As many have already pointed out, this war is about many things. Changing the power structure in the Middle East as I theorized is just one of many. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive for you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess I just don't believe it's right for my country to change the power structure anywhere in the world, especially if it's for our own monetary interests. Not any single reason for this war seems legal, and combined they add up to no more than nothing.
Saddam is bad news (although probably not as bad as North Korea.) No matter how much I dislike the guy though, we can't just take him out. If we do, I will have absolutely zero complaints about reprisals.
<strong>alright.... my AP history teacher said the same thing ALL LAST YEAR whenever the oppurtunity came up....
what's the truth?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I refer specifically to the fact that, in 1996, Sudan, not Saudi Arabia, initiated negotiations over the extradition of bin Laden.
Nevertheless, the whole "We said, 'no thanks'" spin is quite inappropriate.
There are conflicting stories on the matter, but no conclusive evidence exists that Sudan ever offered bin Laden directly to the United States. We only know for certain that they did offer to "arrest" and extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, and that the Saudis (not surprisingly) could not be persuaded to take possession of him. And bin Laden, while known to be dangerous, wasn't quite the antichrist that he's become since 9/11. Even if the US could have taken custody of bin Laden, it was not believed at the time that sufficient evidence existed to even convict him of anything. Again, this was back in 1996, not today.
What's more, Sudan's motivations for offering their "assistance" (however far they could even be trusted to provide any) could hardly be presumed honorable. Sudan was apparently negotiating for the removal of US and UN sanctions imposed for their support of terrorist organizations, Christian persecution and slave trade.
I am appalled by the disingenuous manner in which the Bushistas wildly vacillate between attempts to impress upon us the extraordinary differences of our post-9/11 world, and attempts to exaggerate Clinton's pre-9/11 failures as though nothing had changed at all. Focusing critical analysis through lens imbued with the tincture of hindsight is a dirty business indeed.
If Clinton failed so abysmally to recognize the manifest terrorist threat throughout the 1990's, where were the Republican voices at the time? Why didn't Bush say a single word on the matter during the 2000 campaign? How did Bush address the terrorist threat during his first nine months in office? How did Bush respond to the <a href="http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp"; target="_blank">Hart-Rudman</a> report, three years in the making and presented to him almost immediately upon event of his taking office?
[quote]Actually, Hart-Rudman did gain impressive backing in Congress from the top Republican members of the national security set, at a time when they controlled the Senate, and vigorous support from Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker. On May 5, the administration announced that, rather than adopting Hart-Rudman, it was forming its own committee headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was expected to report in October. "The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring," says Gingrich. <hr></blockquote>
And, btw, we're not the "Hate America First Crowd." We're the "Blame America First Crowd." If you (SDW) don't shape up, the RNC will have to rescind your title as "Official RNC Talking-Points Crony" and demote you to "Mere Right-Wing Net Goon."
<strong> report, three years in the making and presented to him almost immediately upon event of his taking office?
quote:
Actually, Hart-Rudman did gain impressive backing in Congress from the top Republican members of the national security set, at a time when they controlled the Senate, and vigorous support from Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker. On May 5, the administration announced that, rather than adopting Hart-Rudman, it was forming its own committee headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was expected to report in October. "The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring," says Gingrich"</strong><hr></blockquote>Its enough to trigger the old Conspiracy-ometer: after 911 Bush has been given Carte Blanche to tighten the reigns on our privacy, but to keep his secrecy, to bolster the military, to start a massive government entity that is beholden ONLY to him, (Heimat Security) to get oil where and when he wants it, to do whatever the hell he wants to the environment in order to boost big business, etc etc . . .
. . . its as good for him as The Night of Long Knives or the ReichStag Fire was for an that infamous familiar name we all love to throw around.
Anyway: I just can't get over the fact that if it hadn't been for a pardon, Pointdexter would not be able to vote in many states . . . being the Felon that he is . . . and now he is overseeing the birth and instantiation of the ALL-SEEING BEAST!!
