[BoomStick]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

It explains the thought process behind a lot of "protesters" as well.

Example: If I scream at this bulldozer with a bullhorn, I will be a martyr for about 15 minutes.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Troll:
A few things on this.

1) Who do you see as the terrorists that have to be eliminated?
2) How will you know when they have been beaten?
3) Why is George Bush better qualified despite the mistakes you acknowledge to deal with terrorism than Kerry is?

If you really want to know about facing terrorism, you shouldn't be reading essays written by neoconservative academics like Kagan or by guys like Harris who come from countries that have only just started thinking about terrorism. The rest of the world has been dealing with terrorism for centuries. Have a look at a random set of examples and you will see that all countries go through the same cycle of violence. The initial reaction is to use violence against the terrorists. This normally starts with increasingly brutal police action followed by military action. No one wins in this phase. Lots of terrorists die, lots of civilians die, people spend lots of time being scared. Then finally, someone proposes negotiation with the terrorists or starts addressing their concerns mero motu. Gradually the support base of the terrorists is diminished until it is only a few fundamentalists who still support it. They are forced to negotiate because their support base become so small that they have no room to manouever. Eventually they disappear into the political spectrum. That's the way it always works.

Look at South Africa. The apartheid government with the blessing of the United States and the United Kingdom, took the violence to the ANC, PAC and SACP terrorists for 30 years and it got them nowhere. They slaughtered "terrorists" in Angola, Botswana and Zimbabwe, they oppressed and jailed ANC members in the country, they installed metal detectors in every shopping centre, prevented blacks from being on the streets in towns after dark and still the attacks continued. In Northern Ireland, no amount of brutality applied by the English could stop the IRA's attacks. On the other end of the scale look at Chechnya or Palestine were unbridalled overwhelming force has done nothing to quell the terrorist threat. In Palestine it's been going on for 50 years and the Israelis are no closer to beating terrorism than they ever were. If you look at a graph of number of suicide bombers and transpose over that a negotiation timetable, you'll see that when the Israelis were negotiating honestly with the Palstinians (just before Rabin's assassination), terrorist attacks were at an all time low. And when the military was most brutal, the response was most brutal. Today, female law students are prepared to strap explosives to themselves. You can't stop that sort of groundswell even if you live in the kind of security paradigm that Israel has. Somewhere in between the two extremes are the Basque terrorists, ETA. ETA used to have quite a broad support base. Violence applied by Spain and France only increased their support. It was only when Spain started recognising some of their demands that the ETA base was weakened. They now have a Basque Parliament for example and recently when ETA was accused of responsibility for the Madrid bombings Basques took to the streets in their droves to protest. They increasingly turn in the radicals and ETA is becoming increasingly part of the mainstream political process.

And those are relatively big groups we're talking about. Eliminating Una Bomber type terrorism is almost entirely impossible.Some nutjob with a bag of fertiliser is always going to be able to blow up government buildings. Crazy people with access to anthrax are always going to be able to mail it to all and sundry.

You can fragment big organisations like Al Qaeda by attacking them and certainly there is a role for violence in dealing with terrorists. But what you cannot afford to do is to be so brutal as to increase the base support for the organisation. You must be seen to be addressing some of the more legitimate demands. If you don't, you lose the moral high ground and you validate the terrorists' cause at least for that part of the community that they appeal to. George Bush's binary logic has had this effect. His refusal to see problems as anything but black and white, good vs evil dichotomies, has increased the terrorist threat to the US. Invading Iraq unilaterally was the worst possible thing he could have done in terms of inspiring terrorism. At a time when OBL's ideas had the most currency, Bush validated the criticism by interfering in another Arab country, deposing a regime, selling off state-owned assets illegally, torturing the people etc. Post 9/11 was the worst possible time to go about building the New American Century through conquest of the ME. The kind of "terrorism" you face now in Iraq cannot be vanquished because it comes from a place where violence applied to the problem will have precisely the opposite effect to that intended. Just as it does in Chechnya or Palestine.

What really surprises me is that you acknowledge that Bush has made mistakes but you think he has learned from them and will fix them in his next 4 years. For three years all he has done is make mistakes, try to block attempts to reform systems for dealing with terrorism and make more mistakes. Why do you think he'll suddenly turn it around now? What evidence you have of Bush learning from his mistakes and changin? I thought Kerry was the flip flopper. What happened to accountability? If bad Presidents get one term to learn from their mistakes and a second to make good on them, what's the point of having one four year term? Third, Bush was not elected on the basis of his ability to handle terrorism. It wasn't an issue in 2000. And by your own admission Bush ignored terrorism for the first 9 months of his presidency. Now everyone has a plan for dealing with terrorism. Do you not think Kerry is infinitely better prepared to deal with terrorism than Bush was on 9/10/2001? If Bush got you this far in 4 years, why don't you think Kerry can get you further? I just think too many people accept the nationalism and flag waving of the Republicans and think that Bush is your man for dealing with terrorists. Bush's record doesn't back that up.

and exactly that's why Al-Kaida would love to see Bush's administration getting a second term.

Taliesin

[dcolton]

Troll and Taliesan,

A terrorist is a terrorist! Doesn't matter if they are latent or not! Bad people are bad people and the only thing an 'event' is going to do is magnify how bad that person is.

The US doesn't motivate killer muslims to behead civilians, attack schools, fly planes into buildings...they are ALREADY EVIL.

If anything, the quiet support of the muslim world motivates these killers, not the western world.

Please let me know when targeting innocent civilians, women and children, etc isn't evil. Let me know what kind of event can turn a good and common person into a child killer.

[PacHead]

The USA doesn't create terrrorists. Evil mullahs, and stupid imams with their hate speeches create terrorists. Maddrass schools teaching garbage/brainwashing to their students create terrorists. Palestinian kids being brainwashed from birth, and learning that jews are sons of monkeys/pigs creates terrorism. In other words, the muslim world creates terrorism, that's who.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Troll and Taliesan,

A terrorist is a terrorist! Doesn't matter if they are latent or not! Bad people are bad people and the only thing an 'event' is going to do is magnify how bad that person is.

The US doesn't motivate killer muslims to behead civilians, attack schools, fly planes into buildings...they are ALREADY EVIL.

If anything, the quiet support of the muslim world motivates these killers, not the western world.

Please let me know when targeting innocent civilians, women and children, etc isn't evil. Let me know what kind of event can turn a good and common person into a child killer.

I must disagree. I just don't know where to start. Probably with the term 'latent terrorist'. It is as illogical as 'pre-emptive defense'. People are not terrorists until they commit terrorism and countries do not defend themselves until they are attacked. <sigh>

[dcolton]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I must disagree. I just don't know where to start. Probably with the term 'latent terrorist'. It is as illogical as 'pre-emptive defense'. People are not terrorists until they commit terrorism and countries do not defend themselves until they are attacked. <sigh>

It STILL killsme how much you people will defend KILLERS! You wonder why terrorism exists? You wanna know the root cause?

Wussies who refuse to call a spade a spade.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
We are heavily involved in propogating democracy. Democratic societies are more peaceful societies.

If I wouldn't know it better, I would think you are trying to pull off a satire on this forum.


Are you really thinking that the US' foreign policy was propagating democracy, and that this democracy-propagation has led to the creation of Al-Kaida and the animosity of Osama Bin Ladin regarding the US?

That's funny cause I can clearly remember that the US'foreign policy has actually abolished democratically elected governments throughout the thirdworld by financing and instilling military-coups and assassinations of key-politicians.

In the case of the middle-east and the arabic world the US has installed and financed dictatorships that guaranteed the US a free flow of ressources.

I can also clearly remember as if it were yesterday when the USA convinced Osama Bin Ladin to help the USA in recruiting "freedom-fighters" throughout the arabic world, in order to fight the Soviet-Union in Afghanistan. For that purpose the US developed an ultra-radical version of Islam that focused solely on jihad and martyrdom, and trained the mujahideens in Pakistan with the help of Pakistan's military and secret agencies.

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by dcolton:
It STILL killsme how much you people will defend KILLERS! You wonder why terrorism exists? You wanna know the root cause?

Pussies who refuse to call a spade a spade.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Troll and Taliesan,

A terrorist is a terrorist! Doesn't matter if they are latent or not! Bad people are bad people and the only thing an 'event' is going to do is magnify how bad that person is.

...

Please let me know when targeting innocent civilians, women and children, etc isn't evil. Let me know what kind of event can turn a good and common person into a child killer.

I agree completely with you, with the only difference that I see the US as the terrorist par excellence.

Taliesin

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I agree completely with you, with the only difference that I see the US as the terrorist par excellence.

Taliesin

Oh, so you agree with this part too? (The part you clipped.)

The US doesn't motivate killer muslims to behead civilians, attack schools, fly planes into buildings...they are ALREADY EVIL.

If anything, the quiet support of the muslim world motivates these killers, not the western world.

Good for you, glad you're starting to think rationally.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I agree completely with you, with the only difference that I see the US as the terrorist par excellence.

Taliesin

I knew that would be your response! I bet we could switch roles and not miss a beat. Care to try?

[Troll]

Originally posted by dcolton:
A terrorist is a terrorist! Doesn't matter if they are latent or not!

Is Nelson Mandela a bad person? You realise he spent 27 years in jail for terrorism. How 'bout Jean Moulin? How 'bout the Boston Tea Party and Revolutionary Wars - terrorist just like OBL. A terrorist is a terrorist not so. They're born evil, are they not?

I think your analysis is incredibly simplistic. All kinds of things inspire people to violence. I believe there are people in Iraq committing terrorist attacks in the belief that they are defending their country in a war just as French resistance members killed French collaborators in WWII. I'm sure there are Iraqis who saw members of their families get killed in this war and are out there avenging those deaths by attacking GI's. I don't believe in the nature argument at the best of times, but I certainly don't believe that people are born terrorists. I mean that is essentially a very racist thought unless you believe that there are as many terrorists born in the United States each year as there are in Iraq.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
A few things on this.

1) Who do you see as the terrorists that have to be eliminated?
2) How will you know when they have been beaten?
3) Why is George Bush better qualified despite the mistakes you acknowledge to deal with terrorism than Kerry is?

