THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Read between the lines, and CNN is suggesting that the outing of Khan has led to greater caution in al-Qaeda and similar groups about using electronic communications, which may make it more difficult to monitor them.

Like it is any big secret that we have been monitoring al Qaida cell phones, e-mails, and other electronic communications for months/years? Come on. This is as silly as the argument that any retaliation or aggression toward the terrorists just makes them angrier and more dangerous.

To facilitate identification would all the 'terrorist' in the room please raise your hand. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ican711nm
Talk about dumb. Are you still selling the line that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? They did not that is a given. Even super dumb in the White House and his handler Cheney have put a muzzle on it. Why don't you follow their lead and do the same thing? The war in Iraq is a war of choice. A choice that should not have been made. A choice that the US is and will continue paying dearly for in blood and treasury.

Quote:

Oh The US should not fight for its own liberty by causing "bloodshed and loss of life" to others in our own defense of our liberty? Surely you don't mean that, because that statement is worse than ludicrous; it's dumb, dumb as a pet rock; no it's dumber than dumb.

Try reading what is written not what your addled brain perceives. Where did you read that the US should not fight for it's freedom? I said people who want freedom should be the ones fighting for it.

0 Replies

Wasn't it all the bleeding heart liberals that demanded the administration should not hold secret prisoners and that all prisoners have rights, etc?

see what happens when you cave to liberal demands? They bitch about the results.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

ican711nm
Talk about dumb. Are you still selling the line that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? They did not that is a given. Even super dumb in the White House and his handler Cheney have put a muzzle on it. Why don't you follow their lead and do the same thing? The war in Iraq is a war of choice. A choice that should not have been made. A choice that the US is and will continue paying dearly for in blood and treasury.

Quote:
Oh The US should not fight for its own liberty by causing "bloodshed and loss of life" to others in our own defense of our liberty? Surely you don't mean that, because that statement is worse than ludicrous; it's dumb, dumb as a pet rock; no it's dumber than dumb.

Try reading what is written not what your addled brain perceives. Where did you read that the US should not fight for it's freedom? I said people who want freedom should be the ones fighting for it.

Yes that's right. And it's never been explained how this Administration came to be the de facto executive arm of the UN, (after ignoring UN wishes and insulting the organisation), by saying that since Saddam was in material breach of UN resolutions, Iraq should be invaded by US and UK.

0 Replies

When someone throws that ol' "fighting for freedom" crap at you, keep in mind that this is on the order of the "have you stopped beating your wife" trap. If you attempt to discuss the topic with them, you have conceded in advance that any part of the Iraq fiasco has something to do with our freedom. Among any of the many, many things we have been doing in the middle east, fighting for our freedom is definitely not among them. However, it is useful to the Shrub and his blind followers to frame the debate in such simple minded terms.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

... Ican ... you still believe ... that the invasion of Iraq was directly connected in some way to the war against Al-queda? Nobody else does.

Read the 9/11 commission report again. It acknowledges there were al Qaeda in Iraq before 9/11/2001, after 9/11/2001 before 3/19/2003, and after 3/19/2003 upto now. The 9/11 Commission's phraseology is "no formal relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq", and "there were connections between al Qaeda and Iraq". The phrase "no formal relationship" does not equate to zero relationship; it equates to no publically announced relationship. Remember the perpetrators of 9/11 consisted of less than two dozen people; in this war, WWIII, it doesn't take many people to kill thousands of people; it doesn't take a lot of connections. The 9/11 Commission believes Iraq was connected in some way to al Qaeda. So somebody else does in deed believe there was and is a connection.

Joe Nation wrote:

... I'll tell you what the cost of not invading would have been as soon as you tell me what the total cost of this personal war of George W. will be. Don't forget to add in our inability to protect ourselves here due to the lack of funds, the drain on our economic future, and just for clarity, say when the last American GI will be killed in this pathetic deadend wrong-headed and mis-planned effort.