This will be the central ganglia of the organism that will grow to include all of the web . . . an organism that will have no other purpose then to know everything about you . . . and, will eventually even be utilized to predict the future based on what it knows about you
I kid you not here folks, if you are mystically inclined and look for prophetic patterns in the world . . the Office of Total Information Awareness might as well be the birth of the BEAST!!!
You are correct about Bin Laden. My mistake. It was in fact Sudan.
However, bin laden WAS a threat at the time. 1996 was the same year he called for the killing of all Americans, including civilians. The deal didn't go through, either way.
<strong>Anyway: I just can't get over the fact that if it hadn't been for a pardon, Pointdexter would not be able to vote in many states . . . being the Felon that he is . . . and now he is overseeing the birth and instantiation of the ALL-SEEING BEAST!!
This will be the central ganglia of the organism that will grow to include all of the web . . . an organism that will have no other purpose then to know everything about you . . . and, will eventually even be utilized to predict the future based on what it knows about you
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The other day I had to cash a check at another bank. They asked for two forms of id...and then the clerk pushed a little ink pad in front of me and asked for my thumbprint. As I impressed my inky thumb onto the check, I kept thinking of John Poindexter and "Total Information Awareness." Now they have my thumbprint! I'll be an unperson soon enough... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
pDoc, let me ask you this: Why do you think the state department has issued so many invitations for the Saudi highnesses to come and visit Bush in his RANCH in Crawford? Have you noticed any changes in the gist of state department?s statements before and after those visits? Why do you think the Saudi highnesses are now refusing to accept any further hospitality offered at the Crawford ranch? You think it?s cause President Bush was such a poor host to them?
Now, you and I both know that Saudia Arabia is a big fat lazy pig. And there are plenty of parties just itching to take this big fat lazy pig to the slaughterhouse. If the US finds a new friend in Iraq, I wouldn?t hold my breath for too many more invitations to the Crawford ranch for the Saudis. Either way, there won?t be a need to.
Whoops...sorry about that. I guess I have Kofi Annan in my corner though. His opinion probably counts for something (well, maybe not with Bush!)</strong><hr></blockquote>
And what corner is that? The one where the Nazi maniacs run the asylum, and the gangster thugs are the kingmakers? How many member states in the UN adhere to the Charter that they signed on to? And if they don?t adhere to that Charter, why are they still there? It?s a very peculiar institution, Bunge, that you are so fond of, and so is its application of the ?law?. Fond of mob lynching, are you? Cause that?s essentially how the UN operates.
I am starting to think we are ALL naive. Myself included.
First, we all know that President Bush and perhaps even members of congress have information we as civilians don't have. I am now of the belief that the President and Prime Minister Blair do, in fact, have a "smoking gun". It may or may not be presented publicly (at least directly), but I am fairly sure they have it.
The reason I'm thinking this way is simple. The President and Secretary of Defense are not going to send 300,000 troops to the Gulf unless they are damn sure they are going to be used. Now, some here state that Bush just wants a war for personal vengence, oil, etc. I have a little trouble with that. The man is not stupid, despite the media's portrayal of him, and there is no question in his moral and religous beliefs. I think the theory that he wants to have a position of strength from which to deal with the Saudis is valid, however. In short, this IS about oil, but not entirely. It's about the War on Terror as well, as another poster said. It's also about disarming and removing this guy, who is seeing even more powerful weapons all the time.
And really....is there anyone here (regardless of whether or not you support attacking) that honestly believes Saddam is NOT deveoping WOMD? I don't see how any reaonable, well informed person could disagree that he is. Perhaps you don't support attacking...I can deal with that.
In the end, we are going to war. The United States and Britain will have no trouble making a case for invasion. they are going to outline the violations, past and present and then present them. Blix has already alluded that Iraq is not cooperating fully (though not resisting either). He gives his report on January 27th. Bush gives the State of the Union on January 28th. Hmmmm.
