Members of both "governments" have had meetings together, and Iraq has provided same members with safe passage and medical assistance. I'm pretty certain this is common knowledge, as the Bush people were constantly harping about it pre-war, but if needed I'm sure I can google some articles.
Let's be clear: I don't think it is a "link" in the fashion that makes this campaign cut and dried, but it isn't like they've never heard of one another.
Did I say there was a link? Hmmm indeed. I don't give a shit if there is, if you had read my post I said terrorism wrt:Iraq was a red herring used by both sides.
I had indeed read you post. I was trying to help you with your curiousity that someone could deny Iraq had links with terrorism yet still maintain that this war would only increase it. How? By stating the first part of my premise as clearly as I could. Some find this tactic useful in a debate. I know I do.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Exactly, nothing to do with Iraq or our actions in Iraq.
This was your response to the second part of my premise, that the Middle East is already fertile ground for terrorism and that this war would only fan the flames.
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Quite a specious and non-specific fear, methinks. One based on quite a healthy dose of racial fear.
Your response to my argument that the current actions of the American government are only going to produce resentment in the people of Iraq and that many bad people OUTSIDE of the country will only see MORE evidence, as if they 'needed it', that America is a violent hyperpower that deserves to be bombed and poisoned for its arrogance.
Jesus, when you take the onion this seriously, you know the world is FUBARd.
thank you BuonRotto, i was starting to feel guilty about starting this thread, (which was meant to take a piss at this madness) which as with all things political has turned into another right vs. left penis measuring contest.
This was your response to the second part of my premise, that the Middle East is already fertile ground for terrorism and that this war would only fan the flames.
Well that is valid, absolutely. Such a non-specific idea isn't compelling enough to me to determine foreign policy, however. We could "fan the flames" countless ways. We shouldn't keep from doing what we think is right simply because there is such a non-specific fear.
Quote:
Your response to my argument that the current actions of the American government are only going to produce resentment in the people of Iraq and that many bad people OUTSIDE of the country will only see MORE evidence, as if they 'needed it', that America is a violent hyperpower that deserves to be bombed and poisoned for its arrogance.
Perhaps it will. However, there is also a chance that this will help improve the image of the US. If we can successfully remove Saddam, get the UN sanctions lifted and allow Iraq to move forward and move out from under the horrible oppression they've been under then it will be a success in my mind. I don't even really care if there's 100% pure, liberal democracy within 5 years. I want the people of Iraq to be in a better place, and that's essentially all of that. Now whatever the "Arab street" wants to do with that I don't care. I hope they see the good but I'm not dumb enough to believe they'll give us a chance.
What could we EVER do to please the "Arab street"? There is no point in basing foreign policy on appeasing an amorphous concept.
If we have an honest intent to do good and we work our hardest to do that good thing that is all we can do. There is no appeasing someone who hates you from the get-go.
After 9/11 I'm not as concerned with their delicate mental states as I used to be. They can take their religious fundamentalism and go **** themselves with it if that's how they feel. I don't want my nation to crawl into a hole and hide because some cowards want to attack us. I refuse to support any president whose tactic is appeasement and cowtowing. That's not how you become successful.
Fix Israel/Paletine. That's the only real issue. That's it. If you fix Israel/Palestine you fix an assload of problems.
Iraq has little to do with terrorism, one way or the other.
One of Osama's main beefs with the US and the Saudis is the presence of US bases on holy soil in Saudi. The other is that America is Evil. The fear is that this looks like more American conquest of A Proud Arab Nation and that the sons of the Iraqi fathers killed by an invading we-don't-care-what-you-think hyperpower will be easy prey to the propaganda of the terrorist types.
Obviously you've never played six degrees to Osama Bin Laden. President Bush has. Here is how it goes:
1)Iraq invades Kuwait and moves West poised to invade Saudi Arabia
2)US comes to help Saudi Arabia foritify itself against Iraq
3)War is waged but Saddam remains in power per scope of UN resolution
4)Osama feels that the Great Satan has peed in Allah's Cheerios by staying in the Holy Land?
5)Osama declares Jihad against America
6)Osama sends his lackeys scumbags to fly planes into buildings.
