why let the un do jack, every thing they touch turns to shit, hanz blix is a dits, like barny Fife or as Rush Limbaugh so elequently puts it insppector cluso In other words he couldnt find a computer chip at an intel plant - why expect him to find the preverbial needle in a haystack?
Dude, that's like soooo 2003? The war is over now, you don't have to parrot the party line. He's not on the job any more?
This is a Red Herring argument. The point was that the administration initially wanted to attack Iraq in respone an attach by OBL--a guy in Afganastan BTW. The fact the we bombed Afganastan a month later is inconsequential.
I have been thinking about this one also.
BushCo., as you so nicely put it, decimated The taliban and booted Al Qeada out of Afghanistan. Meanwhile for years Iraq had been a problem. Forget about the WMD just for a moment, and you would see that maybe BushCo. made a wise choice to invade Iraq. I mean the assets were already there in the region. No need to bring all of them home only to send them back again when SH caused another fuss or refused to let inspectors in again. It was a smart logistics move IMO. Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone.
He did not come across as believable in his interview on 60 minutes. He came across as an angry, spoiled child. As others have pointed out, it was on his watch that several other destructive attacks ocurred. Yet, this man boasts of the "daily meetings" he had during those years. What did those meetings accomplish? These things all happened during a time where Clarke was in the top anti-terror position. Where is his accountablility? Every single thing he's said is nothing but heresay.
As for the interview itself, it was a sham. Have we not seen that Viacom promoted its own book under the veil of "news"? (btw, this was also the case for former treasury secretary O'Neill's book).
Clarke has a viewpoint, but not all the facts. He comes across like the expert of Bush's response to 9/11, yet admits he didn't always meet with him and his team. How can that be?
why let the un do jack, every thing they touch turns to shit, hanz blix is a dits, like barny Fife or as Rush Limbaugh so elequently puts it insppector cluso In other words he couldnt find a computer chip at an intel plant - why expect him to find the preverbial needle in a haystack?
My oringinal reference to UN could have been replace with; traffic cop, monkey, can of baked beans...or whatever
When I wrote "Do you think the US administration would allow the UN to inspect its weapons programs?", the 'its' is the US administration.
Anyway the point I was making was that the lack of cooperation by the Iraqis with weapons inspectors may have been due to national pride - in the same way the US might react if an external body attempted to invasively inspect their national programs.
I'm interested. Could you weigh up the possible benefits / disbenefits from invading Syria for us? Interesting idea.
I'll start you off with one of each (one from you, one from me) but I'm genuinely interested.
A) 'Maybe' finding WMD (you)
Killing 15,000 innocent people (assuming attrition similar to Iraq; me)
Syria is another terrorist backing state. We are in the area so why not. I mean, why leave syria as a haven for islamo-facists. Give them a chance at democracy also. I say why not.
War is hell, but so is letting terrorists slowly kill off innocent people at will and random.
Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone.
don't you mean 'PWMDP' (possible weapons of mass destruction programs)
WMD is just FUD
remember too the US has WMD, Russia has WMD, France has WMD, and so on and so on.
and aeroplane laden with fuel is a WMD
Eliminate all the misleading propaganda from both sides, then and only then will you and I know what the problem really is, if in fact a 'problem' exists at all.
My oringinal reference to UN could have been replace with; traffic cop, monkey, can of baked beans...or whatever
When I wrote "Do you think the US administration would allow the UN to inspect its weapons programs?", the 'its' is the US administration.
Anyway the point I was making was that the lack of cooperation by the Iraqis with weapons inspectors may have been due to national pride - in the same way the US might react if an external body attempted to invasively inspect their national programs.
you could be right, but the differance, when the USA says no to inspections, they arn't in direct violation of a treaty and god knows how many resolutions, some actualy agreed to by sadom to stop the war in 91
don't you mean 'PWMDP' (possible weapons of mass destruction programs)
WMD is just FUD
remember too the US has WMD, Russia has WMD, France has WMD, and so on and so on.
and aeroplane laden with fuel is a WMD
Eliminate all the misleading propaganda from both sides, then and only then will you and I know what the problem really is, if in fact a 'problem' exists at all.