If you really want to know about facing terrorism, you shouldn't be reading essays written by neoconservative academics like Kagan or by guys like Harris who come from countries that have only just started thinking about terrorism. The rest of the world has been dealing with terrorism for centuries. Have a look at a random set of examples and you will see that all countries go through the same cycle of violence. The initial reaction is to use violence against the terrorists. This normally starts with increasingly brutal police action followed by military action. No one wins in this phase. Lots of terrorists die, lots of civilians die, people spend lots of time being scared. Then finally, someone proposes negotiation with the terrorists or starts addressing their concerns mero motu. Gradually the support base of the terrorists is diminished until it is only a few fundamentalists who still support it. They are forced to negotiate because their support base become so small that they have no room to manouever. Eventually they disappear into the political spectrum. That's the way it always works.

Look at South Africa. The apartheid government with the blessing of the United States and the United Kingdom, took the violence to the ANC, PAC and SACP terrorists for 30 years and it got them nowhere. They slaughtered "terrorists" in Angola, Botswana and Zimbabwe, they oppressed and jailed ANC members in the country, they installed metal detectors in every shopping centre, prevented blacks from being on the streets in towns after dark and still the attacks continued. In Northern Ireland, no amount of brutality applied by the English could stop the IRA's attacks. On the other end of the scale look at Chechnya or Palestine were unbridalled overwhelming force has done nothing to quell the terrorist threat. In Palestine it's been going on for 50 years and the Israelis are no closer to beating terrorism than they ever were. If you look at a graph of number of suicide bombers and transpose over that a negotiation timetable, you'll see that when the Israelis were negotiating honestly with the Palstinians (just before Rabin's assassination), terrorist attacks were at an all time low. And when the military was most brutal, the response was most brutal. Today, female law students are prepared to strap explosives to themselves. You can't stop that sort of groundswell even if you live in the kind of security paradigm that Israel has. Somewhere in between the two extremes are the Basque terrorists, ETA. ETA used to have quite a broad support base. Violence applied by Spain and France only increased their support. It was only when Spain started recognising some of their demands that the ETA base was weakened. They now have a Basque Parliament for example and recently when ETA was accused of responsibility for the Madrid bombings Basques took to the streets in their droves to protest. They increasingly turn in the radicals and ETA is becoming increasingly part of the mainstream political process.

And those are relatively big groups we're talking about. Eliminating Una Bomber type terrorism is almost entirely impossible.Some nutjob with a bag of fertiliser is always going to be able to blow up government buildings. Crazy people with access to anthrax are always going to be able to mail it to all and sundry.

You can fragment big organisations like Al Qaeda by attacking them and certainly there is a role for violence in dealing with terrorists. But what you cannot afford to do is to be so brutal as to increase the base support for the organisation. You must be seen to be addressing some of the more legitimate demands. If you don't, you lose the moral high ground and you validate the terrorists' cause at least for that part of the community that they appeal to. George Bush's binary logic has had this effect. His refusal to see problems as anything but black and white, good vs evil dichotomies, has increased the terrorist threat to the US. Invading Iraq unilaterally was the worst possible thing he could have done in terms of inspiring terrorism. At a time when OBL's ideas had the most currency, Bush validated the criticism by interfering in another Arab country, deposing a regime, selling off state-owned assets illegally, torturing the people etc. Post 9/11 was the worst possible time to go about building the New American Century through conquest of the ME. The kind of "terrorism" you face now in Iraq cannot be vanquished because it comes from a place where violence applied to the problem will have precisely the opposite effect to that intended. Just as it does in Chechnya or Palestine.

What really surprises me is that you acknowledge that Bush has made mistakes but you think he has learned from them and will fix them in his next 4 years. For three years all he has done is make mistakes, try to block attempts to reform systems for dealing with terrorism and make more mistakes. Why do you think he'll suddenly turn it around now? What evidence you have of Bush learning from his mistakes and changin? I thought Kerry was the flip flopper. What happened to accountability? If bad Presidents get one term to learn from their mistakes and a second to make good on them, what's the point of having one four year term? Third, Bush was not elected on the basis of his ability to handle terrorism. It wasn't an issue in 2000. And by your own admission Bush ignored terrorism for the first 9 months of his presidency. Now everyone has a plan for dealing with terrorism. Do you not think Kerry is infinitely better prepared to deal with terrorism than Bush was on 9/10/2001? If Bush got you this far in 4 years, why don't you think Kerry can get you further? I just think too many people accept the nationalism and flag waving of the Republicans and think that Bush is your man for dealing with terrorists. Bush's record doesn't back that up.

A coupla things before I reply to your post, troll.

One, you make some good points and as I now am seeing my own arguments (and MORE) being presented me to refute/debate, I do understand the challenge of being a 'flipper.'

Secondly, this reply is not only to you but also Sliffdaddy's post which followed yours.

OK. Many of my previously stated arguments about terrorism (where I advocated a more enlightened foreign policy, acknowledged the role our military plays in creating more terrorists and etc.) have shifted a bit since reading the Lee Harris piece, "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology."

It points out the fallacy of that philosophy when it comes to dealing with a hard core Al Qaeda terrorism and suggests there's no other way to protect ourselves than to deal with it the way you would a cancer or a medical epidemic.

Aggressively clean it out. Think about the use of antibiotics to kill an infection...if you don't COMPLETELY kill it, it comes back more resistant to the methods employed to kill it.

Although Harris' argument is very persuasive, I don't think he/she (with a name like Lee, I can't discern gender) necessarily argues against a smart review and prudent changes in our foreign policy and an effort to make sure we minimize the effect our military plays in creating new terrorists.

Negotiation when threatened, is negotiating out of fear. Negotiating out of fear, with a DIRECT expectation that the other side will not attack is appeasement.

Negotiating legitimate grievances in an effort to establish harmonious relations (or at least a non-violent co-existence) is diplomacy.

I have NEVER advocated appeasement. I have ALWAYS advocated diplomacy.

However, Harris points out the Islamic Fantasy Ideology makes negotiation or even appeasement (short of the "Great Satan" converting to an Islamic state, lolol) an impossibility.

The BEST negotiation is when both sides get what they want. Further down the scale is when neither side gets all they want but can live with the accord. Way down near the end is when you reach a one-sided agreement. And the bottom position is when NO deal is made.

Well, Harris asserts an even WORSE situation exists when considering any possible peace with Al Qaeda...they make no demands of us...they just want us DEAD!

The schools that indoctrinate the Islamic Fantasy Ideology would HAVE to go!

I believe the (HATE U!) schools capitalize on many ME Arab views about the US and steer those who may have ill feelings about the US (based on the collateral damage done to their friends, family, our continued Iraq occupation and etc.) and
instill the Fantasy Ideology. Thus, turning an angry Muslim into a zealot willing to sacrifice him/her self to their grand theatre.

I believe we can and should make a distinction between those who have legitimate grievances or who are disaffected by our efforts to improve their condition and those who are just "evil-doers" as Harris commends Pres. Bush for calling them.

There's nothing we could possibly do to co-exist with that bunch and so they should be wiped out along with their hate schools.

The people who are 'merely' pissed off will be addressed with a more enlightened foreign/military policy.

BTW, vmarks posted a link to a Chicago Tribune article about the 'secret' Muslim Brotherhood organization which exists in the US.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...l=chi-news-hed

IMHO, this is an example of an organization that should be abolished.

CAIR is one that should be left alone...unless they show signs of cancer. Then, in that case, wipe it out.

Why Bush and not Kerry?

The PNAC first advocated their plan in 1996. They've been working on it a long time. As a think tank, they are in the academic community and constantly review the latest schools of thought on the issues of US foreign policy as well as developing their own policy analyses.

Some of the President's team of neo-cons were/are members of the PNAC. The lines of communication between the community of academic thought and the organization which is responsible for the Administration's New American Century policy is strong.

It's like having an extra branch of government but without a down side.

We may not LIKE the things the Administration has done or not done the past 4 years, but there's no denying they have a strong, bold plan. Execution needs some improvement.

With Kerry we have an inexperienced man who would be in the Office, a team that was assembled for the campaign and no clear statement that his plan to wipe out terrorism would be as comprehensive and aggressive as Bush's.

America's next four years are as much about mere survival as anything else.

In a street fight or in war, when you have the other guy on the defensive you don't let up your attack lest he get time to re-group and come at YOU.

In spite of all the Administration's missteps and faults, I don't see that the WOT has been a FAILURE. There are things that can be done better and given a 2nd term I believe they will be done better.

We are pursuing an aggressive strategy that I feel is crucial to our survival.

Why chuck it all in the middle of a fight and change EVERYTHING? Kerry COULD become the greatest President since Abraham Lincoln. But, I don't want to take the chance. Not now.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
Is Nelson Mandela a bad person? You realise he spent 27 years in jail for terrorism. How 'bout Jean Moulin? How 'bout the Boston Tea Party and Revolutionary Wars - terrorist just like OBL. A terrorist is a terrorist not so. They're born evil, are they not?

I think your analysis is incredibly simplistic. All kinds of things inspire people to violence. I believe there are people in Iraq committing terrorist attacks in the belief that they are defending their country in a war just as French resistance members killed French collaborators in WWII. I'm sure there are Iraqis who saw members of their families get killed in this war and are out there avenging those deaths by attacking GI's. I don't believe in the nature argument at the best of times, but I certainly don't believe that people are born terrorists. I mean that is essentially a very racist thought unless you believe that there are as many terrorists born in the United States each year as there are in Iraq.

LOLOL

troll, Why do you ignore Harris' VERY salient points re: Islamic terrorism, in your arguments?

[Zimphire]

Because he wants to blame it on America. Not the ideological dreams of mad-men from the ME.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Zim, it REALLY frustrates me when the Harris article you posted, which sheds SO MUCH LIGHT on the issue of Islamic terrorism, isn't read by those who are on the subject!

I almost feel like ignoring the posts of those who obviously haven't read it.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Troll:
Is Nelson Mandela a bad person? You realise he spent 27 years in jail for terrorism. How 'bout Jean Moulin? How 'bout the Boston Tea Party and Revolutionary Wars - terrorist just like OBL. A terrorist is a terrorist not so. They're born evil, are they not?

I think your analysis is incredibly simplistic. All kinds of things inspire people to violence. I believe there are people in Iraq committing terrorist attacks in the belief that they are defending their country in a war just as French resistance members killed French collaborators in WWII. I'm sure there are Iraqis who saw members of their families get killed in this war and are out there avenging those deaths by attacking GI's. I don't believe in the nature argument at the best of times, but I certainly don't believe that people are born terrorists. I mean that is essentially a very racist thought unless you believe that there are as many terrorists born in the United States each year as there are in Iraq.

The Boston Tea Party? Can you even think of an example in the 21st century? Late 20th century...or do you have to dust off your history books to justify these killers?