So you see, it was Saddam who started the chain of events that led to September 11th. President Bush, who is a diehard Kevin Bacon fan and an avowed determinist [though he is slightly confused on exactly what deterministimism is but he is sure that this is an example of it based on intelligence reports] has shrewdly recognized as much. Therefore the obvious connection between Saddam and Al Queda. I hope that is now clear to you.
Anyway, one would hope that if we are going to throw up bases in the deserts of Western Iraq, and I suspect that we would if we don't get suicide bombed right out of the country, that we would then abandon our bases in Saudi Arabia. Bases in Iraq are more or less just as good, less controversial or at least no more so, and there is no specific external [there is a huge internal one obviously coming sooner rather than later] national threat to Saudi Arabia with a weakened Iraq in addition to pretty much all of the rest of their neighbors being militarily at least as weak as them except Israel and Egypt, neither of whom is going to lay any bitchslaps down.
WASHINGTON, DC?Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us." ...
That site is funny and oh so true in a certain sense.
Quote:
I have said that protestors are idiots
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
What do you mean when you were talking about brown people and that they want to be terrorists and such?
Quote:
I hope they see the good but I'm not dumb enough to believe they'll give us a chance.
Thats on the basis that "the good" is what you think it is: Installing democracy and all that jazz.
We've yet to examine the oil business post war and contracting arrangements.
The good may be spread more thinly than we desire. We forgot about Afghanistan awfully fast and it wasn't until someone was outraged that no funding was given to Afghanistan this year that 300 000 000 was coughed up...
BTW groverat, what is your opinion of that site:The Onion.
i enjoy the onion, but does anyone else find that it is more fun to read the headlines and then not even bother with the whole stories most of the time?
What do you mean when you were talking about brown people and that they want to be terrorists and such?
It's my much-maligned assertion that those who claim it is self-evident that this attack will increase terrorism against the United States base that idea on the irrational fear of Arabs. Typified in this thread.
Quote:
Thats on the basis that "the good" is what you think it is: Installing democracy and all that jazz.
We've yet to examine the oil business post war and contracting arrangements.
Democracy I don't really care about in Iraq. I want a more positive regime, be it semi-democratic or even a more autocratic system. That's all for me, though, I dont know what Bush's motivations are in toto, but I personally don't have a hard-on for the idea of immediate democracy in Iraq. I will settle for any government that treats its people well, represents their needs to a reasonable extent and ensures their peace and security and plays nice with their neighbors (and preferably, but not necessarily) Israel. Baby steps are acceptable, as long as they are in the right direction.
To me the good to come out of this will be the removal of an absolutely evil dictator and the lifting of the sanctions. Those are two powerful reasons for me. Those are the two things holding those people back, it's very tragic.
Quote:
The good may be spread more thinly than we desire. We forgot about Afghanistan awfully fast and it wasn't until someone was outraged that no funding was given to Afghanistan this year that 300 000 000 was coughed up...
So we forgot about them until we remembered them? Odd.
Quote:
BTW groverat, what is your opinion of that site:The Onion.
I think The Onion is freaking hilarious. I've read it religiously since 1998. The quality of the copy has dropped, but the ideas are still fresh and fun.
Not dumb, more like six of one, half-dozen of another. People who want to hurt americans will seek out any excuse. We didn't need to invade Afghanistan nor Iraq for more threats of terrorism. I'm sure the people willing to do things like this would find cause in something as trite as changig the color of Lifesaver candies. Walking on egg-shells to avoid terrorist acts is not only impotent but futile.
Whoops, probably the wrong thread to get "serious" in.
Such a non-specific idea isn't compelling enough to me to determine foreign policy, however. We could "fan the flames" countless ways. We shouldn't keep from doing what we think is right simply because there is such a non-specific fear.
Well, you're quite right of course.
You could:
Drop a paratrooper to plant the Stars and Stripes on the top of Mount Arafat during Haj
Carpetbomb the Temple at Medina
Have George Bush go on TV with a sandwhich board reading 'The Prophet is a Twat' in Arabic
These might provoke potential terrorists.
