Did the Bush administration claim Iraq was an imminent threat?

1679111215

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 298
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    By all accounts I've read, OBL and SH don't get along. Remember: OBL is a Islamic fundamentalist; SH is really a secularist who pays lip-service to Islam to keep the masses in line.



    At any rate, you've just asked us to prove a negative, just as the US asked Iraq to prove a negative (i.e. "Prove to us that you don't have WMD!")



    Cheers

    Scott




    Are you implying you cannot prove a negative?



    Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.



    Oh, are you saying a secularist and a fundamentalist can't get along enough and work toward a common goal?



    Was not Iraq involved in the first WTC bombing? I think they were.



    Anyway there is enough circumstantial stuff to reasonably arrive at some kind of friendly connection.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 162 of 298
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Well that was to be expected. Trying to understand what's going on in Iraq being equated to sympathy for the devil.



    "They're all evil" Isn't an argument. You're just assuming all these connections... when there's no proof.



    Islamic extremism. Baathist Nationalism. Angry Iraqi Opportunism. All motivations for fighting American trrops. And not necessarily connected.



    Winning the peace is a complex problem... compounded by the administration's oversimplification of it.




    Let' be honest here. You are trying to defame and impute the current residents of the white house. You may personally be trying to understand what is going on. But from what I have read in these posts you and others are just politicizing everything that is happening. You quote liberal sources and consistently criticize this you have limited knowledge about.



    But hey, that is cool. This IS America, right?



    As far as evil, are you suggesting any of the parties in play fighting against the US right now are not evil?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 163 of 298
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    As far as evil, are you suggesting any of the parties in play fighting against the US right now are not evil?



    Brainwashed downtrodden killing themselves to give their family a better life and themselves a good afterlife is not evil. It is uneducated.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 164 of 298
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Are you implying you cannot prove a negative?



    I am saying that it is generally to be avoided, and that in some cases it is a rhetorical fallacy that shifts the burden of proof away from the claimant.



    Quote:

    Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.



    And so are some neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacists up in Idaho. You think they'd get together with OBL? Jerry Falwell and Bishop Gene Robinson are both devout Christians. You think they might team up?



    This kind of guilt by association doesn't work.



    Quote:

    Oh, are you saying a secularist and a fundamentalist can't get along enough and work toward a common goal?



    I'm saying that sometimes people disagree so violently that even if they desire a common goal (which OBL and SH *don't*, so far as I know) they will still not team up.



    Quote:

    Was not Iraq involved in the first WTC bombing? I think they were.



    I have heard this, too, but I haven't seen anything definitive about it beyond the claim that they "sheltered" one of the guys who was responsible.



    But this doesn't necessarily mean that they were behind it.



    Anyone know anything about this?



    Quote:

    Anyway there is enough circumstantial stuff to reasonably arrive at some kind of friendly connection.



    Well, you could also say that Iraq and Afghanistan are both in the same geographical region and come to that conclusion.



    But that doesn't make it so.



    Cheers

    Scott
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 165 of 298
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Not at all. Terrorists are evil. Baathists were the party of the fascist regime... some were probably just doing their jobs (beauraucrats, civil servants)... most were evil. Angry Iraqis... while their killing of Soldiers is wrong... their motivations... not clear. Attempting to kick out an occupying force could be seen by some as in their own best interest... while I think it's abhorrent and self defeating. I think they are the Military's biggest problem... those are the hearts and minds you need to win the peace.



    I was supporting the war before it started... was hoping every day that it would all go well... that I would see the celebrating Iraqis... that the UN would move in quickly to help... that the oil would flow and the country rebuilt... that we could prove we could do the right thing in the face of world dissention.



    But the reasons I supported the war on... I no longer think existed. The world support that I had hoped would come later... should have been gained by now. And the oil won't flow for years in the amounts needed to pay for the nation building. And the adminstration does nothing but ignore the realities... They managed the american public, the media, congress and the ground war very well. But that was the easy part.



    While I am a partisan... I had always hoped for the best. and hoped the intentions and motivations were honorable.



    I hoped for too much.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 166 of 298
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.





    OBL and his followers are possesed with a religious idea that they are willing to sacrifice all earthly goods, including their own lifes, for. To attack USA is live out this religious idea and is in their eyes a rational thing to do to in the quest for their goal.



    SH and his followers were possesed with a lust for power and survival, which they were ready for sacrifice all principels, including religion and socialism. To avoid a real confrontation with USA was to live out these principles (since SH surely knew he couldn´t win that) and would have been the rational thing to do in the quest for their goal.



    Everything point to the fact that while OBL cheered in his cave 911 Saddam must have known what was ahead and knew it was the beginning to the end.



