So what's this War about anyway?

[Darth Rotor]

Dude- Skeptigirl already did a thread on this. Stick to one topic. You're German, and you hate America. Just go with that.

So was Hitler. There, if I Godwin it, will it die?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Very funny bush. I would have a beer with you.

W stopped drinking a few years ago, you can thank Laura. Not sure if he does or not. (Thank her.)

DR

 

[Pardalis]

So? How many were convicted in your examples.

1 in germany, one in the US, and 4 or 5 in other countries?

Yep, a deadly invisible super-terror-power. Indeed. And this justifies everything. Would we be able to differ between reality and propaganda? Of course - with some good faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_terror_campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

And two examples of twarted terrorist threats in Canada:
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aa8696a1-5a53-40ca-868a-3c8f6009581c
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849

There are many more, in many other countries (look up Jordan, Egypt, UK, etc.)

If you refuse this information Oliver, and choose to ignore this threat, then there's nothing we can do to help you.

As Gravy said, willful ignorance is dangerous.

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Oliver,

this article sums it up pretty well. I'd be interested to see if anyone here has any specific criticisms of the arguments contained within...

http://www.irc-online.org/fpif/commentary/2003/0301warreasons.html

 

[brodski]

So? How many were convicted in your examples.

1 in germany, one in the US, and 4 or 5 in other countries?

Yep, a deadly invisible super-terror-power. Indeed. And this justifies everything. Would we be able to differ between reality and propaganda? Of course - with some good faith.

You claim that the orgianistion isn't "invisible" (or hard to detect) and powerful, by citing the lasck of convictions even though they have manged to pull off terrorist acts on at least four continents- killing thousands.

That's some twisted logic you have there...

 

[thaiboxerken]

And you're okay with that?

NO

 

[Pardalis]

this article sums it up pretty well. I'd be interested to see if anyone here has any specific criticisms of the arguments contained within...

http://www.irc-online.org/fpif/commentary/2003/0301warreasons.html

I think it has good points, except that last paragraph which is the author's opinion. My criticism of the article would be that I think it dismisses the terrorism and WMDs angle a little too quickly. I still think it had considerable weight in the decision. Dismissing the WMDs motive by comparing Iraq to North Korea and Pakistan is wrong in my opinion, because these countries are a completely different problem, the regions are different and the sets of variables are different (for example, North Korea has to deal with China and Japan). I think Iraq's geographical situation made it a wild card that the Bush administration decided to get rid of. Of course the way they handled it was wrong as they only enhanced the problem in the region. (IMHO)

 

[Dancing David]

Right, could never have purchased anything while Iran is supplying insurgents as we speak. We can't even watch our own borders.

Which means what?

I agree that Saddam was not as much of a threat as some of the other powers. Bush took him out for reasons that I can guess at but are opaque to me. I would guess oil mainly and some notion that it would benefit our country politicaly.Saddam certainly was purchasing arms with oil sales to Turkey.

The thing that has never made sense to me is this : Why not Sudan?

They along with Libya were identified for ever as having the most 'terrorist training camps', they are the heartland of the wuhabi movement , they were/are practising genocide.

So I know that Bush and Co. had thier reasons to attack Iraq, i don't think they had much to do with stopping Osama Bin Laden.

 

[Dancing David]

I disagree. Bush II had the support of both Rumsfield and Cheney, both of whom were Bush I supporters and saw the chance for political advantage in attacking Iraq the second time. The myriad of "legitimate" reasons offered by Bush II have been shown to be either completely erroneous or plain lies. And plenty of other strong-willed people have started wars for less reasons than to prove their own aggressiveness.

I'm open to evidence, however, so if you gentlemen can come up with something conclusive that proves that it wasn't just Bush II trying to prove himself to his Daddy, I'll reconsider.

Cheers,
TGHO

The key to Rumsfeld and Cheney is that they were part of the Nixon team that helped out the older Bush.

 

[a_unique_person]

Terrorism is real Oliver, get real.

Terrorism is real, so is political manipulation and exploitation of it's existence.

 

[Pardalis]

Terrorism is real, so is political manipulation and exploitation of it's existence.

Agreed.

What I can't stand is people like Oliver completely denying its existence.

 

[Ion]

Agreed.

What I can't stand is people like Oliver completely denying its existence.

I can stand Oliver.

Oliver is needed.

But what I can't stand is people denying U.S. Fascism epitomized by Bush.

(Fascism defined by Mussolini and Hitler in 1940 as corporatism).

In Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, in page 213, the French atheist President Chirac considers war immoral and proposes Hussein's peaceful exile.
That's not good enough with 'pro-life' 'Christian' Fascist Bush who wants war instead of peace, occupation, change of trade currency from Euros to Dollars.
So much for Capitalist's Bush free market after being beaten on free market contracts by Total (Fra.), and resorting to force.
Shades of Soviet Union 'liberating' Afghanistan in 1980.