Or you could of course invade an Arab nation, to international opprobrium, kill its leader and replace him with an American civilian without ANY evidence that he has WOMD or funds international terror.
And simply 'not giving a shit' what Islamic fundamentalists think of you isn't going to make the problem go away. Promise.
Drop a paratrooper to plant the Stars and Stripes on the top of Mount Arafat during Haj Carpetbomb the Temple at Medina Have George Bush go on TV with a sandwhich board reading 'The Prophet is a Twat' in Arabic
I'm picturing a remake of Mt. Suribachi for the first idea. It's genius.
Quote:
These might provoke potential terrorists.
Perhaps.
Quote:
Or you could of course invade an Arab nation, to international opprobrium, kill its leader and replace him with an American civilian without ANY evidence that he has WOMD or funds international terror.
Perhaps again.
Saddam has proven links to international terror. He funds Palestinian suicide bombers. But that's neither here nor there. You set up two easily defeated excuses as a straw man. Not smart debate for a guy who uses kick-ass words like "opprobrium" (I love it when people make me go to the dictionary, you'll be seeing that word in a blog soon ).
Quote:
And simply 'not giving a shit' what Islamic fundamentalists think of you isn't going to make the problem go away. Promise.
Oh I realize that. I also realize that hand-wringing and self-hatred won't help either. We might as well do what we think is right. Allowing the Iraqi people to continue their suffering under Hussein and UN Sanction isn't worth sparing ourselves from an obscure and amorphous threat of increased terrorism.
We are part of the world, we can't act like we aren't.
Hassan has the right take on the situation. But he skips over the solution. The smart thing to do would be to just nuke everybody else. Except Quebec. They can play the role of France in our post-apocalyptic candyland.
... or people sitting on the edge, unconvinced about what they think about America, will come down on the wrong side. They'll feel "confirmed" that the US is imperialist / anti-Muslim / Satan / <your favourite hate speak here>.
If they're sitting on the edge about whether to go on that suicide mission, or form a terror cell, they'll make up their mind too.
And they'll go and kill some Americans.
And as to why, if Groverat is anything to go by, many Americans curiously won't "give a shit" as to what led them to do it. Very strange times.
Comments
Members of both "governments" have had meetings together, and Iraq has provided same members with safe passage and medical assistance. I'm pretty certain this is common knowledge, as the Bush people were constantly harping about it pre-war, but if needed I'm sure I can google some articles.
Let's be clear: I don't think it is a "link" in the fashion that makes this campaign cut and dried, but it isn't like they've never heard of one another.
Originally posted by groverat
Did I say there was a link? Hmmm indeed. I don't give a shit if there is, if you had read my post I said terrorism wrt:Iraq was a red herring used by both sides.
I had indeed read you post. I was trying to help you with your curiousity that someone could deny Iraq had links with terrorism yet still maintain that this war would only increase it. How? By stating the first part of my premise as clearly as I could. Some find this tactic useful in a debate. I know I do.
Originally posted by groverat
Exactly, nothing to do with Iraq or our actions in Iraq.
This was your response to the second part of my premise, that the Middle East is already fertile ground for terrorism and that this war would only fan the flames.
Originally posted by groverat
Quite a specious and non-specific fear, methinks. One based on quite a healthy dose of racial fear.
Your response to my argument that the current actions of the American government are only going to produce resentment in the people of Iraq and that many bad people OUTSIDE of the country will only see MORE evidence, as if they 'needed it', that America is a violent hyperpower that deserves to be bombed and poisoned for its arrogance.
Reading Comprehension can be fun!
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Jesus, when you take the onion this seriously, you know the world is FUBARd.
thank you BuonRotto, i was starting to feel guilty about starting this thread, (which was meant to take a piss at this madness) which as with all things political has turned into another right vs. left penis measuring contest.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
This was your response to the second part of my premise, that the Middle East is already fertile ground for terrorism and that this war would only fan the flames.
Well that is valid, absolutely. Such a non-specific idea isn't compelling enough to me to determine foreign policy, however. We could "fan the flames" countless ways. We shouldn't keep from doing what we think is right simply because there is such a non-specific fear.