    Thats not the same as to say Saddam wouldn´t do something very desperate in the end of the war or now when he has nothing to lose.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 167 of 298
    aaplaapl Posts: 124member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Brainwashed downtrodden killing themselves to give their family a better life and themselves a good afterlife is not evil. It is uneducated.



    hmmm,..

    To the contrary. They are VERY educated - in the Koran.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 168 of 298
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    On the Iraq/Al Qaeda/'93 WTC Bombing from USA Today:



    "The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 169 of 298
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    Brainwashed downtrodden killing themselves to give their family a better life and themselves a good afterlife is not evil. It is uneducated.



    Ok, well that would all be fine except they are killing other and innocent people when they do. They do this knowingly and willingly. That is evil. I doubt you can bend the truth or philosophize enough to convince me otherwise.



    If you would have said Saddam's army most of which were coerced into fighting I would agree they in themselves were not evil.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 170 of 298
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Words like "evil" really can´t be used as an argument in this debate as a common definator. Evil takes many forms and if you don´t see the difference between different evils then your not really arguing on an informed basis.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    As far as evil, are you suggesting any of the parties in play fighting against the US right now are not evil?



    Thats a circular argument. For the average american evil is when people attack their country (just like I would feel if anyone attacked mine). For some Afghanis evil comes in planes that attack weddings. There is a rational both over 911 and the misshots in afghanistan and Iraq but for those that suffered it was equal evil deeds.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 171 of 298
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    On the Iraq/Al Qaeda/'93 WTC Bombing from USA Today:



    "The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established."




    Thanks, I knew there was some link, I just could not remember how.



    Before you all knee-jerk, I conceded it is not a direct link.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 172 of 298
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    I may be stupid but what is the indirect link then?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 173 of 298
    aaplaapl Posts: 124member
    Anders,



    Why is it that a drunk driver who has killed a family in an automobile collision would get a lesser sentence than a person who has killed an equal amount of people with an automatic?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 174 of 298
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Beats me. The legal system isn´t perfect.



    Besides thats not a valid comparisment. They wanted to kill the wedding parties. They weren´t drunk and hit the fire button in an accident.



    It was an calculated risk and the planners knew that innocent people would die and they were prepared to sacrifice the lifes of the civilians for the higher goal.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 175 of 298
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Words like "evil" really can´t be used as an argument in this debate as a common definator. Evil takes many forms and if you don´t see the difference between different evils then your not really arguing on an informed basis.



    Thats a circular argument. For the average american evil is when people attack their country (just like I would feel if anyone attacked mine). For some Afghanis evil comes in planes that attack weddings. There is a rational both over 911 and the misshots in afghanistan and Iraq but for those that suffered it was equal evil deeds.




    You are way wrong, the american government has no beef with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country it has defeated. The US immediately upon the defeat and often during the battles, helps the native people. They are all smart enough to figure that out. And even if for a short time they hold the US responsible for misfires, any reasonable person would conclude that it was the leaders that failed them.



    The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 176 of 298
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.



    Cambodia.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 177 of 298
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    You are way wrong, the american government has no beef with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country it has defeated. The US immediately upon the defeat and often during the battles, helps the native people. They are all smart enough to figure that out. And even if for a short time they hold the US responsible for misfires, any reasonable person would conclude that it was the leaders that failed them.



    The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.




    For those who lost a family member that is all moot points. Evil had been done to them.



    Look its not the war in itself I am criticising here but the misuse of the word evil. I was for the war i Afghanistan, but they way we are ready to rationale out evil actions done by us while we won´t do it when its our enemy that does is. Evil is what people feel done to them. There is no higher moral ground to stand and say one killing is more or less evil than another. Or else you have to accept that Al Quada had a higher goal with 911 and this somehow justifices the 2000+ deaths because they served a higher purpose.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 178 of 298
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    Cambodia.



    You'll have to explain that. The U.S. military was in a war in SE Asia with the VC and NVA, who located military bases, supply depots, and transportation in Cambodia. They attacked them...you know, the way we attacked Germans in Vichy France...



    What's the point?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 179 of 298
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.



    Did you really just say "The US military does not fire unless fired upon"? In a thread about a war where we invaded a country and overthrew its government?!?!



    Cheers

    Scott
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 180 of 298
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Did you really just say "The US military does not fire unless fired upon"? In a thread about a war where we invaded a country and overthrew its government?!?!



    Cheers

    Scott




    Perhaps he meant that as a matter of doctrine, the U.S. does not target civilians, unless fired upon.



    Actually, the war in Iraq was probably the most humane war (I can hear the protests over humane) in U.S. history, and certianly in modern times. Fast, precise, focused on breaking the will of the enemy before major combat...excellent.



    Post war, of course, we've been mutton headed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.