Are war critics helping the enemy?

[Ziggurat]

rikzilla, the war in Iraq has nothing at all do with 9/11, except in Bush's rhetoric.

But it does, ID. 9/11 changed our risk tolerance, and because of it, many people (including me) decided we should be more aggressive about confronting ALL our enemies, that we had been too lax before. YOU may not have responded to 9/11 like that, you may even think that response is not correct, but there are people who did, and that response doesn't constitute a lie or a deception of any kind. And if you actually pay attention to what Bush actually says and not just the characterization of his speeches by opponents, you'll notice it is precisely that risk tolerance which he refers to, not any operational involvement of Iraq in planning 9/11.

 

[Cleon]

But that's only true if you really, really believe that the President of the United States is more dangerous than the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that we are fighting. I do wonder ID; if you had been trapped at the top of the WTC on 9/11; if you would still hold such a bizarre opinion?

Wow, that's sleazy.

 

[rikzilla]

rikzilla, the war in Iraq has nothing at all do with 9/11, except in Bush's rhetoric.

Okay then; please explain to me how Bush and his evil corporate neo-con buddies would have made the case for an invasion of Iraq to the American people without 9/11? The events of 9/11 have resonated throughout the world creating a veritable sea-change in international politics and you say that 9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq war??? Are you daft?? The very fact of 9/11 made the premise of the pre-emptive strike policy against rogue states that pose a risk of supplying WMD to terrorists palitable to the American people. There's something about watching your fellow Americans trying to decide whether it's better to roast or fly on live national tv that makes the majority realise that pre-emption is way better than picking up the pieces later and crying; "why do they hate us???"

Screw why they hate us; they do and it's not in our power to change that. Even if we completely caved in to them and became perfect dhimmies they'd likely hate us as cowards. The thing that truly galls me about anti-war nuts is that they really do believe the myth that the US gov't is all powerful. They say things like; "if only we did this"...or if only we gave them this"...or "if only we were more generous".... What these folks fail to consider is that we don't have that much power. We don't possess the power to make everyone love us. They hate us...they like to hate us...they want to hate us...there's nothing we can do besides die that will appease them. If your version of "support" for the troops is to work for the loss of this "amoral war" then your support cannot be distinguished from support for this hateful enemy ideology.

This ideology is held by terrorists. These terrorists recieve and have recieved support from several Arab states...chief of which was Saddam's Iraq. You may continue to lie to yourself about 9/11 having "nothing at all to do" with Iraq. 9/11 changed everything. If Iran builds WMD's and makes noises about supplying terrorists I'd support going after them too. To do otherwise is to sit back and wait for that day when an American or European city goes BOOM. That is simply unacceptable.

We invaded Afhanistan,

Yes...and freed 30,000,000 people from a hellish medeaval tyranny that repressed women horribly and supported AQ. Hell; they wouldn't even allow their kids to fly kites or listen to music. This we forciblly replaced with:

Legal system:

according to the new constitution, no law should be "contrary to Islam"; the state is obliged to create a prosperous and progressive society based on social justice, protection of human dignity, protection of human rights, realization of democracy, and to ensure national unity and equality among all ethnic groups and tribes; the state shall abide by the UN charter, international treaties, international conventions that Afghanistan signed, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Please explain what parts of this outcome you find objectionable. (while realizing that women would still be murdered by the state for the crime of going to school, wearing the wrong clothes, listening to music, or Allah forbid, actual dancing!! If only US policy had been run by someone with your impecable pascifistic credentials.)

failed to capture Osama,

Osama is one man. A man who is becoming ever less relevant if he even remains alive.

and then we now have less than 10% as many forces in Afghanistan as we do in Iraq.

But isn't that a good thing? Perhaps you have evidence to suggest more or less troops are needed?? You've already been wrong about so much...why would I trust your opinions now? Again; if your opinions had been the guiding force after 9/11 people would still be murdered by the state in Afghanistan for trivial social or political reasons.

9/11 has been used as an exucse to invade Iraq.

..and it's a damned good and logical one.

W/Osama is not an either or, black/white issue. Osama is a despicable terrorist, Bush is a liar and miserable President. Saying that about Bush does not mean I support Osama.