Your response to my argument that the current actions of the American government are only going to produce resentment in the people of Iraq and that many bad people OUTSIDE of the country will only see MORE evidence, as if they 'needed it', that America is a violent hyperpower that deserves to be bombed and poisoned for its arrogance.
Perhaps it will. However, there is also a chance that this will help improve the image of the US. If we can successfully remove Saddam, get the UN sanctions lifted and allow Iraq to move forward and move out from under the horrible oppression they've been under then it will be a success in my mind. I don't even really care if there's 100% pure, liberal democracy within 5 years. I want the people of Iraq to be in a better place, and that's essentially all of that. Now whatever the "Arab street" wants to do with that I don't care. I hope they see the good but I'm not dumb enough to believe they'll give us a chance.
What could we EVER do to please the "Arab street"? There is no point in basing foreign policy on appeasing an amorphous concept.
If we have an honest intent to do good and we work our hardest to do that good thing that is all we can do. There is no appeasing someone who hates you from the get-go.
After 9/11 I'm not as concerned with their delicate mental states as I used to be. They can take their religious fundamentalism and go **** themselves with it if that's how they feel. I don't want my nation to crawl into a hole and hide because some cowards want to attack us. I refuse to support any president whose tactic is appeasement and cowtowing. That's not how you become successful.
Fix Israel/Paletine. That's the only real issue. That's it. If you fix Israel/Palestine you fix an assload of problems.
Iraq has little to do with terrorism, one way or the other.
One of Osama's main beefs with the US and the Saudis is the presence of US bases on holy soil in Saudi. The other is that America is Evil. The fear is that this looks like more American conquest of A Proud Arab Nation and that the sons of the Iraqi fathers killed by an invading we-don't-care-what-you-think hyperpower will be easy prey to the propaganda of the terrorist types.
Obviously you've never played six degrees to Osama Bin Laden. President Bush has. Here is how it goes:
1)Iraq invades Kuwait and moves West poised to invade Saudi Arabia
2)US comes to help Saudi Arabia foritify itself against Iraq
3)War is waged but Saddam remains in power per scope of UN resolution
4)Osama feels that the Great Satan has peed in Allah's Cheerios by staying in the Holy Land?
5)Osama declares Jihad against America
6)Osama sends his lackeys scumbags to fly planes into buildings.
So you see, it was Saddam who started the chain of events that led to September 11th. President Bush, who is a diehard Kevin Bacon fan and an avowed determinist [though he is slightly confused on exactly what deterministimism is but he is sure that this is an example of it based on intelligence reports] has shrewdly recognized as much. Therefore the obvious connection between Saddam and Al Queda. I hope that is now clear to you.
Anyway, one would hope that if we are going to throw up bases in the deserts of Western Iraq, and I suspect that we would if we don't get suicide bombed right out of the country, that we would then abandon our bases in Saudi Arabia. Bases in Iraq are more or less just as good, less controversial or at least no more so, and there is no specific external [there is a huge internal one obviously coming sooner rather than later] national threat to Saudi Arabia with a weakened Iraq in addition to pretty much all of the rest of their neighbors being militarily at least as weak as them except Israel and Egypt, neither of whom is going to lay any bitchslaps down.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Jesus, when you take the onion this seriously, you know the world is FUBARd.
What are you talking about. The Onion reports nothing but cold hard fact. They even are able to predict the future!
Bush: "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Finally Over."
WASHINGTON, DC?Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us." ...
This was published on January 18th 2001!
Tell that to the 800,000 dead Rwanadans and 1.2 million dead Iraqis.
teeheehee
Indeed a twat am I but I am an indispensable twat. Try to spell American without me and all you're left with is a misspelled city in Jordan. Tadow!
I have said that protestors are idiots
Sometimes. Sometimes not.
What do you mean when you were talking about brown people and that they want to be terrorists and such?
I hope they see the good but I'm not dumb enough to believe they'll give us a chance.
Thats on the basis that "the good" is what you think it is: Installing democracy and all that jazz.
We've yet to examine the oil business post war and contracting arrangements.