My point is simple. A terrorist is a terrorist. There is no root cause or justifiable reason to target civilians to the extent of these killer muslims. Is that racist...to say that the terrorist we are facing are arab muslims...killing in the name of allah...or do we want to kid ourselves and pretend that contemporary terrorism and the attack on innocent civilians is not a phenomonon, but common place among all people of all walks of this earth? Open your eyes, defend freedom and consider the ideal of self preservation (cause the good Iraqi's would cut off your western head just as if you were an American - or an Iraqi at that!)

I mean how far do you have to stretch to compare Osama to Mandela. THAT SIR, IS AN INSULT TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO DREAMS OF PEACE AND FREEDOM. YOUR COMPARISON IS AN AFFRONT TO EVERY MINORITY, EVERY FACTION THAT FOUGHT FOR A NOBLE CAUSE IN A NOBLE MANNER. YOU DIRTY THE GOOD IN MAN BY COMPARING A COLD BLOODED MURDERER TO SOME OF THE GREATEST PEOPLE IN HISTORY. SHAME ON YOU. SHAME. SHAME.

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
It points out the fallacy of that philosophy when it comes to dealing with a hard core Al Qaeda terrorism and suggests there's no other way to protect ourselves than to deal with it the way you would a cancer or a medical epidemic.

If you're talking about the Al Qaeda hard core, then I agree 100% and I think most people do. The Al Qaeda hard core is irremediable. I think that Harris is talking only about Al Qaeda in his essay (I'm pretty sure it's a man anyway ). That core of Islamic Fantasy slaves is very small. But it seems to me that Bush is applying that "philosophy" to a wider range than just the Al Qaeda hard core and that you are doing the same. You seem to have been duped by the Iraq is part of the WOT argument and have stopped separating the two out believing that Iraq somehow contributes to or is part of the WOT.

My point is related not to the Al Qaeda hard core, it's related to the Al Qaeda periphery and people that aren't even on the Al Qaeda periphery but are generally being inspired to commit terrorism. Like the Iraqis who have taken to killing Iraqi collaborators. Most of them have no ties to Al Qaeda and probably share only a few ideals with Al Qaeda. Some of them, like the Chechens may be increasingly cooperating with Al Qaeda because they see common purposes but 95% of the terrorist attacks in Iraq are committed by people who one year ago were just regular people.

What's happening now is that you have an Islamic public that is highly sensitised by 9/11 and subsequent events to the conflict between the United States and Islam. They hear what Al Qaeda has to say, they hear what a lot of Arabs have to say in criticism of the US. They hear the case the US is making for freedom and democracy and the good life and then they see what the US is doing. These people are not fundamentalist and don't believe they are having a jihad with the US but a lot of them don't trust the US when it claims to be democratic and pro freedom and then does what it is doing in Guantanamo or in Iraq. They see the US becoming more and more arrogant and aggressive and most of the US's ire is focussed on Arabs. They see the US unilaterally invading an Arab country despite the world in general condemning that act, they see the US continuing to favour the oppressors of Arabs in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, they see Americans torturing Iraqis, firing missiles into civilians in downtown Baghdad. They might understand if you were just taking out the people whose behaviour most Arabs found abhorrent (the Al Qaeda hard core) but they don't understand why it's necessary to kill Iraqis or to support the oppression of Palestinians. You get enough people thinking that you are trying to eliminate them and you get the kind of reaction you're seeing now in Iraq.

The number of innocent Iraqis that died in the war alone is more than 4 times higher than the number of 9/11 victims. Is it not entirely logical that some of the people that witnessed the killing or are victims of it are going to want to harm the killers the same way Americans want to harm those responsible for 9/11? Bush has done an average job in the WOT, but he has undone any good that might have been achieved by the way in which he went about Iraq. The fact that it is unsafe today bears testament to the fact that he has created terrorists in Iraq and actions by Al Qaeda outside of Iraq bear testament to the fact that Iraq is itself is inspiring Al Qaeda and others to turn to violence.

Bush has been notoriously soft on the Al Qaeda hard core. We knew where they were and yet he took nearly a month to get anywhere near them. He committed too few troops to Afghanistan. Not that he didn't have them, because he had loads more when it came to invading a country that had nothing to do with terrorism.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We may not LIKE the things the Administration has done or not done the past 4 years, but there's no denying they have a strong, bold plan.

Hold on, the PNAC has no plan for terrorism. The PNAC's Iraq plan has existed for years - way before 9/11. The PNAC has not modified their plan since they started noticing a backlash to American policies. The core of the PNAC's idea is that the US is all powerful at this point in history and that it needs to be bold in the use of its military and its propagation of its ideas to ensure that it maintains its dominant position as an Empire for another hundred years. I think that if you believe that Bush's plan for dealing with terrorism is bolder than Kerry's then you haven't looked at their plans. What aggressive plan does Bush have to wipe out terrorism? Where does he set that plan out? Is he going to invade another country that has nothing to do with terrorism? Is he going to tie the US Army up in another Iraq so that it is less able to protect your country? Is he going to alienate more allies so that even fewer people cooperate with you? Is he going to continue to allocate resources to empire building in preference to dealing with the threat of terrorism and all other challenges facing humanity. Kerry couldn't do any worse than Bush IMHO but if you don't think it has been a complete failure, I'd like to know what you think his successes have been. Tell me what Bush has achieved in his "war on terror."

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
In a street fight or in war, when you have the other guy on the defensive you don't let up your attack lest he get time to re-group and come at YOU.

Al Qaeda hasn't been on the defensive since Tora Bora. Al Qaeda couldn't be happier that the US Army is tied up in Iraq while they consolidate their position in Afghanistan and sneak away through Pakistan. They've been rebuilding and for some fun they can always go into anarchous Iraq and cause some havoc. Bush should never have diverted resources away from eliminating the hard core of Al Qaeda towards pursuing neocon goals in Iraq, but since that is water under the bridge, you need someone who will refocus American power on taking out that hard core and leave grandiose plans of Empire Building to thinktanks that have no idea about the practical implications of their pie in the sky ideas (like the PNAC who were completely overwhelmed by the situation on the ground in Iraq). Until someone does a major about turn on Iraq, you are hamstrung in allocating resources to dealing with terrorism. Bush still believes that the original ideals can be achieved in Iraq; that is can inspire an outbreak of democracy in the ME. Until you reset that foreign policy objective you're stuck in Iraq and it's draining your resources and make you look worse and worse in the Arab world inspiring the moderates toward the violent end of the stick.

I think that if you give Bush another 4 years, you will significantly increase the risk of terrorist attack and you will be worse prepared to deal with it. You talk about the risk of changing Presidents, but there is an even greater risk - the risk of not changing tack before it's too late. In 4 years time you could have two more wars that have turned out the way Afghanistan and Iraq have. You could have more nations rushing to get nuclear weapons and fewer nations willing to cooperate with you in anything. Undoing 8 years of Dubya will be a lot more difficult than undoing 4 years of Dubya.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Zim, it REALLY frustrates me when the Harris article you posted, which sheds SO MUCH LIGHT on the issue of Islamic terrorism, isn't read by those who are on the subject!

I almost feel like ignoring the posts of those who obviously haven't read it.

I don't see any signs that people haven't read it, ini fact it is apparent that they have if they find it simplistic. I know I do. It raises valid problems and offers simplistic and naive solutions.

[Troll]

Originally posted by dcolton:
I mean how far do you have to stretch to compare Osama to Mandela. THAT SIR, IS AN INSULT TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO DREAMS OF PEACE AND FREEDOM. YOUR COMPARISON IS AN AFFRONT TO EVERY MINORITY, EVERY FACTION THAT FOUGHT FOR A NOBLE CAUSE IN A NOBLE MANNER. YOU DIRTY THE GOOD IN MAN BY COMPARING A COLD BLOODED MURDERER TO SOME OF THE GREATEST PEOPLE IN HISTORY. SHAME ON YOU. SHAME. SHAME.

You're the one that compared Mandela and OBL not me!!!!!!!

You said a terrorist is a terrorist! Mandela was a terrorist. He participated in the killing of civilians. He admits to being a terrorist. Read the Rivonia Trial speech and you will see what he has to say about being a terrorist. And don't accuse me of disrespect. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Madiba. I believe he is the most remarkable living leader on the planet. My Uncle died in jail for terrorism committed at Madiba's side because he too lost faith in the system.

All of which goes to show that a terrorist is NOT a terrorist. You yourself concede that sometimes terrorism is justified. I'm not suggesting it is in OBL's case, but I am suggesting that painting all terrorists as irremedial psychopaths is delusional. People resort to violence for any number of different reasons and some people can be persuaded not to turn to it or to turn from it by addressing some of their valid concerns. Mandela is proof of that.

PS You realise of course that none of the people I mentioned were involed in a "minority struggle".

[Troll]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I don't see any signs that people haven't read it, ini fact it is apparent that they have if they find it simplistic. I know I do. It raises valid problems and offers simplistic and naive solutions.

... that at best only apply to a very small group of hard core Al Qaeda supporters that are in any event psychopathic. Too many people take this "Islam is intrinsically evil" argument and apply it to a broad range of people. They attribute jihad as the motivation to people who may be motivated by an number of motivations. Enough Iraqi insurgents have told us precisely what they are doing in Iraq and it doesn't involve Islam or Al Qaeda. Some people prefer to ignore that because it's easier to process "Islam evil, Bush good". Binary logic comforts them even if they are capable of more.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Because he wants to blame it on America. Not the ideological dreams of mad-men from the ME.

What's "it"? Huh? This it the question not you, Pachead or Aberdeenwriter has bothered to answer. Who are these terrorists that you want to eliminate? Who are these terrorists whose fault it is? Do only ideological madmen believe that a foreign country that invades your country and kills your people should be resisted? Because if it does, if the Iraqis resisting the occupation are ideological madmen then, as I pointed out, there is a whole list of people that should have been eliminated for being madmen. I'm all for getting the people responsible for 9/11, but you guys take it too far. You paint anyone that doesn't roll over when the US liberates them to be a terrorist that can't be negotiated with or reasoned with because he just wants to murder Americans.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Who is appeasing ? The people who have been waging war and killing Americans for decades ? You call this appeasement ?

You might want to look up appeasement in the dictionary, since you obviously don't know the true meaning.

Well, it's like doing business with America means some form of Peace, even though there were many manifestations across the world in front of U.S. embassies that said "Yanks Go Home!"

Why was that do you think?

And tell me, why was Pinochet such a great leader for Kissinger?