More damn circumlocution. Mad

Gad, why don't neo-libs answer Foxfyre's question? Why don't they answer my question: What should have been done instead to stop al Qaeda from murdering and maiming Americans?

Joe Nation wrote:

Then let's get back to actually finding ways to defeat Al-Queda.

Let's do it now! You first!

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

I will agree that very few people become free without it being costly and messy and I would add bloodshed and loss of life. However, the bloodshed and loss of life should be that of those fighting for liberty not ours.

ican711nm wrote:

Oh The US should not fight for its own liberty by causing "bloodshed and loss of life" to others in our own defense of our liberty? Surely you don't mean that, because that statement is worse than ludicrous; it's dumb, dumb as a pet rock; no it's dumber than dumb.

au1929 wrote:

Try reading what is written not what your addled brain perceives. Where did you read that the US should not fight for it's freedom? I said people who want freedom should be the ones fighting for it.

No you didn't write that. You actually wrote: "However, the bloodshed and loss of life should be that of those fighting for liberty not ours."

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

When someone throws that ol' "fighting for freedom" crap at you, keep in mind that this is on the order of the "have you stopped beating your wife" trap. If you attempt to discuss the topic with them, you have conceded in advance that any part of the Iraq fiasco has something to do with our freedom. Among any of the many, many things we have been doing in the middle east, fighting for our freedom is definitely not among them. However, it is useful to the Shrub and his blind followers to frame the debate in such simple minded terms.

Setanta, instead of all this circumlocution, why don't you answer Foxfyre's question?

Setanta, you claim: "Among any of the many, many things we have been doing in the middle east, fighting for our freedom is definitely not among them."

Where's your evidence? Let us have a chance to examine your reasoning right up front. Does your evidence consist of the writings or video productions of neo-lib commentators. Or do you have some real substantial evidence deserving respect? On the other hand perhaps you can read minds! Laughing

Perhaps you have your own highly reliable crystal ball. Laughing

Perhaps you have no evidence at all. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

ican wrote

Quote:

No you didn't write that. You actually wrote: "However, the bloodshed and loss of life should be that of those fighting for liberty not ours."

That is correct. What is it you don't understand? Those seeking freedom should do the fighting and if need be dying. Not America's youth.

0 Replies

oops

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

... it's never been explained how this Administration came to be the de facto executive arm of the UN, (after ignoring UN wishes and insulting the organisation), by saying that since Saddam was in material breach of UN resolutions, Iraq should be invaded by US and UK.

The US never was and never claimed to be "the de facto executive arm of the UN". The US merely claimed the obvious and that which is written in the UN Charter. The US claimed the right of its own self-defense. Many of us think Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, and Syria were a threat to our liberty. Many of us think that changing the regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq is a good start.[/quote]

0 Replies

Ican, those who make extraordinary claims are responsible for the burden of proof. How about you prove we are fighting for our freedom in Iraq. Suppose you outline for me how our freedom would be threatened if we had not invaded Iraq. Keep in mind that we've found no WoMD, and that no working relationship between the Ba'atists and AQ has ever been dug up.

Keep your snot-nosed remarks about neo-lib commentators to yourself. For whatever your benighted opinion of my, or of anyone else's opinions may be, you have no reason to assume that i don't form my opinions, to assume that i simply imbibe the opinions of others. Except, of course, for the purpose of enflaming the discussion with attempts at personal insults which avoid a violation of the TOS.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

ican wrote

Quote:
No you didn't write that. You actually wrote: "However, the bloodshed and loss of life should be that of those fighting for liberty not ours."

That is correct. What is it you don't understand? Those seeking freedom should do the fighting and if need be dying. Not America's youth.

I understood your original and I understand your rewrite. They are both dumb. If I seek to defend or secure my liberty, I should do "the fighting and if need be dying." If "America's youth" thinks likewise, they too "should do the fighting and if need be dying."

0 Replies

Quote:

The US claimed the right of its own self-defense.

Which was interesting as no one, not least the US military, thought Iraq posed any threat to the US.

What the US was doing in fact was setting the precedent in International law not just of pre emptive war but preventative war.