Yet your attack on Bush is an illogical appeal to emotion. You call him "a liar"; yet cannot prove a single lie. You could logically call him mistaken, wrong, unlucky, or even stupid...but lie? You have to prove intent...do you have such proof? If you do then stop right now...don't bother winning a stupid forum debate...call John Conyers and tell him you have evidence of presidential intent to lie and decieve the American people. He's looking for a way to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush...so call him. Call him now or stop saying "Bush is a liar"...because if you don't have enough to get Conyers interested then you're the obvious liar.

-z

you've sunk to the near-beer level now my friend...

 

[rikzilla]

Wow, that's sleazy.

Care to expand on that?
-z

 

[Mephisto]

So that was a waste of time. We know Bush lied, but we have no evidence of why he lied. I think if he had any honour, he would explain himself. His actions have cost the lives of many Americans. At last count, it's getting up to 9/11 figures.

Well that's a problem then, AUP, because Bush has no honor.

This is the reason that the right wants opinions stifled, it's not because it's injurious to the war effort (if so, how disasterous is releasing the name of an American spy during wartime OR leaking to the American public that they are being spied upon as opposed to what they believed is actually in the Constitution?), it's because this adminstration doesn't want obvious parallels drawn between the current political snafus and the likelihood that (just like Osama Bin Laden) the U.S. is working outside any moral restraints. He's become the Colonel Kurtz straight out of Conrad's Heart of Darkness and quite obviously he has gone completely . . .

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Okay then; please explain to me how Bush and his evil corporate neo-con buddies would have made the case for an invasion of Iraq to the American people without 9/11? The events of 9/11 have resonated throughout the world creating a veritable sea-change in international politics and you say that 9/11 has nothing to do with the Iraq war??? Are you daft?? The very fact of 9/11 made the premise of the pre-emptive strike policy against rogue states that pose a risk of supplying WMD to terrorists palitable to the American people. There's something about watching your fellow Americans trying to decide whether it's better to roast or fly on live national tv that makes the majority realise that pre-emption is way better than picking up the pieces later and crying; "why do they hate us???"

I repeat 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. Before 9/11, Bush ridiculed Clinton for "wasting time" on Osama. After 9/11, Bush has used it as a bludgeon to hush opposition, and engage in an entirely unrelated war in Iraq. Rogue states with WMD's is a completely seperate issue from international terrorists. The only similarity between Osama and Saddam is that they were both Muslim.

Screw why they hate us; they do and it's not in our power to change that. Even if we completely caved in to them and became perfect dhimmies they'd likely hate us as cowards. The thing that truly galls me about anti-war nuts is that they really do believe the myth that the US gov't is all powerful. They say things like; "if only we did this"...or if only we gave them this"...or "if only we were more generous".... What these folks fail to consider is that we don't have that much power. We don't possess the power to make everyone love us. They hate us...they like to hate us...they want to hate us...there's nothing we can do besides die that will appease them. If your version of "support" for the troops is to work for the loss of this "amoral war" then your support cannot be distinguished from support for this hateful enemy ideology.

This ideology is held by terrorists. These terrorists recieve and have recieved support from several Arab states...chief of which was Saddam's Iraq. You may continue to lie to yourself about 9/11 having "nothing at all to do" with Iraq. 9/11 changed everything. If Iran builds WMD's and makes noises about supplying terrorists I'd support going after them too. To do otherwise is to sit back and wait for that day when an American or European city goes BOOM. That is simply unacceptable.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had anything to do with terrorists. He commited his attocities himself.

I agree about Iran. The difference between Iran and Iraq is that we know Iran actually is trying to get WMD's. That's a war the American people would support without having to be lied to.

Yes...and freed 30,000,000 people from a hellish medeaval tyranny that repressed women horribly and supported AQ. Hell; they wouldn't even allow their kids to fly kites or listen to music. This we forciblly replaced with:

rikzillia, you're continuing your muddling of 9/11 with Iraq. I remind you that Bush openly and cheerfully supported the Taliban until Septeber 12th, 2001. Then they suddenly became our enemies. The war in Afghanistan has made us, and the people of Afghistan safer.


This has nothing to do with Iraq.

Osama is one man. A man who is becoming ever less relevant if he even remains alive.

Funny, Bush said that were going to get him "Dead or Alive". Before we invaded, getting Osama was our highest priority. Now, Bush has come up with a pale excuse to justify having failed to do so.