So terrorism is no big deal to you? The possibility of a terrorist group blowing up a dirty bomb or setting loose bio or chemical agents is not a problem?
you could be right, but the differance, when the USA says no to inspections, they arn't in direct violation of a treaty and god knows how many resolutions, some actualy agreed to by sadom to stop the war in 91
fair point
but,(and slightly moving away from the topic), the way the US violates international law and human rights, in the way it holds 'detainees' at Guantanomo Bay is hypocritical (regardless of what those detainees may have done).
So terrorism is no big deal to you? The possibility of a terrorist group blowing up a dirty bomb or setting loose bio or chemical agents is not a problem?
What, pray tell, do you think the problem is?
No I didn't say that terrorism didn't concen me.
Fruit cakes don't only come from the Middle East, there are quite a few in the west as well. I do recall that a certain Timothy McVay blew up his own countrymen which is also an act of terror.
I suspect the problem is every one is busy building walls and becoming insular rather than building bridges.
Fruit cakes don't only come from the Middle East, there are quite a few in the west as well. I do recall that a certain Timothy McVay blew up his own countrymen which is also an act of terror.
I suspect the problem is every one is busy building walls and becoming insular rather than building bridges.
Build a bridge huh?
Have you ever had to deal with a bully?
Well I did for a couple of years, because my mom told me fighting was bad. So for a long time I did everything that I as a kid could do do avoid conflict and "be cool". Needless to say, as anyone that has been there knows, I got fed up with it and finally got so mad that I totally beat the crap out of him.
He went on to respect me and leave me alone.
Some people only understand force, so force is the bridge that they need.
Well I did for a couple of years, because my mom told me fighting was bad. So for a long time I did everything that I as a kid could do do avoid conflict and "be cool". Needless to say, as anyone that has been there knows, I got fed up with it and finally got so mad that I totally beat the crap out of him.
He went on to respect me and leave me alone.
Some people only understand force, so force is the bridge that they need.
A 'bully'!!!!!!
Iraq/sadam Husein, a 'bully'??? to whom?? to you??? certainly SH was a bully to his own people.
to 'beat the crap' out of someone because they 'bullied' you????!!!!!
I'm sorry but I don't buy that as a valid response.
Do you really think that if you 'beat the crap' out of someone that that earns their respect?
How about earning respect by showing respect.
You seem to miss the point that Terrorist come not only from fundamentalist Muslim groups but from fundamentalist Christian groups.
So if problems can be resolved between moderate groups on both sides then those on the extreems of the moderate spectrum would have less tendancy to move towards fundamentalism.
The result is that the fundamentalists become marginalised with less ability to attact supporters.
Iraq/sadam Husein, a 'bully'??? to whom?? to you??? certainly SH was a bully to his own people.
to 'beat the crap' out of someone because they 'bullied' you????!!!!!
I'm sorry but I don't buy that as a valid response.
Do you really think that if you 'beat the crap' out of someone that that earns their respect?
How about earning respect by showing respect.
You seem to miss the point that Terrorist come not only from fundamentalist Muslim groups but from fundamentalist Christian groups.
So if problems can be resolved between moderate groups on both sides then those on the extreems of the moderate spectrum would have less tendancy to move towards fundamentalism.
The result is that the fundamentalists become marginalised with less ability to attact supporters.
You seem to think you know me. You do not. You seem to think that I did not show respect. I did. However, being beat up every day has a tendency to get old. Turning the tables was a liberating experience for me and a humiliating experience for him. It did earn his respect. He and I still talk and became friends. he later admitted that he was a little jerk at the time and he apologized.
terrorists are bully cowards, they don't want to go to the extents that you say everyone else should. They go straight to killing and destruction, because that is what they respect, strength not diplomacy.
With Bush and Clarke in the pre 9/11 world, I think it is as simple as keeping a legacy advisor and getting legacy advice. The blind leading the blind.
One person in a million saw 9/11 coming---and they weren't in the loop.
"Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone"
what about the WMD's?
what is a WMD that you suggest Syria might have.
And what are all of the 'problems' you think might be eliminated with one proverbial stone??
