33
   

The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

 
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2011 10:36 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
Yes, in every peacenik's alternate universe, there is no war, there is no hunger, there is no suffering in the world. It is utopia, and the dope is plenty.


Can't help yourself can you? More smarmy hyperbole. Of course I smoke dope, of course I'm against every war, and I have no perception of the real world.

Let's change places for a sec, if you were arguing from my side your first paragraph would have read:

Yes, in every neocon asshole's alternate universe, war is the entire reason for existence, there is no peace, the world is in tatters. It is a dystopia, and the spilt blood is plenty.

But you did get back on track thankfully.

On the AUMF, have you read it? Can you see how many other nations you could attack for UN Violations (including the US) and/or for harboring terrorist organisations.

The only uniquely Iraqi stuff all pertains to the Kuwaiti war - why wait 10 years? Oh yeah because 911 offered an opportunity to build an appetite for war in the US citizenry.

The stated aim of ensuring peace and stability to the region is worthy of your imaginary clueless peacenik.

Was Iraq any more likely to use WMDs than the US?

I particularly liked this bit.
Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;

Hmm. They are also known to be in Pakistan where they are looked on much more fondly than Hussein ever viewed them.

Sigh. Mentions a bunch of UN security council resolutions, but says nothing about the fact that the invasion rejected the Security Council's decision on an Iraq invasion. Still, they are just a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys, hey.

Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Oct, 2011 10:58 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:
Of course I smoke dope, of course I'm against every war, and I have no perception of the real world.

Yes, this we know ... we are not debating this.

Quote:
On the AUMF, have you read it?

Of course I've read it. I've linked to it at this site perhaps more times than anyone else, because of the leftists who continue to invent imaginary reasons for the war.

Quote:
Can you see how many other nations you could attack for UN Violations (including the US) and/or for harboring terrorist organisations.

We aren't talking about those nations ... we're talking about Iraq.

Quote:
The only uniquely Iraqi stuff all pertains to the Kuwaiti war - why wait 10 years? Oh yeah because 911 offered an opportunity to build an appetite for war in the US citizenry.

That's your opinion. Why wait 10 years indeed? There were many Americans wanting Clinton to take action during his administration.

Quote:
The stated aim of ensuring peace and stability to the region is worthy of your imaginary clueless peacenik.

The clueless peaceniks would have none of it. Peace and stability are fine concepts, so long as war is not required to achieve it.

Quote:
Was Iraq any more likely to use WMDs than the US?

Yes.

Quote:
I particularly liked this bit.
Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests,
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are
known to be in Iraq;

Hmm. They are also known to be in Pakistan where they are looked on much more fondly than Hussein ever viewed them.

Yes ... the Neocon Supreme Council is holding meetings now to discuss this very thing.

Quote:
Sigh. Mentions a bunch of UN security council resolutions, but says nothing about the fact that the invasion rejected the Security Council's decision on an Iraq invasion. Still, they are just a bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys, hey.

You hit that right on the head.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 04:17 am
@Ticomaya,
You're not debating anything, Tico. You're outdoing yourself in making apologies for vicious war criminals, terrorists that make all the other combined terrorists around the planet look like kids from kindergarten.

Quote:


America’s Terrorist Training Camp
October 30, 2001

What’s the difference between Al Qaeda and Fort Benning?

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 30th October 2001

“If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents,” George Bush announced on the day he began bombing Afghanistan, “they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.” I’m glad he said “any government”, as there’s one which, though it has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent attention.

For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp, whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid, rightly or wrongly, at Al-Qaeda’s door. The camp is called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHISC. It is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush’s government.

Until January this year, WHISC was called “the School of the Americas”, or SOA. Since 1946 SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of the continent’s most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch shows, Latin America has been ripped apart by its alumni.

http://www.monbiot.com/2001/10/30/americas-terrorist-training-camp/



0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 04:26 am
Bump;

http://www.representativepress.org/CIASaddam.html

Quote:
The Devil in the Details: The CIA and Saddam Hussein

"The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s." 1

"One thing is for sure, the US will find it much harder to remove the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq than they did putting them in power back in 1963. If more people knew about this diabolical history, they just might not be so inclined to trust the US in its current efforts to execute "regime change" in Iraq."
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 06:00 am
@Builder,
America has a pretty awful record of arming the people they then fight in the next ten years or so. They did it with the Viet Kong, against France, The Taliban and Al Qaida against the USSR and Saddam Hussein against Iran.

Perhaps if the defence industry was not such a major player (in the UK as well as USA) we wouldn't need to fight these wars in the first place.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 06:09 am
@izzythepush,
When the German press learned that the forts in China were using Krupp guns, and punching holes in the German cruisers sent to attack them, Alfred Krupp told the Kaiser that what is good for Krupp is good for Germany.

You must be an unpatriotic, dirty Commie.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 07:19 am
@Setanta,
Patriotism isn't something that people feel so passionately about over here.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 07:24 am
@Setanta,
speaking of commies.

http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq7.shtml


32. Did US consider the use the A-Bomb in Korea?

US generals actively considered the use of Atomic Bombs from the very beginning, even before China intervened. US presidents considered the use of the A-Bombs after PVA entered.

