first it was get out of Saudia Arabia which we have, but he just changes the subject. (Sort of like dims, I might add).

So there are a buch of islamo-fascists from a failed culture and world that wants to kill you and basically take over the world for islam. So what do you do? He and his ilk are willing to enslave and kiill millions to get what they want? So how do you combat that.

IMHO you take it to it's source and drive democracy into that region. Once the people of that region are self-sufficient in their own right they won't feel so damn persecuted that the whole world has screwed 'em over, which is bs.

The WORSE thing you can accuse bush of is overthrowing two regimes that indiscriminately killed it's citizens and posed threats to it's neighbors. The BEST thing you can accuse him of however is to bring a shining light into a horribly backward part of the world. The ARABIC culture is a disastor. Their politics is a disaster, THEY are disasters.

I don't think you are a knucklehead but your flip one-off quips make you seem like one. Let me help you some more. If we treated this whole thing like a crime like kerry would like, we would not be able to launch a hellfire missile on bin ladens head if we find him. That is NOT the way to fight this war.

And quite frankly comparing this country to the Nazis (ala fascism) you can go straight to you know where. You should be ashamed.

[Mavdog]

Mavdog you just continue to not think long-term. There are islamo-fascists around that will not stop unless the middle-east is again a caliphate of islam. That's period. Bin Laden has told us that until the ilamic world has thrown out all infidels and gone back to sharia law, his jihad continues. At first it was get out of Saudia Arabia which we have, but he just changes the subject. (Sort of like dims, I might add).

thanks for the recap...odd for your saying 'think long term', for it is short term thinking that this current administration has fallen victim to.

So there are a buch of islamo-fascists from a failed culture and worlord that wants to kill you and basically take over the world for islam. So what do you do? He and his ilk are willing to enslave and kiill millions to get what they want? So how do you combat that.

by wining the minds and hearts of the masses.

IMHO you take it to it's source and drive democracy into that region. Once the people of that region are self-sufficient in their own right they won't feel so damn persecuted that the whole world has screwed 'em over, which is bs.

demoracy does not guarantee economic success, nor does it guarantee a friendly government. What if the Iraqis elect fanatical Islamist to lead them?

The WORSE thing you can accuse bush of is overthrowing two regimes that indiscriminately killed it's citizens and posed threats to it's neighbors. The BEST thing you can accuse him of however is to bring a shining light into a horribly backward part of the world. The ARABIC culture is a disastor. Their politics is a disaster, THEY are disasters.

so very culturally sensitive of you.
the Worst thing? That a war was started over a desire to correct a father's perceived mistake resulting in thousands of deaths, and alliances with allies that are torn apart by that single minded pursuit of war.

I don't think you are a knucklehead but your flip one-off quips make you seem like one. Let me help you some more. If we treated this whole thing like a crime like kerry would like, we would not be able to launch a hellfire missile on bin ladens head if we find him. That is NOT the way to fight this war.

there you go again, confusing the Iraq invasion with the response to the attacks of 9/11. As there has been NO connection between the two, and NO connection between Iraq and 9/11, this linkage is falacious. Two seperate issues.

And quite frankly comparing this country to the Nazis (ala fascism) you can go straight to you know where. You should be ashamed.

I was actually referring to your use of the term "Islamo-facists" and other's use of the term "facist" to describe those in Europe who opposed the Iraq war. These are not "facist"....went totally over your head, although I'm not surprised with the misuse of the term.

Facism disregarded the rule of law and corrupted the state to serve the party's own needs. The private sector was used to only serve the state, hence serve the party. Extreme nationalism was used to silence dissenters as "unpatriotic". The Military was corrupted to serve the party as well.

To suggest that we should proceed without a "courtroom" says that the rule of law is not needed. Extreme militaristic ("When you see a bad guy you KILL HIM!"), nationalistic ("backward part of the world".."THEY are disasters") jingoisms do bear a resemblence to facism come to think of it.

[Drbio]

That a war was started over a desire to correct a father's perceived mistake resulting in thousands of deaths, and alliances with allies that are torn apart by that single minded pursuit of war.