But isn't that a good thing? Perhaps you have evidence to suggest more or less troops are needed?? You've already been wrong about so much...why would I trust your opinions now? Again; if your opinions had been the guiding force after 9/11 people would still be murdered by the state in Afghanistan for trivial social or political reasons.

I never, ever, said that otherthrowing the Taliban was a bad idea. The war aginst the Taliban was the war that resulted from 9/11.

This has nothing to do with Iraq.

Yet your attack on Bush is an illogical appeal to emotion. You call him "a liar"; yet cannot prove a single lie. You could logically call him mistaken, wrong, unlucky, or even stupid...but lie? You have to prove intent...do you have such proof? If you do then stop right now...don't bother winning a stupid forum debate...call John Conyers and tell him you have evidence of presidential intent to lie and decieve the American people. He's looking for a way to introduce articles of impeachment against Bush...so call him. Call him now or stop saying "Bush is a liar"...because if you don't have enough to get Conyers interested then you're the obvious liar.

-z

you've sunk to the near-beer level now my friend...

Excuse me, did you read post #158, where I showed an exhaustive list of Bush's lies?

Edit: Corrected misplaced /quote tag.

 

[Mephisto]

Funny, Bush said that were going to get him "Dead or Alive". Before we invaded, getting Osama was our highest priority. Now, Bush has come up with a pale excuse to justify having failed to do so.

Bill Mahr's take on it was hilarious. He said we went from, "I'm going to get him dead or alive!" to, (with a shrug) "Well, he's either dead or alive."

 

[billydkid]

But that's only true if you really, really believe that the President of the United States is more dangerous than the Islamic fundamentalist terrorism that we are fighting. I do wonder ID; if you had been trapped at the top of the WTC on 9/11; if you would still hold such a bizarre opinion?

-z

You are simply remarkable. You know well that our invasion of Iraq was completely unrelated to the war on Islamic terrorism. You also know that Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Centers. It seems that no argument in support of your position is beneath you. It is truly sleazy. What's more, there is not a person in here who does not fully support a geniune "war on terror" and would not support the government in any genuine effort at terrorism prevention and pursuit of the people who attacked us. As far as my other post goes which was unclear to you - I talked about police instigation at antiwar rallys. I have seen video tape of this - police sauntering up to protestors and pepper spraying then in attempt to instigate violence. Yes, I would say this is part and parcel of the war against free assembly and free speech as are "free speech zones".

 

[rikzilla]

I repeat 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq.

you're wrong.

Before 9/11, Bush ridiculed Clinton for "wasting time" on Osama.

I'll need to see your evidence for that one since prior to Bush's election AQ terrorists attacked a US Navy vessel with loss of life; and near loss of vessel. I hardly believe a presidential candidate would ridicule a sitting POTUS for "wasting time" on the perpetrator of such an attack. Unless of course Bush knew that Clinton was going after Usama by bombing a completely harmless asprin factory...

After 9/11, Bush has used it as a bludgeon to hush opposition, and engage in an entirely unrelated war in Iraq.

Untrue. At the time of the invasion the existence of Saddam's WMD's were a commonly held opinion...even among Clinton and the members of his party and administration. It was not a controversial idea at all. Did you know that when the then-secret prewar National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was made available to the Congress prior to the vote...and that hardly anyone consulted it. Saddam's WMD's was not a controversial subject. From the WaPo:

Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

Even the WaPo...a very liberal paper agrees that the existence of Saddam's WMD's was not a controversial idea:

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

So that should settle that...unless you think that perhaps the entire Congress conspired with Bush in his lies?

Rogue states with WMD's is a completely seperate issue from international terrorists. The only similarity between Osama and Saddam is that they were both Muslim.

Have you never heard the old Arab adadge? "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

There is no evidence whatsoever that Saddam had anything to do with terrorists. He commited his attocities himself.

Saddam paid money to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers and promoted their jihad. That fact alone belies your assertion. There are however many more links including evidence turned up by Scott Ritter during his time at UNSCOM. He found a Mukhatbarrat "Terrorism School"...his words, not mine. Read "End Game" By Mr. Ritter...(in his pre-moonbat period)

I agree about Iran. The difference between Iran and Iraq is that we know Iran actually is trying to get WMD's. That's a war the American people would support without having to be lied to.