As for U.N.'s 1441 stupidly brought up here for justification of the war, it's old news since 2003 that 1441 specified that U.N.'s Security Council -not Bush's U.S.- was to decide on Hussein's breaches.
So Bush's U.S. broke U.N.'s 1441 when Bush started the war.
U.N. declared in November 2004 war by Bush U.S. as being illegal.

 

[Ziggurat]

In Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward, in page 213, the French atheist President Chirac considers war immoral and proposes Hussein's peaceful exile.
That's not good enough with 'pro-life' 'Christian' Fascist Bush who wants war instead, occupation, change of trade currency from Euros to Dollars.
So much for Capitalist's Bush free market after being beaten by Total (Fra.) on contracts, and using force instead.

Guess what: Bush OFFERED Saddam the chance for exile.
Total beat out American companies because American companies were forbidden to do business with that bloodthirsty dictator. Chirac has no such scrupples. So when you talk about money motivating political positions, did it not even OCCUR to you that France's opposition was basically bought by Saddam through Total? No, of course not.

Don't look now, but Chirac's in DEEP trouble.

So Bush's U.S. broke 1441 when it started the war.
U.N. declared in November 2004 the war illegal.

No, it didn't. Kofi Annan said he thought the war was illegal. But 1) he's tied to the oil-for-food scandal himself, which the war ended, and 2) his opinion on the matter carries no weight.

 

[Skibum]

President Chirac considers war immoral and proposes Hussein's peaceful exile.
That's not good enough with 'pro-life' 'Christian' Fascist Bush who wants war instead, occupation, change of trade currency from Euros to Dollars.

Since you mention Chirac and morality...

http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20070524-023550-5002
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/14/europe/EU_GEN_France_Chirac.php
http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/05/09/afx2733785.html
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=805742007

U.N. declared in November 2004 war by Bush U.S. as being illegal.

Did they? Or was it just a worthless declaration by Kofi Annan?


ETA. Beaten to the punch.

 

[Ion]

...
Did they? Or was it just a worthless declaration by Kofi Annan?


ETA. Beaten to the punch.

I bet for Fascist U.S. it is a "...worthless declaration by Kofi Annan...".

After all, with Fascism like this, Fascist U.S. did start an unprovoked war and is now crying:

"Momaaaaaa!
U.S. cannot handle what it started!"

 

[Ion]

Guess what: Bush OFFERED Saddam the chance for exile.
...

Ziggy,

Bob Wodward wrote in page 213 of Plan of Attack that Bush didn't want to hear about Saddam's exile.

Chirac did.

Go ahead, Zigguny:

"Momaaa!
Iraqis are mean now!"

Bunch of Fascist whiners who cannot even take care of their own country's welfare and poverty...

 

[Oliver]

You claim that the orgianistion isn't "invisible" (or hard to detect) and powerful, by citing the lasck of convictions even though they have manged to pull off terrorist acts on at least four continents- killing thousands.

That's some twisted logic you have there...

And? Why is that? It's not because it's their way to go bowling on Saturday.
And it's also no twisted logic if I include the fact that more than 100.000 Iraqis died in Iraq because the War and instability. And when you argue that the Iraqis kill themselves and that's their fault because the US Administration had nothing to do with it nor wanted this situation, should I say the Terrorists didn't want the Towers to collapse, that was also an accident?

So who's the Terrorist/Tyrant?
Even Terrorists will usually tell you about the real reasons.

Another Point here is: You wouldn't be able to differ between fact and fiction.
And while I don't believe in "9/11 was an inside job", I really doubt that this couldn't happen if someone chooses to do something from within. Just like Hitler.

Now you might argue: "No way, my Government wouldn't do something like a faked attack against our own citizen to support important strategies or justify wars. This is unthinkable."

See? Gotcha.

We wouldn't even be able to see if they lied us into war. And you don't see behind a mask of someone in power. This is what will happen if there is any kind of "National Emergency", no matter what kind of, Terrorism or not:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

 

[Oliver]

Agreed.

What I can't stand is people like Oliver completely denying its existence.

BS! I didn't deny it. But I deny the global-threat "Witch hunt" that requires to invade sovereign countries and a big pile of exaggerated laws and acts. as if the "old laws" weren't effective at all if they were used effectively before 9/11. Who believes this crap and why?

Does someone in here even care about politics, especially their own?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggy,

Bob Wodward wrote that Bush didn't want to hear about Saddam's exile.

And yet, Bush made a demand for Saddam's exile before he went to war:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/03/19/iraq_ed3__6.php

You know, I do have to admire your work ethic, though. It's not easy being as consistently wrong as you are.

 

[Ziggurat]

Another Point here is: You wouldn't be able to differ between fact and fiction.
And while I don't believe in "9/11 was an inside job", I really doubt that this couldn't happen if someone chooses to do something from within. Just like Hitler.

Yeah. Because torching a building in the middle of the night is really just as difficult as getting a 19-man crew to hijack 4 large commercial airliners and plowing them into buildings, or better yet, faking such hijackings.

Sorry, Orwell, but the difference hinges on a LOT more than whether or not the leader in question would be willing to do something like this.