I am convinced that even the UN knows war is coming. This whole thing with the inspectors is simply to give the operation validity. It's not just a US issue.
<strong>I am starting to think we are ALL naive. Myself included.
First, we all know that President Bush and perhaps even members of congress have information we as civilians don't have. I am now of the belief that the President and Prime Minister Blair do, in fact, have a "smoking gun". It may or may not be presented publicly (at least directly), but I am fairly sure they have it. </strong><hr></blockquote>I'll believe it when I see it . . . and if I, a patriotic American feel that way, then think about how the rest of the world feels.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>The reason I'm thinking this way is simple. The President and Secretary of Defense are not going to send 300,000 troops to the Gulf unless they are damn sure they are going to be used. </strong><hr></blockquote>Is that a 'reason' . . . well then what about the reason to send the troops there in the first place? . . . oh yeah . . the "smoking gun" that Bush and Blair know about but are, for some reason, not telling the inspectors about.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong> Now, some here state that Bush just wants a war for personal vengence, oil, etc. I have a little trouble with that. The man is not stupid, despite the media's portrayal of him, and there is no question in his moral and religous beliefs. </strong><hr></blockquote> No, there is a question about his moral and religious beliefs . . . how much of this is motivated by some apocalyptic belief in the second coming? how much of this is Bush seeing the world as Good (him and his corporate cronies) vs Evil?!?!
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I think the theory that he wants to have a position of strength from which to deal with the Saudis is valid, however. In short, this IS about oil, but not entirely. It's about the War on Terror as well, as another poster said. It's also about disarming and removing this guy, who is seeing even more powerful weapons all the time. .</strong><hr></blockquote>Now, isn't that the crux? ... or is it . . does it matter if he actually has brocken the provisions, or are we going to merely say that he has....effecively breaking international laws.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>And really....is there anyone here (regardless of whether or not you support attacking) that honestly believes Saddam is NOT deveoping WOMD? I don't see how any reaonable, well informed person could disagree that he is. </strong><hr></blockquote>well informed? hmmm?!
like you?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>In the end, we are going to war. </strong><hr></blockquote>See, that's the problem... it is already a foregone conclusion . . . even though the only people who have a 'reason' are, supposedly, Bush and Blair
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>Bush gives the State of the Union on January 28th. Hmmmm. </strong><hr></blockquote>like the last time he listed the supposed 'reasons?!
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I am convinced that even the UN knows war is coming. This whole thing with the inspectors is simply to give the operation validity. It's not just a US issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>And yet it doesn't give it legitimacy until they find the smoker...
besides if the UN knows it, as you say, then why aren't they also in on the invasion plans?
plus, if " It's not just a US issue." then then why aren't the UN also in on the invasion plans?
And what corner is that? The one where the Nazi maniacs run the asylum, and the gangster thugs are the kingmakers? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Quit it with the personal attacks and rhetoric. It doesn't help the discussion. I couldn't care less what you think of me but I will try to keep the discussions on the level. If you can't, find a new hobby.
I see the UN as the only enlightened way to move our world and our individual societies forward. It's made some very poor decisions, but nothing of the magnitude of individual countries. Even if it's not, or can't now, it will be the only way to prevent the future Hitlers of the world from doing major damage.
<strong>That's a common misconception. We do not cause anti-Americanism. The Left wants you to think that. We are hated for what we have. We are hated for our power. There has never been a more benevolent power in the history of this earth. Yet all the Left talks about how we abuse power and bully everyone. It's just more of the criminal liberal media's BS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would recommend that you read Christopher Hitchens's "The Trials of Henry Kissinger".
<strong>It's so easy fighting from the safety of your own homes, thousands of miles away.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On that note, here's an idea: instead of actually sending troops over, why not have a massive Iraqi vs. American netgame of CounterStrike, Team Fortress Classic, or C&C Renegade? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
First, we all know that President Bush and perhaps even members of congress have information we as civilians don't have. I am now of the belief that the President and Prime Minister Blair do, in fact, have a "smoking gun". It may or may not be presented publicly (at least directly), but I am fairly sure they have it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This supposed "smoking gun" has been shown to the leaders of other countries. It didn't sway them.