This is the theme of every liberal. Blame father George...blame W for trying to finish daddys business. Until you realize how lame that mantra actually is and accept the fact that hanging your hat on something as udderly rediculous as this crap would be laughable if not so pathetic, you will never progress to a realization of worldy facts.

[Mavdog]

I'm picturing DrBio putting his hands over his ears, his head rocking back and forth while screaming "It's not true! It's not true!" over and over again as he tries to come up with a good reason for the Iraq invasion rather than consider that the war was not started because of a link to al queda, to 9/11, or to WMD, but rather one that is more self interested.

It's OK doc, sometimes the truth may hurt.

[Drbio]

Sometimes the truth even is realized by dunderpatian liberals who despite their broken record diatribe may come to understand one day how idiotic and uninformed they actually were. Good luck in your journey mavdog.....you need enlightenment.

[madape]

From the Daily Dish

Now why would al Qaeda want the disintegration of the transition in Iraq? Because they understand how that transition is the most formidable blow to their hopes of transforming the entire Middle East. When clever anti-war types insist there is not and never has been any connection between the fight for democracy in Iraq and the war against terror, they are thinking in terms of legalities and technicalities - not strategy. The only way to meaningfully defang Islamist terror is to transform the region. If we don't, we will simply be putting out small fires for ever, instead of dealing with root causes. The root cause is the lack of democracy in the region, which gives these religious fanatics the oxygen they need. Al Qaeda understand the stakes. So must we. Iraq is the battlefield. We cannot, must not, falter. In fact, we must ramp up the pressure. Alone, if needs be.

Mavdog is clearly not a big picture guy. Transforming Iraq from a facist, aggressive, enemy of the United States into a benign western-style democracy is a clear and direct tactic to ending the terrorist breeding ground that the Arab world has become. We can sqabble about legality, and Iraq's compliance with the UN mandated desctruction of it's weapons programs is a key point of conflict in determining legality -it's links to Al Quaeda are not. But we should not squabble over the value of ending the tide of facism, anti-American, anti-Isreal, and pro-terror that fostered unchecked in the region during the Clinton era of appeasment. And we should never allow a legal technicality, or objections from erstwhile allies to prevent us from protecting our country to the best of our ability. America is safer now because Saddam is gone. The region is changing from one that posed an undeniable threat to humanity to one where democracy and liberty are burgeoning. The world is becoming safer and more free. Thanks to Bush, humanity is winning the fight against evil. I would say that anyone who claims that the war in Iraq is unjust, or that it has not accomplished it's goals is the one with his fingers in his ears refusing to accept reality.

[dude1394]

Well said madape. No Mavdog is a little-picture this election kind of guy.

Kick those problems on down the road, get elected today!!

[Mavdog]

Mavdog is clearly not a big picture guy.

Clearly I am as I question the short term thinking prevalent in this administration.

Transforming Iraq from a facist, aggressive, enemy of the United States into a benign western-style democracy is a clear and direct tactic to ending the terrorist breeding ground that the Arab world has become.

odd that none of the identified terrorists have been Iraqi. Some are even from outside "the Arab world" in case you didn't care to notice.

We can sqabble about legality, and Iraq's compliance with the UN mandated desctruction of it's weapons programs is a key point of conflict in determining legality -it's links to Al Quaeda are not.

Well, if they didn't have a wmd program than there clearly is a questionable "legality".

But we should not squabble over the value of ending the tide of facism, anti-American, anti-Isreal, and pro-terror that fostered unchecked in the region during the Clinton era of appeasment.

The invasion of Iraq fostered MORE "anti-American, anti-Israel" sentiment in the region, which would not have been the case if the situation was dealt with mutilaterally rather than the unilateral approach used.

And we should never allow a legal technicality, or objetions from erstwhile allies to prevent us from protecting our country to the best of our ability. America is safer now because Saddam is gone.

So how is America safer? Have we attacked the terrorists who committed the crime of 9/11? No, we haven't. Have we nuetralized the threat of the terrorists? No, we haven't. Have we fostered a better image of our country in the muslim world? No, we haven't.
So has the current administration made any headway in the war against terrorism by invading Iraq? No, it hasn't.
America is not "safer".