I actually went to the middle east for business, post 911, and met up with Saudis, Palestinians, Iraqis and Lebanese. Some of the most hospitable people I have ever met. I am sure most Syrians are like that. BUT.... I suspect if the Syrians had the 'crap beaten out of them', then most of those hospitable people who had the 'crap beaten out of them' might think that the 'crap beater' was a bit of a prick (to put it in school yard terms).
You might want to smack someone, I would rather want to know why that person is acting in an agressive manner and then seek to resolvethe matter.
That is what civilised, sophisticated, mature parties (for example, the US) sould stive for. Not the stupid tit for tat responses you see in the pla ground.
I have no doubt the Bullying is extraordinarily difficult to deal with. But smacking them back is simply not the answer.
"Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone"
what about the WMD's?
what is a WMD that you suggest Syria might have.
And what are all of the 'problems' you think might be eliminated with one proverbial stone??
I actually went to the middle east for business, post 911, and met up with Saudis, Palestinians, Iraqis and Lebanese. Some of the most hospitable people I have ever met. I am sure most Syrians are like that. BUT.... I suspect if the Syrians had the 'crap beaten out of them', then most of those hospitable people who had the 'crap beaten out of them' might think that the 'crap beater' was a bit of a prick (to put it in school yard terms).
Uh, you are twisting what I said, and if you are comfortable doing that I am not comfortable with trying to hold a reasonable convo with you.
Terrorists are the focus of this discussion, the citizens of terror supporting countries are not. Syrians should rise up and remove the cancer themselves, but if they will not then who will? The US of course.
Since the terrorism is aimed primarily at the US, that has forced the US to deal with it in one way or another. Terrorism has reached a level that it must be beaten down lest it effects world affairs. It already has thus it is past due IMO.
Comments
Originally posted by a_greer
why let the un do jack, every thing they touch turns to shit, hanz blix is a dits, like barny Fife or as Rush Limbaugh so elequently puts it insppector cluso In other words he couldnt find a computer chip at an intel plant - why expect him to find the preverbial needle in a haystack?
Dude, that's like soooo 2003? The war is over now, you don't have to parrot the party line. He's not on the job any more?
By the way, how's the US WMD hunt going fella?
Originally posted by faust9
This is a Red Herring argument. The point was that the administration initially wanted to attack Iraq in respone an attach by OBL--a guy in Afganastan BTW. The fact the we bombed Afganastan a month later is inconsequential.
I have been thinking about this one also.
BushCo., as you so nicely put it, decimated The taliban and booted Al Qeada out of Afghanistan. Meanwhile for years Iraq had been a problem. Forget about the WMD just for a moment, and you would see that maybe BushCo. made a wise choice to invade Iraq. I mean the assets were already there in the region. No need to bring all of them home only to send them back again when SH caused another fuss or refused to let inspectors in again. It was a smart logistics move IMO. Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone.
He did not come across as believable in his interview on 60 minutes. He came across as an angry, spoiled child. As others have pointed out, it was on his watch that several other destructive attacks ocurred. Yet, this man boasts of the "daily meetings" he had during those years. What did those meetings accomplish? These things all happened during a time where Clarke was in the top anti-terror position. Where is his accountablility? Every single thing he's said is nothing but heresay.
As for the interview itself, it was a sham. Have we not seen that Viacom promoted its own book under the veil of "news"? (btw, this was also the case for former treasury secretary O'Neill's book).
Clarke has a viewpoint, but not all the facts. He comes across like the expert of Bush's response to 9/11, yet admits he didn't always meet with him and his team. How can that be?
Originally posted by a_greer
why let the un do jack, every thing they touch turns to shit, hanz blix is a dits, like barny Fife or as Rush Limbaugh so elequently puts it insppector cluso In other words he couldnt find a computer chip at an intel plant - why expect him to find the preverbial needle in a haystack?
My oringinal reference to UN could have been replace with; traffic cop, monkey, can of baked beans...or whatever
When I wrote "Do you think the US administration would allow the UN to inspect its weapons programs?", the 'its' is the US administration.
Anyway the point I was making was that the lack of cooperation by the Iraqis with weapons inspectors may have been due to national pride - in the same way the US might react if an external body attempted to invasively inspect their national programs.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I have been thinking about this one also.
Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone.
I'm interested. Could you weigh up the possible benefits / disbenefits from invading Syria for us? Interesting idea.