How doe that make you feel? Confident that it's a "smoking gun?" No...at least I hope not.
Quit it with the personal attacks and rhetoric. It doesn't help the discussion. I couldn't care less what you think of me but I will try to keep the discussions on the level. If you can't, find a new hobby.
I see the UN as the only enlightened way to move our world and our individual societies forward. It's made some very poor decisions, but nothing of the magnitude of individual countries. Even if it's not, or can't now, it will be the only way to prevent the future Hitlers of the world from doing major damage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get real.
All you?re doing is legitimizing the ?legalization? of criminal states as having equal footing with states that abide the law. You are letting the criminals ran the asylum. This is NOT a personal attack (how you can attribute this as such is beyond me), nor is it rhetoric; it is a characterization of the truth!
You are dressing up CRIMINALS in respectable cloths and calling it the only enlightened way to move our world and our individual societies forward. Your support for this bizarro world construct is yet another example of your attempt at subversion and willful endangerment your country interests. I suspect this is because you have a deep nihilist hatred for your country. But I?m not a psychologist, so I?ll just leave it at that.
Comments
<strong>
I don?t follow you..
As many have already pointed out, this war is about many things. Changing the power structure in the Middle East as I theorized is just one of many. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive for you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I guess I just don't believe it's right for my country to change the power structure anywhere in the world, especially if it's for our own monetary interests. Not any single reason for this war seems legal, and combined they add up to no more than nothing.
Saddam is bad news (although probably not as bad as North Korea.) No matter how much I dislike the guy though, we can't just take him out. If we do, I will have absolutely zero complaints about reprisals.
<strong>alright.... my AP history teacher said the same thing ALL LAST YEAR whenever the oppurtunity came up....
what's the truth?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I refer specifically to the fact that, in 1996, Sudan, not Saudi Arabia, initiated negotiations over the extradition of bin Laden.
Nevertheless, the whole "We said, 'no thanks'" spin is quite inappropriate.
There are conflicting stories on the matter, but no conclusive evidence exists that Sudan ever offered bin Laden directly to the United States. We only know for certain that they did offer to "arrest" and extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, and that the Saudis (not surprisingly) could not be persuaded to take possession of him. And bin Laden, while known to be dangerous, wasn't quite the antichrist that he's become since 9/11. Even if the US could have taken custody of bin Laden, it was not believed at the time that sufficient evidence existed to even convict him of anything. Again, this was back in 1996, not today.
What's more, Sudan's motivations for offering their "assistance" (however far they could even be trusted to provide any) could hardly be presumed honorable. Sudan was apparently negotiating for the removal of US and UN sanctions imposed for their support of terrorist organizations, Christian persecution and slave trade.
I am appalled by the disingenuous manner in which the Bushistas wildly vacillate between attempts to impress upon us the extraordinary differences of our post-9/11 world, and attempts to exaggerate Clinton's pre-9/11 failures as though nothing had changed at all. Focusing critical analysis through lens imbued with the tincture of hindsight is a dirty business indeed.
If Clinton failed so abysmally to recognize the manifest terrorist threat throughout the 1990's, where were the Republican voices at the time? Why didn't Bush say a single word on the matter during the 2000 campaign? How did Bush address the terrorist threat during his first nine months in office? How did Bush respond to the <a href="http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp"; target="_blank">Hart-Rudman</a> report, three years in the making and presented to him almost immediately upon event of his taking office?
[quote]Actually, Hart-Rudman did gain impressive backing in Congress from the top Republican members of the national security set, at a time when they controlled the Senate, and vigorous support from Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker. On May 5, the administration announced that, rather than adopting Hart-Rudman, it was forming its own committee headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was expected to report in October. "The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring," says Gingrich. <hr></blockquote>
And, btw, we're not the "Hate America First Crowd." We're the "Blame America First Crowd." If you (SDW) don't shape up, the RNC will have to rescind your title as "Official RNC Talking-Points Crony" and demote you to "Mere Right-Wing Net Goon."
