Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
Colin Powell is an idiot!
- Thread starter Wayne Grabert
- Start date
-
- Tags
- colin powell
Wayne Grabert
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 629
Go look in the periodic table.Kodiak said:
There are those predictions again...
Evidence please.
Or maybe you should just educate yourself on Iraq and the Middle East. It's like someone hearing Alan Greenspan talk about how if the government continues to have gigantic deficits, it will suck up funds for business investment and push up interest rates and slow down the economy and someone asking, "evidence please." Somethings logically follow if you are educated well enough with the subject and its history. I don't have the time to educate you on this topic from square one and I doubt your ability to learn.How about asking for evidence of an al Qaida-Iraq link? How about asking yourself why--if the Bush administration's cause is just--it is so necessary for them to lie continuously? They are so desparate to sell that lie that they are making the incredible claim that the latest bin Laden tape proves an Hussein-al Qaida link. That's how stupid they are or think everyone else is. Alas, some people are that stupid. I hope that you are not one of them.
Wayne Grabert
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 629
Why don't you look up the definition of ad hominem and acquaint yourself with it before trying to use it? If someone says, "the moon is made of green cheese," and I say, "you don't know what you're talking about." that is not an ad hominem.Kodiak said:
I don't know what I'm talking about? Evidence please.
Wayne Grabert
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 629
Charles, you are new so I won't hold it against you that you are asking me questions that I've already answered on other threads in this forum.Charles Livingston said:
Bear in mind that the UN inspection teams estimated that 90-95% of Iraq's banned weapons were destroyed by December 1998. Biological weapons, like all organisms, have a limited shelf life, so unless there is evidence that Iraq created more, what they had would no longer be useful. So the only matters are chemical weapons and whether they have resumed their nuclear program. So you do what is supposed to be happening now. You put inspection teams back in the country. It is okay to threaten repercussions if Iraq does not cooperate (the loss of the deal to remove sanctions being one, limited military response perhaps being another), but it isn't really important to make sure that each and every chemical weapon is ferreted out. They have too limited a range to threaten the US. Israel has too many nukes as well as American weaponry to be threatened. I find the CIA analysis that Iraq is very unlikely to use its "WMD" unless attacked very plausible.
The other issues I raised deal with the War on Terror--what the Iraqi war is supposed to address, but which, in reality, it will only exaccerbate--and the future of the United States, something the president is supposed to care about. They are things we should be doing on principle in the first place, and that would take all the financial wind out of al Qaida's sails in the second. They are things I've thought we should be doing long before I ever heard the names Usama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden, al Qaida or al Qaeda (take your pick of spellings).
Edited to add: Making sure each and every chemical weapon has been destroyed is an impossible task anyway.
Wayne Grabert
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 629
So you think we should have gone to war with the USSR and the PRC? Interesting.RandFan said:
You don't understand the term "self-determination," even after I defined it for you. It has nothing to do with protecting the choices or property of each and every individual in a state. If that were the case, then we would be in a perpetual state of world war--an idea that has nonetheless gained favor among some conservatives, the same conservatives who don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about the civil rights of citizens in the US or about the lives of people in other countries that they take or the property and livelihood that they destroy in order to "protect them." We really care about the Iraqi people. That's why we've killed over a million of them with our program of sanctions. (And DON"T ask me to repeat what I've already told you about this topic.)
By the way, where is your sentiment in protecting the "self-determination" (as you define it) of the minority of communists and socialists in this country? Should they not have the right to live in the system of their choice? If not, then explain why not!
Edited to add: Pointing out that Powell is a scumbag without any integrity is a judgment founded on the evidence, not an ad hominem. Calling Jeffrey Dahmer a cannibal is not an ad hominem either.
Thanz
Fuzzy Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2002
- Messages
- 3,895
Thanz:
Kodiak:
Sorry Kodiak, I meant it as a joke. Y'know, like right after the attacks people were saying things about sports events and award shows - "if we don't do X (insert trivial entertainment/sports event), it means the terrorists have won!"
It seemed that the terrorists "winning" was used as an excuse for anything for a while.....
On a more serious note, I don't see any reason for singling out Iraq for attack. Saudi Arabia has just as many (if not more) ties to Al Queda and terrorism. North Korea has confirmed it is in the possession of WMD. Osama is still out there somewhere. Why Iraq? Why now? Aren't there other more direct threats out there? Won't a focus on Iraq make an opening for terrorist attacks from other parts of the globe?
Using 9/11 as an excuse doesn't cut it. I don't think that there has been any serious linkage between Iraq and 9/11. Attacking Iraq and linking it to 9/11 is like attacking Bob because his second cousin twice removed Bill stole your car.