I'll start you off with one of each (one from you, one from me) but I'm genuinely interested.
A) 'Maybe' finding WMD (you)
Originally posted by Harald
I'm interested. Could you weigh up the possible benefits / disbenefits from invading Syria for us? Interesting idea.
I'll start you off with one of each (one from you, one from me) but I'm genuinely interested.
A) 'Maybe' finding WMD (you)
Syria is another terrorist backing state. We are in the area so why not. I mean, why leave syria as a haven for islamo-facists. Give them a chance at democracy also. I say why not.
War is hell, but so is letting terrorists slowly kill off innocent people at will and random.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone.
don't you mean 'PWMDP' (possible weapons of mass destruction programs)
WMD is just FUD
remember too the US has WMD, Russia has WMD, France has WMD, and so on and so on.
and aeroplane laden with fuel is a WMD
Eliminate all the misleading propaganda from both sides, then and only then will you and I know what the problem really is, if in fact a 'problem' exists at all.
Originally posted by orange whip
My oringinal reference to UN could have been replace with; traffic cop, monkey, can of baked beans...or whatever
When I wrote "Do you think the US administration would allow the UN to inspect its weapons programs?", the 'its' is the US administration.
Anyway the point I was making was that the lack of cooperation by the Iraqis with weapons inspectors may have been due to national pride - in the same way the US might react if an external body attempted to invasively inspect their national programs.
you could be right, but the differance, when the USA says no to inspections, they arn't in direct violation of a treaty and god knows how many resolutions, some actualy agreed to by sadom to stop the war in 91
Originally posted by orange whip
don't you mean 'PWMDP' (possible weapons of mass destruction programs)
WMD is just FUD
remember too the US has WMD, Russia has WMD, France has WMD, and so on and so on.
and aeroplane laden with fuel is a WMD
Eliminate all the misleading propaganda from both sides, then and only then will you and I know what the problem really is, if in fact a 'problem' exists at all.
So terrorism is no big deal to you? The possibility of a terrorist group blowing up a dirty bomb or setting loose bio or chemical agents is not a problem?
What, pray tell, do you think the problem is?
Originally posted by a_greer
you could be right, but the differance, when the USA says no to inspections, they arn't in direct violation of a treaty and god knows how many resolutions, some actualy agreed to by sadom to stop the war in 91
fair point
but,(and slightly moving away from the topic), the way the US violates international law and human rights, in the way it holds 'detainees' at Guantanomo Bay is hypocritical (regardless of what those detainees may have done).
Originally posted by NaplesX
So terrorism is no big deal to you? The possibility of a terrorist group blowing up a dirty bomb or setting loose bio or chemical agents is not a problem?
What, pray tell, do you think the problem is?
No I didn't say that terrorism didn't concen me.
Fruit cakes don't only come from the Middle East, there are quite a few in the west as well. I do recall that a certain Timothy McVay blew up his own countrymen which is also an act of terror.
I suspect the problem is every one is busy building walls and becoming insular rather than building bridges.
Originally posted by orange whip
No I didn't say that terrorism didn't concen me.
Fruit cakes don't only come from the Middle East, there are quite a few in the west as well. I do recall that a certain Timothy McVay blew up his own countrymen which is also an act of terror.
I suspect the problem is every one is busy building walls and becoming insular rather than building bridges.
Build a bridge huh?
Have you ever had to deal with a bully?
Well I did for a couple of years, because my mom told me fighting was bad. So for a long time I did everything that I as a kid could do do avoid conflict and "be cool". Needless to say, as anyone that has been there knows, I got fed up with it and finally got so mad that I totally beat the crap out of him.
He went on to respect me and leave me alone.
Some people only understand force, so force is the bridge that they need.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Have you ever had to deal with a bully?
International relations is, um, a little more complicated than kids dealing with bullies.
The put it extremely lightly.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Build a bridge huh?
Have you ever had to deal with a bully?
Well I did for a couple of years, because my mom told me fighting was bad. So for a long time I did everything that I as a kid could do do avoid conflict and "be cool". Needless to say, as anyone that has been there knows, I got fed up with it and finally got so mad that I totally beat the crap out of him.
He went on to respect me and leave me alone.
Some people only understand force, so force is the bridge that they need.