The principle is now establised that the most powerful nation on earth reserves the right to attack and change the govt. of any other nation on the basis that that nation might conceivably become a threat to US or US interests at some indeterminate time in the future, this assessment being the sole prerogative of the United States govt. and does not imply any reciprocity in favour of less powerful countries.

To which I say "'twas ever thus". Except now the policy is open and explicit for all too see.

0 Replies

Quote:

Which was interesting as no one, not least the US military, thought Iraq posed any threat to the US.

No one Steve? Then why all those statements made by the previous administration and a letter from prominent Democrats in Congress urging the administration to take action because Saddam was such a threat? Were they just posturing? Or did they believe it?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ican, those who make extraordinary claims are responsible for the burden of proof. How about you prove we are fighting for our freedom in Iraq. Suppose you outline for me how our freedom would be threatened if we had not invaded Iraq. Keep in mind that we've found no WoMD, and that no working relationship between the Ba'atists and AQ has ever been dug up.

You are making the extraordinary claims that we did not invade Iraq to secure our liberty in general and our safety from al Qaeda terrorism in particular. You claim "no working relationship between the Ba'atists and AQ has ever been dug up." Extraordinary! Where's your evidence? The 9/11 Commission alleges otherwise.

Setanta wrote:

Keep your snot-nosed remarks about neo-lib commentators to yourself. For whatever your benighted opinion of my, or of anyone else's opinions may be, you have no reason to assume that i don't form my opinions, to assume that i simply imbibe the opinions of others. Except, of course, for the purpose of enflaming the discussion with attempts at personal insults which avoid a violation of the TOS.

No! I won't keep my "snot-nosed remarks" about neo-lib commentators" to myself. Laughing

I have what I think is a great deal of reason to assume you in particular have incorporated much of the "neo-lib commentator" doctrine into your thinking.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The principle is now establised that the most powerful nation on earth reserves the right to attack and change the govt. of any other nation on the basis that that nation might conceivably become a threat to US or US interests at some indeterminate time in the future, this assessment being the sole prerogative of the United States govt. and does not imply any reciprocity in favour of less powerful countries.

So now you 've elected to try hyperbole!

We spent 18 months trying to convince the nations of the world that Iraq was a threat to all our securities. We failed. We then acted on our judgment. We after all were the ones who suffered 9/11 not the rest of the world's nations. It wasn't that we thought Iraq "might conceivably become a threat to the US", we thought we had damn good reason for thinking Iraq was a threat to the US. We were right!

0 Replies

First of all, it is an out and out lie that the 9/11 commission has stated, or even alleged, in your hyperbolic term, that there was any working relationship between the Ba'atists and AQ.

As i never read opinion pieces, except when i come here, your belief about the origin of my opinions is of supreme indifference to me.

You have yet to demonstrate how the invasion of Iraq constitutes fighting to protect our freedom. You have lied outright about the report of the 9/11 commission. You have lied outright about Iraq and the attacks on September 11th. One can only conclude that you haven't actually checked the facts yourself, but rather, have relied upon the opinions fed you by neo-con commentators.

0 Replies

I would really like to know in what way Saddam posed a threat to US or British national security. Did he have an alliance with Canada, and an invasion force massing in Toronto? Were there Iraqi forces poised in France waiting to pour through the tunnel?

Even the US and British govts have had to fall back on the excuse "well Saddam might not have been a threat then, but who knows what he would do in future, and he was one sob, with oil money too".

Hence my statement that what was really being established here was the principle of Preventative War.

0 Replies

Before ever he came to the throne, Friedrich Hohenzollern, who would become "Frederick the Great," discussed in writing, in great detail, the justification for preemptive war. Basically, he stated that in a state in a vulnerable postion, surrounded by powerful enemies, it is the duty of the prince to defend his people by seizing the initiative.

Now given that the United States has oceans on two sides, and that the UK is a an island group, and the Iraqi Navy seems not to exceeded a few motor launches, i would like someone to explain the clear and present danger which was allegedly posed.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know