And why is it that America is still doing business with Dictators? What makes Saudi Arabia a great friend when its leaders are controlling ther population with Wahabism?

How come it is using parallel armies (� la Al Qaeda) to fight its wars?

And why so many pipelines under the flag of Freedom in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere?

Oh yeah, appeasing America has a price...

Your problem is that you can't accept not being able to get away with it. The picture you have of America's foreign policy is so skewed, you can barely believe those guys could be merely humans!

Live with your illusions. And be sure those Arabica beans will wake you up in the middle of the night...

[angaq0k]

And let me add this:

�If You Harbor Terrorists, You Are a Terrorist�
September 19, 2004
William Marina

While delegates to the GOP convention were congratulating themselves for their candidate�s tough stand against terrorism, the Bush administration was creating an international incident�little publicized in the United States�by harboring a notorious group of international terrorists on U.S. soil.

Earlier this month, three anti-Castro Cuban exiles flew to Miami from Panama after serving four years in prison for �endangering public safety.� They were arrested in 2000 for plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro by planting explosives at a meeting the Cuban dictator planned to hold with university students in Panama.

The average convicted terrorist does not just waltz past U.S. immigration authorities in this post-9/11 age of orange alerts, �no fly� lists and shoe searches. Senator Edward Kennedy reportedly gets stopped by airport authorities every time he tries to make a flight, allegedly because the �Kennedy� name appears on a database of suspects.

Only political influence exerted at the highest level could account for terrorists reentering U.S. borders without impediment, despite rap sheets extending back as long as forty years:

Pedro R�mon, sentenced to seven years for the bomb plot in Panama, pleaded guilty in 1986 to bombing Cuba�s mission to the United Nations and later conspiring to murder its ambassador to the UN. A New York detective also fingered R�mon for the machine-gun murders of two political opponents.

Gaspar Jim�nez, sentenced to eight years for the Panama bomb plot and falsifying documents, had previously served time in Mexico for the attempted kidnapping and murder of Cuban diplomats there. He was also indicted in Florida for blowing the legs off a liberal Miami radio talk show host in 1976. (The indictment was eventually dropped for insufficient evidence, even though the main witness passed several lie-detector tests.)

Guillermo Novo, sentenced to 7 years for the Panama terror plot, was arrested in 1964 for firing a bazooka at the United Nations, where Che Guevara was speaking. In 1978, he was convicted of participating in one of the worst acts of terrorism ever committed on U.S. soil, the car bombing in Washington, D.C. of former Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier. (The conviction was later overturned on a technicality, though Novo was convicted of perjury.)

A fourth Panama conspirator, Louis Posada Carriles, left Panama for Honduras. He is still wanted in Venezuela on charges of bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 passengers. In 1998, in an interview with the New York Times from a hideout in Central America, Posada admitted taking part in numerous acts of terrorism, including a wave of Havana hotel bombings in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist. He said his violence was funded by prominent U.S.-based supporters in the Cuban exile community.

The release of these terrorists from Panama�ordered by its outgoing president�has caused a furor in Central America. Venezuela recalled its ambassador and Cuba severed diplomatic relations with Panama.

Honduras also protested. �I will . . . demand that the United States and Panama explain how Posada Carriles used a false U.S. passport,� declared Honduran President Ricardo Maduro. �How did that airplane leave Panama with Posada Carriles, reach Honduras, and wind up in the United States?�

�We know we�re dealing with important international influences,� the president added.

Those influences no doubt include the fact that Posada was trained by the CIA in the 1960s in sabotage techniques, remained on the CIA payroll into the 1970s, and in the mid-1980s (after escaping from a Venezuelan jail) assisted the Reagan administration�s covert supply operation on behalf of the Nicaraguan Contras.

Then there�s the undeniable fact that Cuban exile terrorists enjoy strong political support in the swing state of Florida, thanks to organized lobbying by such groups as the Cuban American National Foundation. That explains why President Bush, in 2001, rejected the advice of the FBI and freed from INS custody two convicted colleagues of Guillermo Novo in the Letelier assassination.

Conservatives have long (and rightly) derided the glib phrase, �one man�s terrorist is another man�s freedom fighter.� The incoming Panamanian president, Martin Torrijos, likewise stood on principle when he rejected his predecessor�s decision to pardon the terrorists, saying, �For me, there are not two classes of terrorism, one that is condemned and another that is pardoned. . . . It has to be fought no matter what its origins.�

Three years ago, after 9/11, President Bush appeared to draw the same line in the sand. Addressing members of the 101st Airborne Division, he declared, �If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.�

Today, Americans should ask whether those tough words were only rhetoric, quickly forgotten when political convenience dictates.

William Marina is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and Professor Emeritus in History at Florida Atlantic University.

Of course, the U.S. foreign policy has nothing to do with the hate generated in the world...

[angaq0k]

And here:

THE BUSINESS OF TERROR
The war of a thousand years

By Alain Gresh

IRAQ is burning. You could see this as a consequence of superpower arrogance or of the ignorance of the United States about local realities elsewhere. (Fallujah is not a town in Texas, nor is it Marseille during Liberation in 1944.) But at a deeper level the setbacks in Iraq stem directly from the very idea of the war against terror that was launched by President George Bush after 11 September 2001.

In the US view each incident in Iraq fits into a certain logic: the attacks in the Sunni triangle must be the work of supporters of Saddam Hussein or of international terrorists linked to al-Qaida; Muqtada al-Sadr�s resistance is explained by the involvement of Iran, classified as part of the axis of evil; each armed action is further proof that "they" hate western values.

As a US corporal in Iraq said: "We have to kill the bad guys" (1). But for every bad guy that the US kills, several more are created each time an apartment block is bombed or a village is subjected to search and destroy operations.

There are other far simpler ways of understanding the drama in Iraq. Iraqis are happy to be rid of a loathsome dictatorship and free of the sanctions that for 13 years drained the life out of Iraq. All they want now is a better life, freedom and independence. But the reality is that no promises made about postwar reconstruction have been kept. There are still widespread power cuts, insecurity and increased poverty. US troops gave the final shove to a regime already weakened by the pressure of multiple embargos. Then they allowed the ministries to burn and dissolved the national army, as they had done in 1945 in Japan.

But Iraqis have no interest in living under an occupation that they suspect of being interested only in oil and regional strategic domination. The days of colonialism are over. The 1920 revolt against the British has been celebrated in Iraq over the decades and has as strong a hold on the popular imagination as the Resistance and the Liberation have in France.

Iraqis share an aspiration to independence with other nations and we do not need to plumb their psychology or their souls, or submit the Qur�an to detailed analysis, to understand it. The behaviour of the Iraqis is entirely rational and the only solution is a rapid withdrawal of US troops and Iraq�s return to full sovereignty.

And

The relentless pressure of the US and the impoverishment of Nicaragua by economic sanctions led to the Sandinistas� electoral defeat on 25 February 1990. Whereupon the US lost interest in Nicaragua and dropped its former prot�g�s. The country sank back into poverty. But it was never going to be communist.

Afghanistan is even more telling. In April 1978 its government was overthrown in a communist coup even though it was an ally of the USSR. The new authorities began a harsh programme of radical reform in this conservative country and met strong resistance, particularly in the countryside. Washington began to arm the mujahideen resistance. In December 1979 the Soviet army invaded and changed the leadership.

The international community was quick to condemn this as a colonial venture. But the US and the West chose to see it as proof of the USSR�s hegemonic intentions and confirmation of the Kremlin�s centuries-old schemes for gaining access to warm seas - the Gulf.

The incoming Reagan administration in the US saw it as a chance to give the Red Army a bloody nose, even if that meant an alliance with the devil. With the help of Pakistani and Saudi secret services it began to arm the extreme fundamentalist forces to the detriment of the moderate opposition. It opposed all attempts at political and diplomatic settlements by the United Nations and deliberately prolonged the conflict (2).

We know the result. The Soviets decided to withdraw from Afghanistan. But having won, the US then lost interest in Afghanistan and the radical Islamist networks that it had helped create with the help of Osama bin Laden. Left to its own devices Afghanistan lapsed into civil war until in 1996 it fell into the hands of the Taliban.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:
You seem to have been duped by the Iraq is part of the WOT argument and have stopped separating the two out believing that Iraq somehow contributes to or is part of the WOT.

Waaaay back in the early 70's The Who vowed, "...we won't get fooled again..." Well, I understand your feeling in this regard. Been there, felt that.

Ok. Just imagine a different scenario. One where Bush HAD gone, whole hog, into Afghanistan after OBL and left Saddam where he was.

Now. Play out THAT scenario.

But remember, you are going into a country that our cold war opponent (BEEG RUSSIAN BEAR) couldn't contain after how many years, dollars and dead?

And also remember you have a mad man (either WITH or WITHOUT WMD's) in the same general region who hates your guts and though he didn't have significant ties to Al Qaeda, you remember he DID try to play the jihad card before and it didn't work.

Now, in this scenario, Al Qaeda goes to HIM seeking help, which he's more than willing to give. (The enemy of my enemy or the friend of my enemy or...you know what I mean...!)

Suddenly, the Islamic world sees an opportunity!

Hmmm, Saddam on the west, terrorists up the middle, Pakistan in the South East and millions of faithful believers all around, waiting to hear the J word.

You have a situation that makes the siege at Bastogne look like an episode of Survivor.

That, my friend, would have been like inviting suicide!

Before cops go into a drug house on an arrest warrant they take care of the (MAD) guard dog first. Shoot it, drug it, some puppy treats...whatever.

We didn't need Saddam running loose, so we took care of him first.

As for OBL, I'll use yet ANOTHER analogy. Some people say a better alternative to executing killers is to make them live a loooooong time in unpleasant circumstances so they can think about the error of their ways.

Seeing as how the WOT wasn't going to end with the death or capture of OBL anyway, what harm was there in making HIM live like a rat, always looking over his shoulder? Never knowing who he can trust. Sleeping in a different place every night. Dreading the righteous wrath of the Great Satan might come at any time.

Yes, Iraq was a HUGE step in the WOT. If we hadn't taken care of him when we did, we might now be outright losing TWO major wars and have the whole Islamic world to worry about.

Instead, Iraq is no longer a threat, OBL is on the run, the Muslim world is watching, but from the sidelines. Libya has voluntarily abandoned it's WMD program (without a shot fired). And we're still here to debate the matter online.

We toppled two regimes, freed MILLIONS of people in two countries, no longer have to worry about being surrounded and overwhelmed AND have another island of democracy in the Middle East. At the unfortunate cost of 1,000 brave men and women.