<strong> report, three years in the making and presented to him almost immediately upon event of his taking office?
quote:
Actually, Hart-Rudman did gain impressive backing in Congress from the top Republican members of the national security set, at a time when they controlled the Senate, and vigorous support from Donald Rumsfeld at Defense. Hearings were scheduled for the week of May 7. But the White House stymied the move. It did not want Congress out front on the issue, not least with a report originated by a Democratic president and an ousted Republican speaker. On May 5, the administration announced that, rather than adopting Hart-Rudman, it was forming its own committee headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who was expected to report in October. "The administration actually slowed down response to Hart-Rudman when momentum was building in the spring," says Gingrich"</strong><hr></blockquote>Its enough to trigger the old Conspiracy-ometer: after 911 Bush has been given Carte Blanche to tighten the reigns on our privacy, but to keep his secrecy, to bolster the military, to start a massive government entity that is beholden ONLY to him, (Heimat Security) to get oil where and when he wants it, to do whatever the hell he wants to the environment in order to boost big business, etc etc . . .
. . . its as good for him as The Night of Long Knives or the ReichStag Fire was for an that infamous familiar name we all love to throw around.
Anyway: I just can't get over the fact that if it hadn't been for a pardon, Pointdexter would not be able to vote in many states . . . being the Felon that he is . . . and now he is overseeing the birth and instantiation of the ALL-SEEING BEAST!!
This will be the central ganglia of the organism that will grow to include all of the web . . . an organism that will have no other purpose then to know everything about you . . . and, will eventually even be utilized to predict the future based on what it knows about you
I kid you not here folks, if you are mystically inclined and look for prophetic patterns in the world . . the Office of Total Information Awareness might as well be the birth of the BEAST!!!
. . .luckily, I'm an A/Theist . . .
.
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
You are correct about Bin Laden. My mistake. It was in fact Sudan.
However, bin laden WAS a threat at the time. 1996 was the same year he called for the killing of all Americans, including civilians. The deal didn't go through, either way.
<strong>Anyway: I just can't get over the fact that if it hadn't been for a pardon, Pointdexter would not be able to vote in many states . . . being the Felon that he is . . . and now he is overseeing the birth and instantiation of the ALL-SEEING BEAST!!
This will be the central ganglia of the organism that will grow to include all of the web . . . an organism that will have no other purpose then to know everything about you . . . and, will eventually even be utilized to predict the future based on what it knows about you
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The other day I had to cash a check at another bank. They asked for two forms of id...and then the clerk pushed a little ink pad in front of me and asked for my thumbprint. As I impressed my inky thumb onto the check, I kept thinking of John Poindexter and "Total Information Awareness." Now they have my thumbprint! I'll be an unperson soon enough... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
Not backwards, ...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm,..
pDoc, let me ask you this: Why do you think the state department has issued so many invitations for the Saudi highnesses to come and visit Bush in his RANCH in Crawford? Have you noticed any changes in the gist of state department?s statements before and after those visits? Why do you think the Saudi highnesses are now refusing to accept any further hospitality offered at the Crawford ranch? You think it?s cause President Bush was such a poor host to them?
Now, you and I both know that Saudia Arabia is a big fat lazy pig. And there are plenty of parties just itching to take this big fat lazy pig to the slaughterhouse. If the US finds a new friend in Iraq, I wouldn?t hold my breath for too many more invitations to the Crawford ranch for the Saudis. Either way, there won?t be a need to.
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
<strong>
Not any single reason for this war seems legal, and combined they add up to no more than nothing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fine. That's your opinion, and it matters not.
<strong>
That's fine. That's your opinion, and it matters not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As if your opinion does?
<strong>
As if your opinion does?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You misunderstood me. It?s the 5 member Security Council that needs convincing. Isn?t "international law" great?