The region is changing from one that posed an undeniable threat to humanity to one where democracy and liberty are burgeoning. The world is becoming safer and more free.

How can one claim that "democracy and liberty are burgeoning" when the current administration doesn't support direct elections in Iraq?

Thanks to Bush, humanity is winning the fight against evil. I would say that anyone who claims that the war in Iraq is unjust, or that it has not accomplished it's goals is the one with his fingers in his ears refusing to accept reality.

Beside the apparent goal of deposing a despot, just what "goals" have been accomplished? The goal of having semi anarchy in Iraq? The goal of dividing the Atlantic Alliance? The goal of fostering animosity towards the US? The goal of providing more followers of radical islam? The goal of having our government appear to distort intelligence for their own agenda? That is reality.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Clearly I am as I question the short term thinking prevalent in this administration.

Huh?

odd that none of the identified terrorists have been Iraqi. Some are even from outside "the Arab world" in case you didn't care to notice.

It is a fight against MUSLIM TERRORISM man? Why do you insist on being obtuse?

Well, if they didn't have a wmd program than there clearly is a questionable "legality".

Which of the 17 resolutions do you want to enforce? I don't even know what "legailty" means in these cases.

The invasion of Iraq fostered MORE "anti-American, anti-Israel" sentiment in the region, which would not have been the case if the situation was dealt with mutilaterally rather than the unilateral approach used.

Impossible to prove. And I don't agree with it. Just look at the latest poll out of iraq as an example. Where is the arab street uprising? Where are the riots? This is conventional wisdom hoping to be true. Or more like the NYTimes/BBC trying to make it true.

So how is America safer? Have we attacked the terrorists who committed the crime of 9/11? No, we haven't. Have we nuetralized the threat of the terrorists? No, we haven't. Have we fostered a better image of our country in the muslim world? No, we haven't.
So has the current administration made any headway in the war against terrorism by invading Iraq? No, it hasn't.
America is not "safer".

America is safer because:
- A dictator who was pursuing WMDs has been removed from office.
- A dictator whose presence forces us to patrol no-fly-zones, starve the iraqi people with sanctions and who had attacked it's neighbors twice and consistently threatened the worlds oil supply has been removed from office.
- A dictator who supported terrorism with cash money as well as harboring known terrorists has been removed from office.
- Another dictator seeing what happened to saddam has decided to give up his WMD programs.
- Pakistan/India have begun a dialogue to settiling their differences.
- Iran has allowed nuclear inspectors into their country.
- N.Korea is now being engaged by china and not just the US.
- The terrorists have not hit the us since 9/11.
- Bush has brought light on and crippled much of the terrorist money machine.
- Many of the alqueda leaders have been apprehended.
- Afghanistan another terrorist haven is now being transformed into a sovereign country.

How can one claim that "democracy and liberty are burgeoning" when the current administration doesn't support direct elections in Iraq?

See above.

Beside the apparent goal of deposing a despot, just what "goals" have been accomplished? The goal of having semi anarchy in Iraq? The goal of dividing the Atlantic Alliance? The goal of fostering animosity towards the US? The goal of providing more followers of radical islam? The goal of having our government appear to distort intelligence for their own agenda? That is reality.

If the atlantic alliance cannot come to deal with this (like the UN) then it's not worth the paper it's written on. Yes our governement distorted our intelligence to agree with all other intelligence on the planet. Those sly devils. Get real man.

[Mavdog]

America is safer [with Sadam gone] because:
- A dictator who was pursuing WMDs has been removed from office.

wrong, the pursuit of WMD had been twarted years earlier as post invasion documents show.

- A dictator whose presence forces us to patrol no-fly-zones, starve the iraqi people with sanctions and who had attacked it's neighbors twice and consistently threatened the worlds oil supply has been removed from office.

wrong, those make his pop and its neighbors safer, but not America.

- A dictator who supported terrorism with cash money as well as harboring known terrorists has been removed from office.

wrong, that makes Israel safer w/o his paying suicide bombers, but it hasn't made America safer.