Heh, any way you look at it, that's STRONG!

But if you STILL think his iraq performance is so abysmal, think about WWII.

We KNEW the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and yet, it still occurred.

We HAD to employ a whole new way of waging war, using carriers instead of the customary battleship groups, because OUR BATTLESHIPS WERE DECIMATED!

Frankly, it didn't look good. We had outdated equipment, untested troops, outmoded tactics against a new kind of enemy.

Our forces surrendered in the Philippines. Our fighter planes were hopelessly outclassed by the enemy's. We suffered STAGGERING losses at Guadalcanal. (In that ONE BATTLE we suffered more casualties than in Iraq, Afghanistan and on 9/11, COMBINED!)

It wasn't until the following June that we had our first major victory at the Battle of Midway.

Even with the FULL support of our people and industry there were some missteps we made along the way to victory.

Still, FDR kept working at it until he passed away and Truman finished the job.

I believe President Bush is our horse and he's running hard and strong!

To paraphrase another great President; my great concern, troll, is not whether President Bush has failed, but whether he is content with his failure.

You are right to voice dissatisfaction with the WOT so far.

You're not satisfied, I'm not satisfied. But LEAST satisfied of all may be President Bush, himself. And with that, I imagine President Abraham Lincoln would be pleased.

[Zimphire]

aber get his first



Congratulations.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I don't see any signs that people haven't read it, ini fact it is apparent that they have if they find it simplistic. I know I do. It raises valid problems and offers simplistic and naive solutions.

Voodoo, I know you read it because you told me you had!

But in a discussion about the root cause of Islamic terrorism someone who had read the essay certainly wouldn't talk about the simplistic 'cause and effect' theory I admit I had long espoused.

They would HAVE to acknowldge Harris' Fantasy Ideology in SOME way unless they were intentionally avoiding doing so.

And doing that would tell someone who HAD read the Ideology theory that this person didn't know what they were talking about, OR that they were unable to admit they were wrong.

In either case, why would I want to waste my time debating the issue with someone who insists on ignorance or is unwilling to change his point of view in light of new information?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
aber get his first



Congratulations.

lol

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
*Great "essay" of sorts*

Wow. Very good, and it showed me another angle to much of this.


Smackdown well deserved.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Wow. Very good, and it showed me another angle to much of this.


Smackdown well deserved.

Well, it wasn't all that...

<'Andy of Mayberry' humility >

[ebuddy]

America is attempting to implant democracy right in the center of the Middle East. Historically, when freedom is felt, more of it is desired. Many in Iraq still feel oppressed because it's not safe in many respects. What the lion-share of them have not gotten is the concept of "fighting" for it. It does not require more than 3 generations of religious persecution, gender persecution, victimizing family members and loved ones, genocide, and fascism to bully the masses into submission. The cycle must be broken. The time is now. It needs to be witnessed by Iraq's neighbors in such a way that it is demanded abroad. Unless and until they begin fighting for the freedoms they admittedly want, we will be viewed as a failure. That's a risk I'm willing to take. I'm willing to take it because I'm not racist enough to believe that the typical Middle Easterner appreciates the type of culture that embraces the influencing of legislation through fear and the making of a dictator with no say from the people that make the country as great as it is. I simply refuse to believe they appreciate a tryannical regime as it dispatches it's henchmen to pluck their wives from their homes under darkness of night, never to be seen again. I refuse to believe the average Middle Easterner wants to think of taking the bus to work as a possible life-threatening act. I believe they hate rape rooms, torture chambers, oppressive legislation, and deadly enforcement up to and including chemical attacks on his own people. Our policy to date had been to "help the enemy of my enemy". People will try to weaken your resolve by bringing up our handling of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, and many other actions, yet in each of these great successes were achieved. The result in each is a more peaceful place. It does not happen overnight. It is not free, it is freedom. There's a future in it tomorrow with immediate cost today. To believe otherwise, you must deny observational science. This still will not sway the most severe couch potato, watching HD television and every now and then tuning into the channel that supplies them with security views from the cameras outside their gated communities, but then their not doing much for the betterment of mankind anyway so you should probably not put too much stock in them.

Some will focus on banking institutions; capitalism, can't have democracy w/o capitalism and banks like to be where they see a great future of productivity and new borrowers

Corporations; can't build a democracy without builders. Afterall, that's what corporations do, build things and make lots of money. Your corporation makes a lot of money, Internationally you are among the richest and should probably quit taking that for granted nor the governing faction that facilitated that environment of opportunity. You think it was free? You think no one opposed your right to be free? You think we didn't solicite help in our plight? Others want opportunity too, you should share that dream with them. Maybe then they won't have to risk their lives and the lives of their families, fleeing persecution and oppression. Why Iraq? Hmm, Why not Iraq?

Many will attempt to weaken your resolve by saying; "Who is America?" "What makes them the ones allowed to conduct these actions?" To them I say; who are you? What have you done? What do you know? I say America is the only nation with the resources and resolve to try. While corrupt, we've not conducted corruption that even tickled the least of the offenses and attrocities committed by the other member nations of the UN. What do they know about integrity? What have they done? Funnel more "aide" money into Saddam's pocket while the targeted beneficiary continues to starve? Meanwhile, I don't think I've seen this level of support for a religious crusade in all my days. Terrorists that have bastardized the religion of Islam seek to "Islamicize" the Middle East. Don't take my word for it, read the speeches by those who oppose the ideals of the West, the great minds of the Jihadists committing violence in the name of their God.

We know who they are, we know where they are. Some we can get politically, some we can not. What we can do is severely handicap them where they are as opposed to letting them reach out to us. We're doing it on our time, not theirs. Our time is now.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by dcolton:
It STILL killsme how much you people will defend KILLERS! You wonder why terrorism exists? You wanna know the root cause?

Wussies who refuse to call a spade a spade.

post of the year.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
aber get his first



Congratulations.

motion carried. meeting adjourned.

(a *smackdown* from the last place you'd have expected it. aberdeenwriter might be the newest member ever to recieve the coveted prize. omg,life is full of surprises)

edited: reckon I'll change my sig.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
motion carried. meeting adjourned.

(a *smackdown* from the last place you'd have expected it. aberdeenwriter might be the newest member ever to recieve the coveted prize. omg,life is full of surprises)

edited: reckon I'll change my sig.

I'm touched! TYVM



Just Imagine...ME, a Golden Troll AND a (coveted!) SMACKDOWN Award winner!!!

Let's hope I don't do another flip-flop BACK to the Kerry Camp! I don't want to give this baby back! But, you never know. As Dubya says about Kerry, "There's still time!"

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Now, in this scenario, Al Qaeda goes to HIM seeking help, which he's more than willing to give. (The enemy of my enemy or the friend of my enemy or...you know what I mean...!)

You have no evidence to back that up though. Nothing to suggest either that Al Qaeda would go running to its worst enemy Saddam for help, nothing to suggest that Saddam would help them. You had no more reason to invade Iraq than to invade any number of states. Anyone MIGHT have one day decided to help Al Qaeda. That is not a reason to invade a sovereign state without the blessing of the international community and that is not a way to implant democracy all over the world.

You claim to have been swung by Harris' essay but that just looks like bull to me because Harris' essay has nothing to do with Iraq. Harris' essay in no way explains why it was necessary to topple Saddam. What you been swung by is fear. People like Cheney telling you the boogieman is out to get you if you vote for Kerry. Suddenly everyone out there is a potential terrorist or terrorist collaborator and you are justified in eliminating any one of them because they might just become scary.

Inviting suicide? As if invading Iraq unilaterally wasn't inviting suicide. There were other ways of dealing with the minor threat that Iraq presented, including toppling his regime with the blessing of the rest of the world. A competent leader could have achieved that. A competent leader could have removed the Iraq threat without spending billions, thousands of American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We didn't need Saddam running loose, so we took care of him first.

Clearly that's a decision based on logic, fairness, the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Let me ask you this. How do you expect the rest of the world to react to your adventures into other countries whenever you see something that you "don't need".

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
As for OBL, I'll use yet ANOTHER analogy. Some people say a better alternative to executing killers is to make them live a loooooong time in unpleasant circumstances so they can think about the error of their ways.

You are seriously delusional and sick if you think that's what happening. OBL is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children in Bali, three bombings in Jakarta, various bombing in Pakistan. No one is making him live like a rat to punish him. If you're letting him run around killing people because you don't want the WOT to end (as if it would) then that's just plain sick. You'd have a lot of explaining to do to Australia if that were the case.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yes, Iraq was a HUGE step in the WOT. If we hadn't taken care of him when we did, we might now be outright losing TWO major wars and have the whole Islamic world to worry about.

Just so we're clear your argument is that Saddam might , at some undisclosed point in the future have started cooperating with Al Qaeda. Even though he had no links to terrorism and even though Saudi Arabia, for example, was giving direct assistance to OBL, Saddam had to go in case. And after all the WOT isn't just about taking out REAL terrrorists; it's also about taking out people that might somehow, someday, maybe become terrorists.

You are losing TWO wars my friend, and precisley because you excuse that kind of behaviour from your government. You've been duped. Under neocon influence Bush invaded Iraq NOT because it represents any kind of future terrorist threat. If they had, there are any number of countries that would be first in line or at least next in line. No, they invaded Iraq for the reasons they've specified. You can read all about it on the PNAC website. They invaded Iraq because they believed in a set of stretagic principles that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with terrorism. They believed that regimes in the ME would spontaneously become democracies sympathetic to the US if the US turned Saddam over. They believed that Iraqis would welcome the US into Iraq, roll over and become an example to everyone else. They were deluded clearly.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Instead, Iraq is no longer a threat, OBL is on the run, the Muslim world is watching, but from the sidelines. Libya has voluntarily abandoned it's WMD program (without a shot fired). And we're still here to debate the matter online.

First of all, Libya abandoned its weapons because of diplomatic work initiated by Nelson Mandela and Clinton. It's an example of the opposite of what you've used it for. It's not an example of how force works. Secondly, Iraq is a bigger terrorist threat today than it ever was, and if you believe that they had WMD, then the most likely scenario right now is that those weapons have been smuggled out of Iraq under cover of the fog of war. Americans are being beheaded in Iraq, Madrilenes are being killed for their country's involvement in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq didn't remove a terrorist threat - at least not a tangible current threat. It created one. And you can count the bodies that prove it.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We toppled two regimes, freed MILLIONS of people in two countries, no longer have to worry about being surrounded and overwhelmed AND have another island of democracy in the Middle East. At the unfortunate cost of 1,000 brave men and women.