<strong>
You misunderstood me. It?s the 5 member Security Council that needs convincing. Isn?t "international law" great? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Whoops...sorry about that. I guess I have Kofi Annan in my corner though. His opinion probably counts for something (well, maybe not with Bush!)
<strong>
Whoops...sorry about that. I guess I have Kofi Annan in my corner though. His opinion probably counts for something (well, maybe not with Bush!)</strong><hr></blockquote>
And what corner is that? The one where the Nazi maniacs run the asylum, and the gangster thugs are the kingmakers? How many member states in the UN adhere to the Charter that they signed on to? And if they don?t adhere to that Charter, why are they still there? It?s a very peculiar institution, Bunge, that you are so fond of, and so is its application of the ?law?. Fond of mob lynching, are you? Cause that?s essentially how the UN operates.
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: zMench ]</p>
First, we all know that President Bush and perhaps even members of congress have information we as civilians don't have. I am now of the belief that the President and Prime Minister Blair do, in fact, have a "smoking gun". It may or may not be presented publicly (at least directly), but I am fairly sure they have it.
The reason I'm thinking this way is simple. The President and Secretary of Defense are not going to send 300,000 troops to the Gulf unless they are damn sure they are going to be used. Now, some here state that Bush just wants a war for personal vengence, oil, etc. I have a little trouble with that. The man is not stupid, despite the media's portrayal of him, and there is no question in his moral and religous beliefs. I think the theory that he wants to have a position of strength from which to deal with the Saudis is valid, however. In short, this IS about oil, but not entirely. It's about the War on Terror as well, as another poster said. It's also about disarming and removing this guy, who is seeing even more powerful weapons all the time.
And really....is there anyone here (regardless of whether or not you support attacking) that honestly believes Saddam is NOT deveoping WOMD? I don't see how any reaonable, well informed person could disagree that he is. Perhaps you don't support attacking...I can deal with that.
In the end, we are going to war. The United States and Britain will have no trouble making a case for invasion. they are going to outline the violations, past and present and then present them. Blix has already alluded that Iraq is not cooperating fully (though not resisting either). He gives his report on January 27th. Bush gives the State of the Union on January 28th. Hmmmm.
I am convinced that even the UN knows war is coming. This whole thing with the inspectors is simply to give the operation validity. It's not just a US issue.
<strong>I don't see how any reaonable, well informed person could disagree that he is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well there is the problem.
Nobody answered me before, so again. How soon will the US go to war? (or does that need a seperate thread?)
<strong>I am starting to think we are ALL naive. Myself included.
First, we all know that President Bush and perhaps even members of congress have information we as civilians don't have. I am now of the belief that the President and Prime Minister Blair do, in fact, have a "smoking gun". It may or may not be presented publicly (at least directly), but I am fairly sure they have it. </strong><hr></blockquote>I'll believe it when I see it . . . and if I, a patriotic American feel that way, then think about how the rest of the world feels.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>The reason I'm thinking this way is simple. The President and Secretary of Defense are not going to send 300,000 troops to the Gulf unless they are damn sure they are going to be used. </strong><hr></blockquote>Is that a 'reason' . . . well then what about the reason to send the troops there in the first place? . . . oh yeah . . the "smoking gun" that Bush and Blair know about but are, for some reason, not telling the inspectors about.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong> Now, some here state that Bush just wants a war for personal vengence, oil, etc. I have a little trouble with that. The man is not stupid, despite the media's portrayal of him, and there is no question in his moral and religous beliefs. </strong><hr></blockquote> No, there is a question about his moral and religious beliefs . . . how much of this is motivated by some apocalyptic belief in the second coming? how much of this is Bush seeing the world as Good (him and his corporate cronies) vs Evil?!?!