So you're not suicidal after all? Great news. We agree.

rikzillia, you're continuing your muddling of 9/11 with Iraq. I remind you that Bush openly and cheerfully supported the Taliban until Septeber 12th, 2001. Then they suddenly became our enemies. The war in Afghanistan has made us, and the people of Afghistan safer.

I call BS on this assertion...evidence please.

This has nothing to do with Iraq.

Keep saying it over and over until you believe it... Everything is linked to everything else my friend. Read up on Taoist philosophy. They own the only religion which is even remotely logical...

Funny, Bush said that were going to get him "Dead or Alive".

Yet if he's dead he's been "got" wouldn't you agree? Where is Hitler's body? By your logic WWII was unsuccessful as Hitler is still free...

Before we invaded, getting Osama was our highest priority. Now, Bush has come up with a pale excuse to justify having failed to do so.

Like Hitler, Usama has ceased to present a viable target. Like Hitler he has ceased to be an objective leader of AQ and mover of world events.

(But alas you have won sir! I have been stabbed by the ghost of Godwin! ....arrrrgh! )

I never, ever, said that otherthrowing the Taliban was a bad idea. The war aginst the Taliban was the war that resulted from 9/11.

This has nothing to do with Iraq.

You've taken my advice I see! Good...keep repeating it...a good mantra has power only if repeated in a droning monotone. You're doing fine....

Excuse me, did you read post #158, where I showed an exhaustive list of Bush's lies?

As I said...if any of those items you exhaustively pasted rose to the level of fact they should be forwarded to Rep. Conyers right away!! Don't delay!!

But you and I both know that Conyers already has this stuff...and that there is zero material here to use toward the impeachment of President Bush.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

You are simply remarkable. You know well that our invasion of Iraq was completely unrelated to the war on Islamic terrorism.

The mantra has caught on! Great work ID....come on now...altogether and harmonize!! Kumbay-ah baby!

You also know that Iraq had nothing to do with the World Trade Centers.

So the fact that Saddam gassed thousands of his own people but would clearly refrain from using WMD's via terrorists on the US....riiiight.

It seems that no argument in support of your position is beneath you.

Attacking me? Please attack the argument not the man or I'll set Darat on ya!

It is truly sleazy.

Darrrrat!!! Yo!

What's more, there is not a person in here who does not fully support a geniune "war on terror" and would not support the government in any genuine effort at terrorism prevention and pursuit of the people who attacked us.

That's your opinion. Can you please explain what a "genuine WOT" would entail and how a "genuine WOT" could be discerned objectively? Unless Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism(tm) is an organ of some rogue nation I don't see how you'd fight it in one place. My idea of a "genuine WOT" would include attacking all terrorists worldwide...this would mean US troops in Palestine, Iran, Syria, Phillipines, Indonesia, Yemen, and Somalia as well as Iraq and Afghanistan...but that's just me.

As far as my other post goes which was unclear to you - I talked about police instigation at antiwar rallys. I have seen video tape of this - police sauntering up to protestors and pepper spraying then in attempt to instigate violence. Yes, I would say this is part and parcel of the war against free assembly and free speech as are "free speech zones".

You have evidence? Then present it to the IA branch of the police depatrments concerned. Otherwise I call BS on you.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Wow, that's sleazy.

BTW; I'm still waiting for a thankyou note. You or FS should have sent one you know. I didn't give much, but a thankyou note is still proper you know.... It's just something else that came to mind when you called me "sleazy" just now.

-z

 

[Mark]

BTW; I'm still waiting for a thankyou note. You or FS should have sent one you know. I didn't give much, but a thankyou note is still proper you know.... It's just something else that came to mind when you called me "sleazy" just now.

-z

I hate to be pedantic (that's a lie; I love it) but I think he called your comment sleazy, not you.

 

[rikzilla]

...slight derail....

I hate to be pedantic (that's a lie; I love it) but I think he called your comment sleazy, not you.

Thanks for the perspective Mark! I'm going to go back to Hannity dot com now so I can resume being the dangerous godless liberal that I am!! Over here I'm just another nasty neo-con maker of sleazy comments!

Perspective is everything! Here in Virginia I'm a liberal...if I moved to Mass I'd be a conservative....and in California? A "sleazy" neocon I bet!