There you go confusing the two again. Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different things. YOU didn't invade Afghanistan unilaterally; a coalition of nations with the UN's blessing invaded Afghanistan and Afghanistan had proven links to terrorism. They were given an ultimatum to turn over a terrorist or be invaded and they refused. Saddam was cooperating in the WOT. He was offering to extradite one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. No one ever accused him formally of harbouring terrorists or set him an ultimatum on that score. If Saddam had had any real links to terrorism, the rest of the world would have gone in just as they did in Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely different kinds of war. One is a defensive, mutlilateral war against terrorism fought legally and with the support of most of the world including the crucial Arab states. The other is a strategic offensive war with virtually no support from anyone.

Again I say that you started this debate saying that Harris' article explains why the Al Qaeda HARD CORE can't be negotiated with. You may no logical connection between that article and explaining your support for Bush, notably you make no logical connection between the theory Harris presents and the need to remove Saddam. When you can provide a logical answer as to why Saddam is part of the Islamic Fantasy that Harris talks about, then we might be able to take this further. Until that point, I think it logical to assume that Saddam, just like everyone else could be negotiated with and that there were other solutions than a unilateral invasion to keeping Iraq in check. Even regime change could have been achieved alternatively.

PS Two quick points on your comparisons to other wars. There is no comparison between WWII and either Iraq or the WOT. You insult the veterans who died in that war by even attempting such a comparison. I'm not going to cover old ground on this again.

Secondly, there is no comparison between Afghanistan in 2003 and Afghanistan during the Russian war. There was a whole different set of circumstances during the Cold War that made that battle difficult for Russia not the least being US support of OBL and his crew throughout the war. The Taliban faced opposition from every country on the planet. Its government couldn't turn to Russia for support. Fighting a war in that context is a whole different story to a Cold War conflict. And the result in Afghanistan shows. Removing the government was the easy part; the one that the UN did well. Getting the terrorists was another and poorly executed.

[PacHead]

I'm confused. What happened to Aberdeen ?

Did he just flip sides 180 degrees or what ?

If Yes, then congratulations on joining the enlightened side, the good side etc. etc.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'm confused. What happened to Aberdeen ?

Did he just flip sides 180 degrees or what ?

If Yes, then congratulations on joining the enlightened side, the good side etc. etc.

TYVM PacHead!

(Maybe you should call me, "ZELL") lol

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I'm confused. What happened to Aberdeen ?

Did he just flip sides 180 degrees or what ?

If Yes, then congratulations on joining the enlightened side, the good side etc. etc.

I think he was all along on the neo-con-side, but used this forum to stage a "from left to right"-flipping, in order to persuade some left-ones to do the same, all for the beloved Bush-campaign. Ah, what a blessing the election-year is.

Taliesin

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think he was all along on the neo-con-side, but used this forum to stage a "from left to right"-flipping, in order to persuade some left-ones to do the same, all for the beloved Bush-campaign.

Taliesin

[voodoo]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Voodoo, I know you read it because you told me you had!

But in a discussion about the root cause of Islamic terrorism someone who had read the essay certainly wouldn't talk about the simplistic 'cause and effect' theory I admit I had long espoused.

They would HAVE to acknowldge Harris' Fantasy Ideology in SOME way unless they were intentionally avoiding doing so.

And doing that would tell someone who HAD read the Ideology theory that this person didn't know what they were talking about, OR that they were unable to admit they were wrong.

In either case, why would I want to waste my time debating the issue with someone who insists on ignorance or is unwilling to change his point of view in light of new information?

Well err Zell, I don't know how long you've been thinking about the Iraq issue but I have for a long time. I agree completely with you and I think pretty much everyone I've met that AQ, its members, leaders and supporters need to be addressed with direct force. That was the Afghanistan campaign. I'd have supported further direct campaigns against AQ any day. There just weren't any. I agree that these people can't be dealt with by negotiating or talking but I also realize we are approaching them on their own turf. That means they have the attention if not support of the people there. If the assault on AQ is anything but surgical and just more people can be swayed by the tempting tongues of the AQ recruiters. It had to be absoloutly crystal clear that AQ was the only target of our forces. The war on Terror is a war on the support of terrorism as much as it is a war against the terrorists themselves. The Iraq campaign was the biggest ****up of them all because it had nothing to do with AQ or terrorism. After giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, that he was perhaps a good leader in tough times, he proved everyone wrong. He was and is utterly incompetent.

I think you'd be interested in reading my *highly* controversial thread (at the time some people lost their composure just reading it ) from May 12th 2002. You'll recognize most of the posters there too! I think it could change your mind (or not) but I'm not adamant on my position because I'm obtuse but because I've seen what the war really is and I've seen how the supporters of the war had been fooled. Anyways without further ado:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=134912

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I think he was all along on the neo-con-side, but used this forum to stage a "from left to right"-flipping, in order to persuade some left-ones to do the same, all for the beloved Bush-campaign. Ah, what a blessing the election-year is.

Taliesin

Perhaps, either way I don't mind. At least he's polite. Then he could be a sort of a typical average US swing voter - a notion I find very interesting because I don't recall to have discussed with such a being before. He was on Kerry's side when Kerry had better polls than Bush and when Kerry began losing ground he began thinking about maybe Bush wasn't that bad and then when Bush had better polls than Kerry he read one article posted by Zimphire and FLIP.

Of course it is entirely possible that one article can affect one so much but it didn't really mention the Iraq campaign which aberdeenwriter suddenly fully supports (maybe he always did??) but hey.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Troll:

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Now, in this scenario, Al Qaeda goes to HIM seeking help, which he's more than willing to give. (The enemy of my enemy or the friend of my enemy or...you know what I mean...!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) You have no evidence to back that up though. Nothing to suggest either that Al Qaeda would go running to its worst enemy Saddam for help, nothing to suggest that Saddam would help them. B) You had no more reason to invade Iraq than to invade any number of states. Anyone MIGHT have one day decided to help Al Qaeda. C) That is not a reason to invade a sovereign state without the blessing of the international community and that is not a way to implant democracy all over the world.

D) You claim to have been swung by Harris' essay but that just looks like bull to me because Harris' essay has nothing to do with Iraq. Harris' essay in no way explains why it was necessary to topple Saddam. E) What you been swung by is fear. People like Cheney telling you the boogieman is out to get you if you vote for Kerry.
C) Suddenly everyone out there is a potential terrorist or terrorist collaborator and you are justified in eliminating any one of them because they might just become scary.

Inviting suicide? As if invading Iraq unilaterally wasn't inviting suicide. F) There were other ways of dealing with the minor threat that Iraq presented, including toppling his regime with the blessing of the rest of the world. A competent leader could have achieved that. G) A competent leader could have removed the Iraq threat without spending billions, thousands of American and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We didn't need Saddam running loose, so we took care of him first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H) Clearly that's a decision based on logic, fairness, the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Let me ask you this. I) How do you expect the rest of the world to react to your adventures into other countries whenever you see something that you "don't need".

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
As for OBL, I'll use yet ANOTHER analogy. Some people say a better alternative to executing killers is to make them live a loooooong time in unpleasant circumstances so they can think about the error of their ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H,J) You are seriously delusional and sick if you think that's what happening. OBL is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children in Bali, three bombings in Jakarta, various bombing in Pakistan. No one is making him live like a rat to punish him. If you're letting him run around killing people because you don't want the WOT to end (as if it would) then that's just plain sick. You'd have a lot of explaining to do to Australia if that were the case.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Yes, Iraq was a HUGE step in the WOT. If we hadn't taken care of him when we did, we might now be outright losing TWO major wars and have the whole Islamic world to worry about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
K) Just so we're clear your argument is that Saddam might , at some undisclosed point in the future have started cooperating with Al Qaeda. Even though he had no links to terrorism and even though Saudi Arabia, for example, L) was giving direct assistance to OBL, Saddam had to go in case. And after all the WOT isn't just about taking out REAL terrrorists; J) it's also about taking out people that might somehow, someday, maybe become terrorists.

L) You are losing TWO wars my friend, and precisley because you excuse that kind of behaviour from your government. D) You've been duped. Under neocon influence Bush invaded Iraq NOT because it represents any kind of future terrorist threat. If they had, there are any number of countries that would be first in line or at least next in line. No, they invaded Iraq for the reasons they've specified. M) You can read all about it on the PNAC website. N) They invaded Iraq because they believed in a set of stretagic principles that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with terrorism. They believed that regimes in the ME would spontaneously become democracies sympathetic to the US if the US turned Saddam over. They believed that Iraqis would welcome the US into Iraq, roll over and become an example to everyone else.
E) They were deluded clearly.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Instead, Iraq is no longer a threat, OBL is on the run, the Muslim world is watching, but from the sidelines. Libya has voluntarily abandoned it's WMD program (without a shot fired). And we're still here to debate the matter online.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O) First of all, Libya abandoned its weapons because of diplomatic work initiated by Nelson Mandela and Clinton. It's an example of the opposite of what you've used it for. It's not an example of how force works. Secondly, Iraq is a bigger terrorist threat today than it ever was, and if you believe that they had WMD, then the most likely scenario right now is that those weapons have been smuggled out of Iraq under cover of the fog of war. P) Americans are being beheaded in Iraq, Madrilenes are being killed for their country's involvement in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq didn't remove a terrorist threat - at least not a tangible current threat. It created one. And you can count the bodies that prove it.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
We toppled two regimes, freed MILLIONS of people in two countries, no longer have to worry about being surrounded and overwhelmed AND have another island of democracy in the Middle East. At the unfortunate cost of 1,000 brave men and women.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q) There you go confusing the two again. Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different things. YOU didn't invade Afghanistan unilaterally; a coalition of nations with the UN's blessing invaded Afghanistan and Afghanistan had proven links to terrorism. They were given an ultimatum to turn over a terrorist or be invaded and they refused. Saddam was cooperating in the WOT. He was offering to extradite one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. No one ever accused him formally of harbouring terrorists or set him an ultimatum on that score. If Saddam had had any real links to terrorism, the rest of the world would have gone in just as they did in Afghanistan. Afghanistan and Iraq are two completely different kinds of war. One is a defensive, mutlilateral war against terrorism fought legally and with the support of most of the world including the crucial Arab states. N) The other is a strategic offensive war with virtually no support from anyone.