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I think the theory that he wants to have a position of strength from which to deal with the Saudis is valid, however. In short, this IS about oil, but not entirely. It's about the War on Terror as well, as another poster said. It's also about disarming and removing this guy, who is seeing even more powerful weapons all the time. .</strong><hr></blockquote>Now, isn't that the crux? ... or is it . . does it matter if he actually has brocken the provisions, or are we going to merely say that he has....effecively breaking international laws.
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>And really....is there anyone here (regardless of whether or not you support attacking) that honestly believes Saddam is NOT deveoping WOMD? I don't see how any reaonable, well informed person could disagree that he is. </strong><hr></blockquote>well informed? hmmm?!
like you?
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>In the end, we are going to war. </strong><hr></blockquote>See, that's the problem... it is already a foregone conclusion . . . even though the only people who have a 'reason' are, supposedly, Bush and Blair
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>Bush gives the State of the Union on January 28th. Hmmmm. </strong><hr></blockquote>like the last time he listed the supposed 'reasons?!
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>I am convinced that even the UN knows war is coming. This whole thing with the inspectors is simply to give the operation validity. It's not just a US issue.</strong><hr></blockquote>And yet it doesn't give it legitimacy until they find the smoker...
besides if the UN knows it, as you say, then why aren't they also in on the invasion plans?
plus, if " It's not just a US issue." then then why aren't the UN also in on the invasion plans?
<strong>
And what corner is that? The one where the Nazi maniacs run the asylum, and the gangster thugs are the kingmakers? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Quit it with the personal attacks and rhetoric. It doesn't help the discussion. I couldn't care less what you think of me but I will try to keep the discussions on the level. If you can't, find a new hobby.
I see the UN as the only enlightened way to move our world and our individual societies forward. It's made some very poor decisions, but nothing of the magnitude of individual countries. Even if it's not, or can't now, it will be the only way to prevent the future Hitlers of the world from doing major damage.
<strong>That's a common misconception. We do not cause anti-Americanism. The Left wants you to think that. We are hated for what we have. We are hated for our power. There has never been a more benevolent power in the history of this earth. Yet all the Left talks about how we abuse power and bully everyone. It's just more of the criminal liberal media's BS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would recommend that you read Christopher Hitchens's "The Trials of Henry Kissinger".
<strong>It's so easy fighting from the safety of your own homes, thousands of miles away.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On that note, here's an idea: instead of actually sending troops over, why not have a massive Iraqi vs. American netgame of CounterStrike, Team Fortress Classic, or C&C Renegade? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
First, we all know that President Bush and perhaps even members of congress have information we as civilians don't have. I am now of the belief that the President and Prime Minister Blair do, in fact, have a "smoking gun". It may or may not be presented publicly (at least directly), but I am fairly sure they have it. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This supposed "smoking gun" has been shown to the leaders of other countries. It didn't sway them.
How doe that make you feel? Confident that it's a "smoking gun?" No...at least I hope not.
<strong>
Quit it with the personal attacks and rhetoric. It doesn't help the discussion. I couldn't care less what you think of me but I will try to keep the discussions on the level. If you can't, find a new hobby.
I see the UN as the only enlightened way to move our world and our individual societies forward. It's made some very poor decisions, but nothing of the magnitude of individual countries. Even if it's not, or can't now, it will be the only way to prevent the future Hitlers of the world from doing major damage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Get real.
All you?re doing is legitimizing the ?legalization? of criminal states as having equal footing with states that abide the law. You are letting the criminals ran the asylum. This is NOT a personal attack (how you can attribute this as such is beyond me), nor is it rhetoric; it is a characterization of the truth!
You are dressing up CRIMINALS in respectable cloths and calling it the only enlightened way to move our world and our individual societies forward. Your support for this bizarro world construct is yet another example of your attempt at subversion and willful endangerment your country interests. I suspect this is because you have a deep nihilist hatred for your country. But I?m not a psychologist, so I?ll just leave it at that.
PS.
] <a href="http://members.tripod.com/wcoventry0/id22.htm"; target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/wcoventry0/id22.htm</a>;
] <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/herzstein.html"; target="_blank">http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/herzstein.html</a>;