- Another dictator seeing what happened to saddam has decided to give up his WMD programs.

wrong, Libya has been in negotiations for years to give up its WMD, this is not a consequence of Iraqs defeat.

- Pakistan/India have begun a dialogue to settiling their differences.

wrong, this has NOTHING to do with the Iraqi invasion. It is however a good thing

- Iran has allowed nuclear inspectors into their country.

wrong, they are allowing UN inspectors due to pressure from their European friends. See what a mutilateral approach will do?

- N.Korea is now being engaged by china and not just the US.

Wrong, this is as ludicrous as the Pakistan/India assertion. If anything the Iraqi invasion made N. Korea more paranoid and less negotiable.

- The terrorists have not hit the us since 9/11.

wrong as the terrorists have attacked others. They sure don't see the invasion as protecting them..

- Bush has brought light on and crippled much of the terrorist money machine.

wrong as it is not a consequence/result of the Iraqi invasion but rather a coordinated worldwide approach. See mutilateral actions are successful.

- Many of the alqueda leaders have been apprehended.

wrong, as they were NOT apprehended in Iraq and not a product of the Iraqi invasion.

- Afghanistan another terrorist haven is now being transformed into a sovereign country[

wrong, a seperate issue. America IS safer with the Taliban out, but that has nothig to do with the Iraqi invasion.

you have posted some accomplishments of the Bush administration, unfortunately none of them prove your point and show how the US is safer due to the Iraqi invasion.

If the atlantic alliance cannot come to deal with this (like the UN) then it's not worth the paper it's written on. Yes our governement distorted our intelligence to agree with all other intelligence on the planet. Those sly devils. Get real man

The Alliance wanted to deal with Hussein differently than the Bush administration proposed/did. They didn't "agree with all other intelligence on the planet" as some had their own intelligence different from what we heard from our current administration and in fact challenged the Bush administration to prove its claims (remember the Collin Powell speech at the UN?).

I believe that a scheme to "distort" the intelligence to support a policy is very poor conduct (dishonesty or malfeasense?) by Bush and his staff. Clearly you don't care if you are lied to. I do. and I expect better from my government.

[dude1394]

Whatever man. It's tiring to argue semantics with you. If the statement doesn't have IRAQ in it, then there is no correlation with you. Your mind is very small unfortunately. And fyi, if you read my comment about "distorted" intelligence you would see that it was sarcastic. It would be like distorting our data to agree with the theory of gravity.

[Mavdog]

These aren't "semantics' they are facts. Dismiss them if you like but that does not invalidate their accuracy.

You can continue to be "sarcastic" about the manipulation of intelligence data...me, I'm pissed. I don't appreciate my government deceiving the American public like they did a year ago.

[Drbio]

Then move your ass to France and don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. The alst time I checked you were free to make the move. Bon Voyage.....and please...take that retard Alec Baldwin with you. He promised to leave the US if GWB was elected president. Like most other dimocrats, he too is having a hard time keeping his word.

[Epitome22]

There's that good old Right-Wing American value system. "This is the land of the free! millions of men and women fought and died so you could be a free acting, free thinking individual. How dare you disgrace their sacrifice by disagreeing with us and refusing to tow the line. If you don't like the way we do things or if you are too diffucult to argue with, with your sissy facts and logic then move to france with all the other pinkos. Democracy would go alot smoother in this country if all the people like you who disagree with us would just leave the nation. Just because you may have the right to criticize the leadership of this country with your filthy Saddam loving views doesen't mean you actually GET TOO! Love it or leave it buddy!"

[Mavdog]

Yeah epitome, there are people who, like John Birch and Joe McCarthy before them, feel that THEY are the only voices who should be heard in America. These closed minded people see dissent as unpatriotic, rather than the true patriotism that such dissent provides to our country.

This is the type of mindset that would have left Dick Nixon alone rather than investigate the illegal activities he and his cronies engaged in. They would have given Ollie North a medal for violating the law, for they prefer to silence criticism of our govenment's actions even if such criticism is correct and factual. But they sleep comfortably in their blindness, until of course the government is unchecked and possibly encroaches on their freedoms in the name of so called patriotism.