J,D) Again I say that you started this debate saying that Harris' article explains why the Al Qaeda HARD CORE can't be negotiated with. D,G,R)You may no logical connection between that article and explaining your support for Bush, notably you make no logical connection between the theory Harris presents and the need to remove Saddam. J,J,J) When you can provide a logical answer as to why Saddam is part of the Islamic Fantasy that Harris talks about, then we might be able to take this further. S) Until that point, I think it logical to assume that Saddam, just like everyone else could be negotiated with and that there were other solutions than a unilateral invasion to keeping Iraq in check. Even regime change could have been achieved alternatively.

PS Two quick points on your comparisons to other wars. There is no comparison between WWII and either Iraq or the WOT.
T) You insult the veterans who died in that war by even attempting such a comparison. I'm not going to cover old ground on this again.

Secondly, there is no comparison between Afghanistan in 2003 and Afghanistan during the Russian war. U) There was a whole different set of circumstances during the Cold War that made that battle difficult for Russia not the least being US support of OBL and his crew throughout the war. The Taliban faced opposition from every country on the planet. Its government couldn't turn to Russia for support. Fighting a war in that context is a whole different story to a Cold War conflict. And the result in Afghanistan shows. Removing the government was the easy part; the one that the UN did well. V) Getting the terrorists was another and poorly executed.

My response to your post is through the following footnotes (see above text for corresponding indicia. Is that the right use of the word, indicia???)

My Reply:

A) It exists. Look it up. Al Qaeda talked with Iraq pre-invasion.

B) Faulty reasoning.

C) Serious, responsible men have to make decisions like these.

D) Re-examine my posts.

E) LOLOL, How you talk!

F) Check Kerry-Edwards website. He contradicts you.

G) See PNAC plan. Iraq had strategic importance AND was part of the plan.

H) See previous post. Read again. Stop. Think. Reply.

I) Acting in self-interest and the world gets a freebie.

J) WTF???

K) Whew! I thought we'd lost you there for a minute!

L) I don't know that to be true.

M) Has-anyone-ever-suggested-you-slow-down-and-absorb-what-you're-reading-to-avoid-missing-pertinent-information?

N) Prudent behavior to protect your ungrateful hiney.

O) Hmm, I wonder if Mandela had a 'bitch' in prison all those years. But, back to the issue at hand...the NYT somehow omits Mssrs. Mandela and Clinton but DOES mention Tony Blair and, oh, whattaknow? Dubya!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/20/opinion/20SAT1.html

P) Freedom isn't free.

Q) Reminder to self: Don't go to war in same unit as troll.

R) Connect the dots.

S) What is your fear of this all about, really?

T) Your attempt at moral indignation needs work.

U) OBL was a VERY minor player and not much respected because he was uninvolved in any combat. He had no 'crew.'

V) "...You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em. Know when to walk away, know when to run. You never count your money when you're sittin at the table. There'll be time enough for countin, when the dealin's done."
"The Gambler" by Kenny Rogers

[voodoo]

Very disappointing reply aberdeenwriter

You answered crucial points with ambiguous oneliners. I was curious to see if you had anything to back up your points, because that is something the usual Bush supporters have always failed to do.

Just for your reply A) I must stress that an intelligence officer from Iraq met with a representative of AQ on AQ's insitance where AQ asked for support from Iraq. Saddam never acknowledged that plea for help. The precedence was therefore that Saddam wouldn't even reply such audacious request, probably didn't even consider it but hey. Also an US intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden a few months before 9/11. What do you make of that? :/

[ebuddy]

You have no evidence to back that up though. Nothing to suggest either that Al Qaeda would go running to its worst enemy Saddam for help, nothing to suggest that Saddam would help them. You had no more reason to invade Iraq than to invade any number of states. Anyone MIGHT have one day decided to help Al Qaeda. That is not a reason to invade a sovereign state without the blessing of the international community and that is not a way to implant democracy all over the world.

1) The CIA has confirmed, in interviews with detainees and informants it finds highly credible, that al Qaeda's Number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad in 1992 and 1998. More disturbing, according to an administration official familiar with briefings the CIA has given President Bush, the Agency has "irrefutable evidence" that the Iraqi regime paid Zawahiri $300,000 in 1998, around the time his Islamic Jihad was merging with al Qaeda. That this assessment came from the CIA--with its history of institutional skepticism about the links--was significant.

2) They cross-referenced old intelligence with new information provided by high-level al Qaeda detainees. Reports of collaboration grew in number and specificity. The case grew stronger. Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, al Qaeda operatives held in Guantanamo corroborated previously sketchy reports of a series of meetings in Khartoum, Sudan, home to al Qaeda during the mid-90s. U.S. officials learned more about the activities of Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi, an al Qaeda WMD specialist sent by bin Laden to seek WMD training, and possibly weapons, from the Iraqi regime. Intelligence specialists also heard increasingly detailed reports about meetings in Baghdad between al Qaeda leaders and Uday Hussein in April 1998, at a birthday celebration for Saddam. Clinton is aware of this and warned future administrations to stay the course on Saddam. BTW; Kerry was on the intelligence committee and not once did he say Saddam didn't have WMD at the time.

3) In December 2002, as the Bush administration prepared its public case for war with Iraq, White House officials sifted through reams of these intelligence reports on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda. Some of the reporting was solid, some circumstantial. The White House identified those elements of the reports it wanted to use publicly and asked the CIA to declassify them. The Agency agreed to declassify some 75 percent of the requested intelligence.

4) Powell (a known skeptic) mentioned intelligence showing that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a known al Qaeda associate injured in Afghanistan, had traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment. Powell linked Zarqawi to Ansar al-Islam, an al Qaeda cell operating in a Kurdish region "outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq." Powell told the Security Council that the United States had approached an unnamed "friendly security service"--Jordan's--"to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi," providing information and details "that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi." Iraq did nothing. Finally, Powell asserted that al Qaeda leaders and senior Iraqi officials had "met at least eight times" since the early 1990s.

5) There were reams of documentation declassified, connecting Saddam to Al Qaeda; Powell only used 10 minutes of a 90 minute presentation regarding the connections. If the Bush administration was hell-bent on "hyping" or "exaggerating" the connection-they would've unleashed all the documention on the link. Connections like;

6) Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained "non-Iraqi Arab terrorists" at a camp in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707. Defectors say the plane was used to train hijackers; the Iraqi regime said it was used in counterterrorism training. Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi Army, worked at Salman Pak. In October 2001, he told PBS's "Frontline" about what went on there. "Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. . . . All this training is directly toward attacking American targets, and American interests."

7) On February 13, 2003, the government of the Philippines asked Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, to leave the country. According to telephone records obtained by Philippine intelligence, Hussein had been in frequent contact with two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in South Asia, immediately before and immediately after they detonated a bomb in Zamboanga City. That attack killed two Filipinos and an American Special Forces soldier and injured several others. Hussein left the Philippines for Iraq after he was "PNG'd"--declared persona non grata--by the Philippine government.

8) No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.

9) Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial.

10) On February 18, 1998, after the Iraqis repeatedly refused to permit U.N. weapons inspectors into sensitive sites, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon and delivered a hawkish speech about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his links to "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." Said Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

So now you'll have to admit that Kerry duped you, much of the International Community duped you, Bush duped you, AND Clinton duped you. Well, with all due respect-You're either a complete idiot able to be easily duped by so many, or you're wrong in your view. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're wrong in your view. Now that I've completely lambasted your argument (with less than 30% of the information we have regarding the connection) that there was no connection, we can move on. Perhaps not, but I've said my peice on the connection.

[ebuddy]

Clearly that's a decision based on logic, fairness, the pursuit of freedom and democracy. Let me ask you this. How do you expect the rest of the world to react to your adventures into other countries whenever you see something that you "don't need".

Well, I imagine much of them will kick rocks and grit their teeth in anger over losing Saddam as a meal ticket in the Oil-for-food-scandal. Otherwise, I'd expect them to act with complacency. That is, until they get attacked. Then they'll call out for our helping hand and of course as always we'll help them. Once the novelty of our benevolence has warn off they'll be back to criticizing every aspect of our foreign policy.

You are seriously delusional, bla, bla... OBL is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children in Bali, three bombings in Jakarta, various bombing in Pakistan. No one is making him live like a rat to punish him.

OBL has been instrumental in absolutely nothing in the past 2 years. Absolutely nothing. He's hiding, probably somewhere in Pakistan if not dead already. Regardless, as a "leader" he's been rendered completely ineffective. BTW, we've persuaded our Pakistani "friends" to allow us more aggressive search efforts in Pakistan and we've captured/killed more Al Qaeda operatives in the past 3 months then throughout the entire rest of the campaign combined. You won't see that reported in Reuters or on CBS, but it's true none the less.

If you're letting him run around killing people because you don't want the WOT to end (as if it would) then that's just plain sick. You'd have a lot of explaining to do to Australia if that were the case.

He's running around? Really? Where? He's probably either dead already or holed up in a cave like a rat as usual, but he certainly ain't movin' around much at this point. I think Australia stands united with the US in waiting on the much needed explainations of France, China, Germany, and Russia. Afterall, our blood is on their hands.

Just so we're clear your argument is that Saddam might , at some undisclosed point in the future have started cooperating with Al Qaeda. Even though he had no links to terrorism and even though Saudi Arabia, for example, was giving direct assistance to OBL, Saddam had to go in case. And after all the WOT isn't just about taking out REAL terrrorists; it's also about taking out people that might somehow, someday, maybe become terrorists.

The connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda are well known, irrefuteable, compelling, and numerous. We did not decide to start with Saudi Arabia, we decided to start with Iraq. It's geographical positioning and culture are ripe for this action.

You are losing TWO wars my friend, and precisley because you excuse that kind of behaviour from your government. You've been duped. Under neocon influence Bush invaded Iraq NOT because it represents any kind of future terrorist threat.

No, of course not. Saddam and his henchmen were peaceably dancing around a campfire as we came in with F-14's and bombed his innocence back to the 1600's. Is Clinton also a neocon? C'mon Troll, you don't have a leg left to stand on and your desperate attempts at smearing one man are unprecedented. This is the view of the majority of Americans, our government, and prior administrations. Do not continue to indict one man for the actions and desires of an entire country. Clinton bombed Iraq and made many compelling connections between Saddam and others that wish the West harm.

If they had, there are any number of countries that would be first in line or at least next in line. No, they invaded Iraq for the reasons they've specified. You can read all about it on the PNAC website. They invaded Iraq because they believed in a set of stretagic principles that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with terrorism. They believed that regimes in the ME would spontaneously become democracies sympathetic to the US if the US turned Saddam over. They believed that Iraqis would welcome the US into Iraq, roll over and become an example to everyone else.