-z

PS: You're an easy guy to get along with Mark...I do try with Cleon since I respect him just as much as I do you...(and that's a lot BTW)...I only wish he'd offer me the same.

 

[Mark]

Thanks for the perspective Mark! I'm going to go back to Hannity dot com now so I can resume being the dangerous godless liberal that I am!! Over here I'm just another nasty neo-con maker of sleazy comments!

Perspective is everything! Here in Virginia I'm a liberal...if I moved to Mass I'd be a conservative....and in California? A "sleazy" neocon I bet!

-z

PS: You're an easy guy to get along with Mark...I do try with Cleon since I respect him just as much as I do you...(and that's a lot BTW)...I only wish he'd offer me the same.

If it makes you feel any better, in the county where I live, I definitely qualify as an America Hating Communist Hippie Freak!

And thanks for the compliment, Rik...the respect is genuinely mutual. Ya Nazi goombah.

 

[Mycroft]

You're dismissing a unique person's agruments because you disagree with his conclusion. A classic logical fallacy.

No, he's dismissing it because it's pure speculation and lacking in substance.

Did Bush lie? Being wrong and lying are two different things. We know it's almost certain that Bush was wrong about WMD's, but this wrong opinion was shared by many, so it's not at all certain that he lied. If you want to establish that he lied to a degree of certainty that might satisfy a court of law, then motive is extremely important.

 

[Mycroft]

It's absurd to think that anything we say will weaken terrorists who are eager to die. It's anti-democratic to suggest that talking about why the President lied to get us into this war makes the terrorists stronger. They'll happily kill whatever Americans they find, from Bush to Cindy Sheehan. The terrorists are far off the political spectrum, it's not possible for us to sway their morale in any way.

It's very possible to embolden terrorists and make them believe if they hold out longer, they can win.

 

[Cleon]

BTW; I'm still waiting for a thankyou note. You or FS should have sent one you know. I didn't give much, but a thankyou note is still proper you know.... It's just something else that came to mind when you called me "sleazy" just now.

-z

Responding via PM. (And yes, the comment was sleazy.)

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

You guys got me; I can’t lie about it anymore. Back in 2002 Saddam, Osama and Satan invited me and millions of other Americans to a secret meeting. They picked us up in black helicopters and flew us to a secret Mason/Inca base under the Sphinx. There we entered into a secret plot to sabotage America because we secretly hate it. They paid us to make casual criticism of the Bush administration. They knew that people will always criticize any given administration because not everyone can be happy all of the time. But they also knew that the Bush administration is unlike previous administrations and is perfect in every way, and would never be criticized by the populous. So to ensure that Bush looked just as bad as every other president they paid us to criticize him. I can no longer live with my part in this deception. Hopefully, you can find it in your hearts to forgive me. I’m sorry.

LLH

 

[billydkid]

No, he's dismissing it because it's pure speculation and lacking in substance.

Did Bush lie? Being wrong and lying are two different things. We know it's almost certain that Bush was wrong about WMD's, but this wrong opinion was shared by many, so it's not at all certain that he lied. If you want to establish that he lied to a degree of certainty that might satisfy a court of law, then motive is extremely important.

He was more than just wrong. He presented the cooked intelligence as though it were certain. He didn't say, we think it might be possible, though all the evidence is to the contrary and though the UN weapons inspectors say otherwise, that Saddam Hussein has WMD's, but we think that's enough to take the country to war on. He said the intelligence was conclusive that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was an emminent threat to the US. He presented the evidence (which was not merely inconclusive, but flat out contradictory to his position) that Saddam had weapons as conclusive and scared the idiots with threats of mushroom clouds (the smoking gun). You may say that was not lying, but you can not deny that it was misleading. You people will defend the choice to invade Iraq no matter what happens. No matter what turns up in terms of deception, premeditation and misjudgement by the adminstration, no matter what you might learn, you will continue to defend entering Iraq. I am truly baffled why that is - unless you think it is patriotic to defend the actions of any Republican administration no matter what they do and no matter how corrupt they might turn out to be.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I am truly baffled why that is - unless you think it is patriotic to defend the actions of any Republican administration no matter what they do and no matter how corrupt they might turn out to be.

No, there's a consistent segment of the population who will support a war time President, regardless of that President's actions, and generally regardless of their party.

Or in any case, there's an equal number who support incompetent Democratic war leaders as Republican war leaders.