[From Blair]

On June 1950, Eisenhower met with Collins, Haislip, Ridgway, Ike suggested use of two atomic bombs in the Korea area.

In July 1950, MacArthur suggested plan to use atomic bombs to 'isolate the battle fields".

[From Hastings]

On November 30 1950, President Truman said in a press conference: "There had always been active consideration of its[Atomic Bomb's] use...".

On December 24 1950, MacArthur submitted a list of 'retaliation targets' in China and North Korea, requiring 26 atomic bombs.

In January 1953, US tested its first tactical nuclear weapon, and the JCS considered its use "against military targets affecting operations in Korea."

In February 1953, in a NSC meeting, President Eisenhower suggested the Kaesong area of North Korea as an appropriate demonstration ground for a tactical nuclear bomb--it "provided a good target for this type of weapon".

On May 19 1953, the Joint Chiefs recommended direct air and naval operations against China, including the use of nuclear weapons. The National Security Council endorsed the JCS recommendation the next day.

Dulles, the Secretary of State was visiting India and told Nehru to deliver a message to Zhou Enlai: if peace was not speedily attained, the United States would begin to bomb north of Yalu, and US had recently tested atomic shells.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 10 Oct, 2011 09:03 am
@Setanta,
Hey, Setanta, you're slipping as the great cataloger of US "excesses". What's with that? After you brag and brag about what a fine job you did and do. I think you're just WandelJW in short pants.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 09:00 am
These facts remain;

Invasion of Iraq was imperative.

Convincing the American nation of a possible threat was imperative.

Providing a concrete example of the threat was imperative.

Linking the instance of the attack with Iraq was imperative.

Weapons of mass destruction link with Iraq provided the imperative.

The attacks on the World Trade centre, and the Pentagon, provided the Generals with the imperative.

All other discourse on this subject is pointless and derivative.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 09:05 am
@Builder,
Yep--finding a cheek to strike when you can't turn the other one actually is imperative. And the votes in Congress concurred.
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 09:24 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote;
Quote:
And the votes in Congress concurred.


Well that may be the case, spendius, but in a nation that is supposedly "by the people, for the people" approval for Congress is currently less than fifteen percent. At the time of that invasion of Iraq, approval was less than fifteen percent.

Do I need to make anything clearer to you?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 10:41 am
@Builder,
No--that's clear enough. It ain't the land of the free at all despite the singsong about it.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 07:47 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
No--that's clear enough. It ain't the land of the free at all despite the singsong about it.

Bollocks.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2011 08:05 pm
@Ticomaya,
Quote:
Sprendit wrote: It ain't the land of the free at all despite the singsong about it.

Quote:
Tico said: Bollocks.


Try visiting a country that the US government has forbidden you to visit, Tico, to see just how "free" you are.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2011 01:29 am
@JTT,
Try walking about without photo ID.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2011 03:43 am
@Ticomaya,
Hey Tico--I was commenting on what Builder said about more than 85% of Americans disapproving of the ruling elite. That figure is greater than the Soviet government disapproval rating used to be.

It's Builder you should be taking issue with--not me. I've no idea about such things. I judge freedom from how the cops behave, the perp walking and the level of belief in allegations before the evidence has been heard.

Are Builder's figures incorrect?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2011 03:52 am
@spendius,
Freedom is a concept to which the principle of sorites applies.

And psychologists would say that the bigger the song and dance about freedom the less freedom there is likely to be. That the song and dance is reassurance signifying an acute anxiety about the matter.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2011 05:01 am
@spendius,
I think that if opinion polls consistently showed a less that 15% approval rating for our government there would be splits in the cabinet, resignations, back bench conspiracies, banner headlines, heated discussions on political talk-shows and an early general election.

Congress seems to bat on regardless as if such things are of no consequence.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Oct, 2011 12:16 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Hey Tico--I was commenting on what Builder said about more than 85% of Americans disapproving of the ruling elite. That figure is greater than the Soviet government disapproval rating used to be.

It's Builder you should be taking issue with--not me. I've no idea about such things. I judge freedom from how the cops behave, the perp walking and the level of belief in allegations before the evidence has been heard.

Are Builder's figures incorrect?

I don't know about Builder's figures, but the fact remains that the "ruling elite" would get voted out of office if 85% of their constituents do not approve of them.

You took it Builder's figures and claimed that because 85% are not happy with the current legislature, then "It ain't the land of the free at all." I don't take issue with Builder's figures (I take no position with his figures), ...I take issue with your characterization of his figures.
 

Related Topics

Mosque to be Built Near Ground Zero - Discussion by Phoenix32890
9/11/01: Mary Pope and Eurodiva - Discussion by Miller
Thank you Israel. Great job! - Question by oralloy
Lights over Manhattan. - Discussion by Frank Apisa
The truth about what really happened in the USA - Discussion by reasoning logic
9/11 - Discussion by Brandon9000
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/07/2024 at 04:37:36