Now you're starting to get it. Just about the time I was about to give up. NO better place than Iraq.

They were deluded clearly

Forgive me if I simply ignore much of what you have to say. I'm not so sure you've earned any credibility in facts. You've displayed serious partisan blindness and hatred for one man. You fail to see truth at all Troll, but at least you consistently fall on the wrong side of just about every argument you've engaged. I do admire consistency. So, I guess you're welcome to sit back on your LaZboy and watch the show pretending isolationism is effective foreign policy, just excuse our dust in your livingroom as we work diligently to build a more peaceful world. Don't feel guilty, we've expected little help from you anyway.

[ebuddy]

it created one. And you can count the bodies that prove it.

As if we thought you weren't counting bodies. This is always the primary argument of those who support inaction and isolationism. So, Libya disarms during the Bush administration and it's credited to Clinton and Mandela, yet we get attacked on 9/11 during Bush's administration and even though it was established the planning began in 97, it's Bush's fault. Again, I'll give you one for consistency.

There you go confusing the two again. Iraq and Afghanistan are entirely different things.

You're absolutely right. The member nations of the UN that supported our action in Iraq had absolutely nothing to gain financially from OBL, Saddam however is an "entirely different thing".

YOU didn't invade Afghanistan unilaterally; a coalition of nations with the UN's blessing invaded Afghanistan and Afghanistan had proven links to terrorism.

So did Saddam. Clinton made an excellent case for this. I'm not sure whether or not Mandela helped him in making that case, but I don't care much about Mandela when it comes to US foreign policy.

The other is a strategic offensive war with virtually no support from anyone.

A. Read the contributors to our action in Iraq man. Just because they don't matter to you doesn't mean they don't exist. B. The most vocal opposition to our actions in Iraq would NEVER want to see us do anything that might strategically aide our Global posture, but worse-they would NEVER want to do anything to jeopardize their profiteering on the backs of starving Iraqi citizens.

[Troll]

That's a seriously disappointing reply sir. It shows the same problem we've had with Zimphire and Spliffdaddy and a bunch of other people on the far right. When it comes to answering basic questions, you just can't. Zimphire has admitted that his belief in Iraq's guilt is based on blind faith. I think that's what you need to admit too. There is a lack of logic in your argument. You "join dots" that there's no logical reason to join. You make giant leaps of logic like applying Harris' statements beyond the Al Qaeda hard core, like believing the neocon proposals could work or are working, like connecting Iraq and terrorism. Some responses to the brief answers you provided.

1) Al Qaeda's link with Iraq
Every country in the Middle East has talked with Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia more than others. Speaking to a terrorist group is not the same as supporting them. This is why, despite the US speaking to members of Palestinian terrorist groups, the US is not a terrorist supporter.

There is no credible evidence that Iraq supported Al Qaeda in any manner or form. In fact, Iraq offered twice to extradite the guy the US said was responsible for the first WTC bombing (who the US had released). They were rejected each time. Al Qaeda did talk to Iraq. We know that happened just before OBL moved back to Afghanistan. It would be a logical conclusion to draw since they talked and no cooperation was given, that Saddam decided not to support them. One further little tidbit. Do you know where Zarqawi's terrorist training camp was located and who controlled that territory? That's right, it was located in Northern Alliance-controlled, US overflown, Kurdish territory. Now if Al Qaeda had friends in Iraq, don't you think they'd put their camps inside territory belonging to Iraq rather than in enemy controlled territory? You know so that Saddam would protect them?

There are ample threads around about the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda though. Zimphire has a famous Hudson.org (the neocon thinktank) document that has been discussed in detail in other threads.

2) Why Was Iraq Invaded?
You fail to respond to the point I made that the ultimatum given to Iraq was to get rid of WMD not to turn over terrorists or to stop supporting terrorism. You also failed to respond to my point that the PNAC's plans for Iraq were developed before 9/11 and neither are a response to terrorism nor do they take the threat of a terrorist repurcussion into account. And yet somehow you link the Iraq war and the WOT. Again, absurd dot-joining.

The best argument you have is that one day Saddam might have started to cooperate with Al Qaeda. Which qualifies any country for invasion. Zimbabwe might one day cooperate with Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia might one day STOP cooperating with Al Qaeda.

3) The PNAC's Plan
The PNAC's Iraq policy contains no plan for dealing with terrorism. Nor do any of its pre-9/11 policies. I haven't even seen a document they've produced since strategising on terrorism. They've consistntly simply dusted off Cold War documents and presented them anew. Or perhaps you'd like to show me where in the original blueprint for Iraq it discusses terrorism. I'm not sure I'm the one that is missing pertinent information. Iraq had strategic importance as you say. The plan for Iraq which was developed prior to 9/11 and was unchanged by 9/11 has nothing to do with terrorism. It is about creating an American Empire by toppling regimes that represent a threat to the spread of US influence in the area. Amazing how the American Century and Al Qaeda's complaint dovetail isn't it? The Neocons want to take over the world starting with the cradle of civilisation and Al Qaeda wants to resist Western interference in the same area.

4) OBL is being punished like a rat
Your argument was that OBL may have been allowed to escape on purpose. Your argument is that it is a terrible punishment to be scurrying around wherever he is scurrying around. My point is first that you don't know where he is or even if he is scurrying and my point is that OBL is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people since he was "allowed to escape". Only a sick mind would think that the US let OBL go because they thought it was worse punishment than capturing him and making him face justice.

5) Libya
Your link to the NYT article was a great way to back up your point. Providing us with the first paragraph only of an archived story on the NYT which mentions only diplomatic actions in 2004 to prove that Libya gave up its WMD because of Bush's invasion of Iraq. That's an insult to our intelligence. I thought you wanted to learn? Couldn't you have dug a little deeper?

A bit of googling or a search through these fora would have turned up the letter Martin Indyk wrote. Martin Indyk as in the Clinton era, American diplomat. Well, he wrote a letter that the Financial Times published which you can read here. He was personally involved in the negotiations with Libya which started in 1999 (that's before 9/11 ). You'll see from his letter that already at that stage a clear timetable was set for Libya's readmission to the international community. The terms were agreed 3 years before the shock and awe of Iraq. The terms being 1) that the claims by Lockerbie victims be settled by Libya; 2) that Libya give up its WMD. The Lockerbie civil claims were settled earlier this year when the court proceedings in Scotland finally draw to a close. Ghadaffi had to wait for them to close because the UK and the US couldn't deal politically until the verdict had been delivered. In paralell and since 1999 the Libyans had been consulting with the UN on a monitored destruction programme for the WMD part of the terms. The UN had been in Libya monitoring destruction. When the Lockerbie case was settled and the verification of 3 years of WMD destruction was concluded, Libya was readmitted. The main reason why the most logical member of the Access of Evil (Ghadaffi's Libya) was not included was because the Bush Admin knew that Libya was committed to normalising relations with the world. Libya got rid of its WMD not because it was afraid it would meet the same fate as Iraq (although Berlusconi did make this claim and then withdraw it). Libya got rid of its WMD because it no longer wanted to be isolated.

Extraordinary the rapprochement considering Ghadaffi's daughter was killed in US airstrikes don't you think? Who else knows about forgiving personal sacrifice and making peace? Nelson Mandela perhaps?Being a "terrorist" himself, Mandela and Ghadaffi had a close relationship. Libya had supported the ANC's freedom struggle in South Africa by training and supporting ANC cadres. In 1997 (which is before 1999 and before 9/11), and much to the chagrine of Tony Blair, George Bush and the victims of Lockerbie, Mandela went on one of his first state visits, to Libya. You can read all about that visit here. and here.. Some commentators thought he was a British envoy although British cricisim of his action suggests otherwise. Mandela famously said, in response to US criticism of his presence, "Those who say I should not be here are without morals. I am not going to join them in their lack of morality." Despite criticism, Mandela pushed for a solution to the sanctions on Libya and it was he who proposed the initial deal and set up the first round of secret talks. In addition to his input on getting the relevant parties to talk, Mandela had something else to offer. South Africa was, at the time, the only country to have gone through a UN and IAEA approved and verified process of nuclear disarmament. South African experts were involved from 1998 in assisting the Libyans in the process of disarmament of their WMD.

Diplomacy achieved in Iraq what violence apparently failed to achieve in Iraq (namely disarmament).

6) Fear
I think you are essentially just afraid. In a sense you admit that in your doomsdayish predictions about what challenges the US faces. It perhaps makes you feel safe to see your army beating the crap out of someone irrespective of whether they are really killing terrorists. This is also why you excuse Bush's mistakes and want to give him another term. You don't care if he's beating up the right people, just as long as he's beating someone up and you're frightened to change anything in case the bad guys come again. You're allowing them to affect your democratic choice. You're making your choice based on how it will affect them. They are determining the outcome of the election for you.

You're so scared that you're prepared to accept that thousands of innocent people need to die in case their leader is maybe, perhaps thinking of one day sharing WMD that he hasn't yet developed with real terrorists who might hurt you. As I said, all countries that are new at dealing with terrorism do this. They lash out like a scared kid in a dark room flailing at anything they might bump into irrespective of whether it is a threat, because you never know what might be out there. Here is the news, You will never win the "War on Terror" so long as you define it as broadly as you have. You may beat Al Qaeda but you will never destroy the emotion of fear nor wil you prevent people using that emotion to achieve their ends (which is what terrorISM is). Some nutter will always be able to hold you hostage with a car and a hunting rifle or a bag of anthrax. You have to manage the fear and do your best to protect yourself but you will never eliminate the risk.

In everything you have posted there is no other explanation for why you think it was right to invade Iraq. What you don't realise is that those actions that make you feel safe are having the opposite effect. Your government is keeping you frightened precisely because scared people turn to what they know, want to hit out at something. What was it Goebbels said about fear? I forget ...

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You're absolutely right. The member nations of the UN that supported our action in Iraq had absolutely nothing to gain financially from OBL, Saddam however is an "entirely different thing".

Britain supported your action in Iraq. You're saying Britain had something to gain from Saddam. Hmmm, okay, if you say so.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
The most vocal opposition to our actions in Iraq would NEVER want to see us do anything that might strategically aide our Global posture, but worse-they would NEVER want to do anything to jeopardize their profiteering on the backs of starving Iraqi citizens.

I've decided to ignore all of your xenophobic comments which leaves me with nothing of substance to reply to. Damn.

[Zimphire]

By all means. If you can't refute, or disprove, call names like racist, bigot, xenophobic... etc.

People will actually think it's true, and not that you just don't have any responses for what said person said.