Kodiak:
Sorry Kodiak, I meant it as a joke. Y'know, like right after the attacks people were saying things about sports events and award shows - "if we don't do X (insert trivial entertainment/sports event), it means the terrorists have won!"
It seemed that the terrorists "winning" was used as an excuse for anything for a while.....
On a more serious note, I don't see any reason for singling out Iraq for attack. Saudi Arabia has just as many (if not more) ties to Al Queda and terrorism. North Korea has confirmed it is in the possession of WMD. Osama is still out there somewhere. Why Iraq? Why now? Aren't there other more direct threats out there? Won't a focus on Iraq make an opening for terrorist attacks from other parts of the globe?
Using 9/11 as an excuse doesn't cut it. I don't think that there has been any serious linkage between Iraq and 9/11. Attacking Iraq and linking it to 9/11 is like attacking Bob because his second cousin twice removed Bill stole your car.
Thanz, you might like this:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/corrections.swf
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/corrections.swf
Wayne Grabert
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 629
The United States has more confirmed and proven ties to Al Qaida than does Iraq. It was the US who trained and armed bin Laden and crew in Afghanistan in the 80's. There are al Qaida cells in the US. By the Bush administration's illogic, that proves a link between the US Government and al Qaida.Thanz said:
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
Wayne Grabert said:
Wayne
The United States had nothing to do with the institution of Al Qaeda. The United States, confirmed by the CIA, never sponsored any activity with Bin Ladin whatsoever. We helped the Afghanis against the Russians because we wanted a way to sock it to the communists (a nice capitalist objective that I think is a very positive ideal), but after the Afghani war against the Russians was ended we did not support the Afghanis anymore in the ways you describe.
We didn't create the Taliban Afghani state. That occured because of Pakistani clerics in Pakistan who trained and sent personnel into Afghanistan to take over the ocuntry. The United States had nothing to do with it.
So whenever you think of this topic, always remember that we helped the Mujahadden in Afghanistan, not terrorism. But the United States is not psychic either,
. The US had no way of knowing that the Taliban would emerge and Al Qaeda would emerge. We freed the Afghanis and they threw that freedom away to religious zealotry and tyrannical governmnt. That was not our fault.But we are correcting it now. You should be pleased.
JK
The Bush Administration gave the Taliban millions in the months before 9-11 for the ostensible purpose of having them ban opium growing, which they did. Which the opium growers loved because it made their stores of it soar in price.
The Taliban also met on several occasions with various oil companies with whom the Bushes have ties, regarding building an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, which is now going to be built by companies having ties to Bush and Cheney.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The Taliban also met on several occasions with various oil companies with whom the Bushes have ties, regarding building an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, which is now going to be built by companies having ties to Bush and Cheney.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Wayne Grabert
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 629
My point Jedi, is that it is easier to argue--based on evidence--that the US government is linked to al Qaida than it is to argue--based on evidence--that the Iraqi government is tied to al Qaida. So if you think it is absurd to argue that the US and al Qaida are "in bed" together, think of how much more absurd it is to argue that Iraq and al Qaida are linked.Jedi Knight said:
It angers me how Powell and Ari Fleisher are insulting my intelligence with their baseless and illogical accusations. Think of it: Hussein and bin Laden are operating from exactly opposite goals. Hussein is struggling to avoid war with the US. Bin Laden welcomes that war. And we are supposed to believe these two guys are on the same page and coordinating their efforts? I'd sooner believe that John Edward communicates with the dead. Unfortunately for some of the people on this board, their skepticism ends when it comes to politics. They're suckers for even the most ridiculous propaganda.
This story was published May 2001 (before 9-11):
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm
Run date on this story 5-26-01:
Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
Run Date: 05/26/01
(WOMENSENEWS)—The Bush administration has given Afghanistan $43 million including $10 million for “other livelihood and food security programs,” a reference to the ruling Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation that dramatically changed the economy of the war-torn nation. The poppy is the source of opium and the crop had provided significant revenues to Afghan farmers. The aid was described as humanitarian.
In addition to being an ally in the U.S. war against drugs, the Taliban also has banned the education of girls and women. It has banned women from professions and from most outside-the-home employment, even with international relief agencies. It has banned women from seeing male doctors and it prevents women from practicing medicine.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.
That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.
Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm
Run date on this story 5-26-01:
Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
Run Date: 05/26/01
(WOMENSENEWS)—The Bush administration has given Afghanistan $43 million including $10 million for “other livelihood and food security programs,” a reference to the ruling Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation that dramatically changed the economy of the war-torn nation. The poppy is the source of opium and the crop had provided significant revenues to Afghan farmers. The aid was described as humanitarian.