A 'bully'!!!!!!
Iraq/sadam Husein, a 'bully'??? to whom?? to you??? certainly SH was a bully to his own people.
to 'beat the crap' out of someone because they 'bullied' you????!!!!!
I'm sorry but I don't buy that as a valid response.
Do you really think that if you 'beat the crap' out of someone that that earns their respect?
How about earning respect by showing respect.
You seem to miss the point that Terrorist come not only from fundamentalist Muslim groups but from fundamentalist Christian groups.
So if problems can be resolved between moderate groups on both sides then those on the extreems of the moderate spectrum would have less tendancy to move towards fundamentalism.
The result is that the fundamentalists become marginalised with less ability to attact supporters.
Originally posted by giant
International relations is, um, a little more complicated than kids dealing with bullies.
The put it extremely lightly.
dealing with terrorists isn't all that different.
Originally posted by orange whip
A 'bully'!!!!!!
Iraq/sadam Husein, a 'bully'??? to whom?? to you??? certainly SH was a bully to his own people.
to 'beat the crap' out of someone because they 'bullied' you????!!!!!
I'm sorry but I don't buy that as a valid response.
Do you really think that if you 'beat the crap' out of someone that that earns their respect?
How about earning respect by showing respect.
You seem to miss the point that Terrorist come not only from fundamentalist Muslim groups but from fundamentalist Christian groups.
So if problems can be resolved between moderate groups on both sides then those on the extreems of the moderate spectrum would have less tendancy to move towards fundamentalism.
The result is that the fundamentalists become marginalised with less ability to attact supporters.
You seem to think you know me. You do not. You seem to think that I did not show respect. I did. However, being beat up every day has a tendency to get old. Turning the tables was a liberating experience for me and a humiliating experience for him. It did earn his respect. He and I still talk and became friends. he later admitted that he was a little jerk at the time and he apologized.
terrorists are bully cowards, they don't want to go to the extents that you say everyone else should. They go straight to killing and destruction, because that is what they respect, strength not diplomacy.
Enough with the psyco-babble already.
One person in a million saw 9/11 coming---and they weren't in the loop.
what about the WMD's?
what is a WMD that you suggest Syria might have.
And what are all of the 'problems' you think might be eliminated with one proverbial stone??
I actually went to the middle east for business, post 911, and met up with Saudis, Palestinians, Iraqis and Lebanese. Some of the most hospitable people I have ever met. I am sure most Syrians are like that. BUT.... I suspect if the Syrians had the 'crap beaten out of them', then most of those hospitable people who had the 'crap beaten out of them' might think that the 'crap beater' was a bit of a prick (to put it in school yard terms).
Originally posted by NaplesX
Enough with the psyco-babble already.
'psyco-babble'????
You might want to smack someone, I would rather want to know why that person is acting in an agressive manner and then seek to resolvethe matter.
That is what civilised, sophisticated, mature parties (for example, the US) sould stive for. Not the stupid tit for tat responses you see in the pla ground.
I have no doubt the Bullying is extraordinarily difficult to deal with. But smacking them back is simply not the answer.
Originally posted by orange whip
"Maybe Syria should be next, then maybe we will finally find the WMD's. Eliminate all of the problems with one proverbial stone"
what about the WMD's?
what is a WMD that you suggest Syria might have.
And what are all of the 'problems' you think might be eliminated with one proverbial stone??
I actually went to the middle east for business, post 911, and met up with Saudis, Palestinians, Iraqis and Lebanese. Some of the most hospitable people I have ever met. I am sure most Syrians are like that. BUT.... I suspect if the Syrians had the 'crap beaten out of them', then most of those hospitable people who had the 'crap beaten out of them' might think that the 'crap beater' was a bit of a prick (to put it in school yard terms).
Uh, you are twisting what I said, and if you are comfortable doing that I am not comfortable with trying to hold a reasonable convo with you.
Terrorists are the focus of this discussion, the citizens of terror supporting countries are not. Syrians should rise up and remove the cancer themselves, but if they will not then who will? The US of course.
Since the terrorism is aimed primarily at the US, that has forced the US to deal with it in one way or another. Terrorism has reached a level that it must be beaten down lest it effects world affairs. It already has thus it is past due IMO.