The good may be spread more thinly than we desire. We forgot about Afghanistan awfully fast and it wasn't until someone was outraged that no funding was given to Afghanistan this year that 300 000 000 was coughed up...
BTW groverat, what is your opinion of that site:The Onion.
What do you mean when you were talking about brown people and that they want to be terrorists and such?
It's my much-maligned assertion that those who claim it is self-evident that this attack will increase terrorism against the United States base that idea on the irrational fear of Arabs. Typified in this thread.
Thats on the basis that "the good" is what you think it is: Installing democracy and all that jazz.
We've yet to examine the oil business post war and contracting arrangements.
Democracy I don't really care about in Iraq. I want a more positive regime, be it semi-democratic or even a more autocratic system. That's all for me, though, I dont know what Bush's motivations are in toto, but I personally don't have a hard-on for the idea of immediate democracy in Iraq. I will settle for any government that treats its people well, represents their needs to a reasonable extent and ensures their peace and security and plays nice with their neighbors (and preferably, but not necessarily) Israel. Baby steps are acceptable, as long as they are in the right direction.
To me the good to come out of this will be the removal of an absolutely evil dictator and the lifting of the sanctions. Those are two powerful reasons for me. Those are the two things holding those people back, it's very tragic.
The good may be spread more thinly than we desire. We forgot about Afghanistan awfully fast and it wasn't until someone was outraged that no funding was given to Afghanistan this year that 300 000 000 was coughed up...
So we forgot about them until we remembered them? Odd.
BTW groverat, what is your opinion of that site:The Onion.
I think The Onion is freaking hilarious. I've read it religiously since 1998. The quality of the copy has dropped, but the ideas are still fresh and fun.
Whoops, probably the wrong thread to get "serious" in.
Originally posted by groverat
Such a non-specific idea isn't compelling enough to me to determine foreign policy, however. We could "fan the flames" countless ways. We shouldn't keep from doing what we think is right simply because there is such a non-specific fear.
Well, you're quite right of course.
You could:
- Drop a paratrooper to plant the Stars and Stripes on the top of Mount Arafat during Haj
- Carpetbomb the Temple at Medina
- Have George Bush go on TV with a sandwhich board reading 'The Prophet is a Twat' in Arabic
These might provoke potential terrorists.Or you could of course invade an Arab nation, to international opprobrium, kill its leader and replace him with an American civilian without ANY evidence that he has WOMD or funds international terror.
And simply 'not giving a shit' what Islamic fundamentalists think of you isn't going to make the problem go away. Promise.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Well, you're quite right of course.
You could:
Drop a paratrooper to plant the Stars and Stripes on the top of Mount Arafat during Haj
Carpetbomb the Temple at Medina
Have George Bush go on TV with a sandwhich board reading 'The Prophet is a Twat' in Arabic
I'm picturing a remake of Mt. Suribachi for the first idea. It's genius.
These might provoke potential terrorists.
Perhaps.
Or you could of course invade an Arab nation, to international opprobrium, kill its leader and replace him with an American civilian without ANY evidence that he has WOMD or funds international terror.
Perhaps again.
Saddam has proven links to international terror. He funds Palestinian suicide bombers. But that's neither here nor there. You set up two easily defeated excuses as a straw man. Not smart debate for a guy who uses kick-ass words like "opprobrium" (I love it when people make me go to the dictionary, you'll be seeing that word in a blog soon
And simply 'not giving a shit' what Islamic fundamentalists think of you isn't going to make the problem go away. Promise.
Oh I realize that. I also realize that hand-wringing and self-hatred won't help either. We might as well do what we think is right. Allowing the Iraqi people to continue their suffering under Hussein and UN Sanction isn't worth sparing ourselves from an obscure and amorphous threat of increased terrorism.
We are part of the world, we can't act like we aren't.
If they're sitting on the edge about whether to go on that suicide mission, or form a terror cell, they'll make up their mind too.
And they'll go and kill some Americans.
And as to why, if Groverat is anything to go by, many Americans curiously won't "give a shit" as to what led them to do it. Very strange times.
"Our Operation Popularize Saddam"
or
"O.O.P.S."
or they could rename it:
"Operation: Hey these guys are actually fighting for their country"