In addition to being an ally in the U.S. war against drugs, the Taliban also has banned the education of girls and women. It has banned women from professions and from most outside-the-home employment, even with international relief agencies. It has banned women from seeing male doctors and it prevents women from practicing medicine.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
Wayne Grabert said:
Well let me help you change your mind. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraqi intelligence officers confiscated all the personnel information from the Kuwaiti passport agencies and its version of the state department.
What that did was give Iraq and terrorist organizations the identities and personal information on tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of western friendly arab peoples whom they could make passports for and give to terrorists.
Iraq is knee-deep in terrorist sponsorship. The information above is just the tip of the iceberg.
JK
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
subgenius said:
True, and that fits with America's interests in the war on drugs. You also failed to mention that prior to 9/11 the United States was the largest contributor of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Ironic, huh.
JK
Wayne Grabert
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Messages
- 629
For those who are still clueless about the differences between the current US military presence in Afghanistan and the former Soviet occupation of that country, I'll let someone else help me make my points.
Edited to add this quote that reinforces my last points:
So the small US presence is part of an international peacekeeping force limited to patrolling Kabul. There is also a small presence scouring the mountains of Eastern Afghanistan with assistance from local militia. Far from being a military occupation of the country, war lords govern Afghanistan outside of Kabul. Also, it is apparently premature to declare victory in Afghanistan as the Taliban is re-establishing itself. (Just wait till we are fully distracted by our occupation in Iraq to see how the "democracy" in Afghanistan evaporates completely.) Clear yet????
Edited to add this quote that reinforces my last points:
Here's a scary UPI story about:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- A book recently published in France makes two remarkable claims: The Bush administration was negotiating an oil pipeline with the Taliban until last summer; and the late John O'Neill, the nemesis of Osama bin Laden, had resigned from the FBI's war against terrorism protesting that the administration's oil policy was obstructing his investigation.
......
John O'Neill's credentials:
In his three decades with the FBI, O'Neill was a near legend in the counter-terrorism field.
He put together the team that captured Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan on charges of participating in the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center. According to The New Yorker magazine, he constructed the theory, eventually accepted by investigators, that TWA 800 was brought down off Long Island in 1996 by the ignition of leaking fuel, not a terrorist attack.
Also in 1996, he helped lead the FBI investigation into the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. service members were killed.
In 1997, he headed the national security division in the FBI's massive New York Field Office. From that post, he organized the huge international investigation into the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998. The bombings killed 12 Americans, more than 200 Africans and injured thousands more.
The investigation of the East Africa bombings led to the indictment in New York of bin Laden and 16 of his associates.
O'Neill was also heavily involved in trying to head off suspected terrorist attacks in the United States during the millennium celebrations of Jan. 1, 2000.
Throughout it all, O'Neill kept bin Laden in his sights as link after link connected al Qaida to the atrocities.
.......
Here's the sadly ironic part:
O'Neill was in his office on the 34th floor of the World Trade Center's north tower when the hijacked American Airlines flight crashed into the floors above him. Like thousands of others, he made it out safely. Like hundreds of others, he ran back into the complex to help with the evacuation.
His body was recovered from the rubble 11 days later.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=26022002-055134-3212r
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- A book recently published in France makes two remarkable claims: The Bush administration was negotiating an oil pipeline with the Taliban until last summer; and the late John O'Neill, the nemesis of Osama bin Laden, had resigned from the FBI's war against terrorism protesting that the administration's oil policy was obstructing his investigation.
......
John O'Neill's credentials:
In his three decades with the FBI, O'Neill was a near legend in the counter-terrorism field.
He put together the team that captured Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan on charges of participating in the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center. According to The New Yorker magazine, he constructed the theory, eventually accepted by investigators, that TWA 800 was brought down off Long Island in 1996 by the ignition of leaking fuel, not a terrorist attack.
Also in 1996, he helped lead the FBI investigation into the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. service members were killed.
In 1997, he headed the national security division in the FBI's massive New York Field Office. From that post, he organized the huge international investigation into the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998. The bombings killed 12 Americans, more than 200 Africans and injured thousands more.
The investigation of the East Africa bombings led to the indictment in New York of bin Laden and 16 of his associates.
O'Neill was also heavily involved in trying to head off suspected terrorist attacks in the United States during the millennium celebrations of Jan. 1, 2000.
Throughout it all, O'Neill kept bin Laden in his sights as link after link connected al Qaida to the atrocities.
.......
Here's the sadly ironic part:
O'Neill was in his office on the 34th floor of the World Trade Center's north tower when the hijacked American Airlines flight crashed into the floors above him. Like thousands of others, he made it out safely. Like hundreds of others, he ran back into the complex to help with the evacuation.
His body was recovered from the rubble 11 days later.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=26022002-055134-3212r