Steve (as 41oo) wrote:Another 50 or so people blown to pieces today.
Just look at that picture from RexRed. Then tell me it was a noble thing we did in invading that country.
I am willing to admit guilt, because I GODDAMMIT, supported the invasion.
But with hindsight it was WRONG and I was wrong.
I'm willing to hang my head in shame. Are you WARMONGERS?
Who are the war mongers?
Yes, war is hell! Standing by and waiting to be murdered, then being murdered is hell too.
Al Qaeda was/is a self declared agressor against the US. The governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based are accomplices to this agressor. It is al Qaeda and the governments in whose countries al Qaeda was/is based that must be stopped in our own self-defense.
Nothing the Bush&Adm or the Blair&Adm intended or didn’t intend, said or didn’t say, conspired or didn't conspire, or otherwise did or didn’t do can change these facts. The truth of the existence or non-existence of ready-to-use
"WMD" in Iraq, or of a
"link" between Iraq and al Qaeda cannot change these facts.
Foxfyre wrote:ican711nm wrote:Pre-empting a tyrant consists of stopping him from hurting you more before he hurts you more. That is what we are attempting to do in Afghanistan and that is what we are attempting to do in Iraq
There are some, however, who think you must be seriously hurt or killed before you are allowed to protect yourself. The frightened wife must not get a restraining order against the man she knows will hurt or kill her until he actually does the deed. They are more concerned about the feelings of the young thug on the corner than they are about the fears of the driver who offends him when he locks the car door. The civil rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of innocent people to not be threatened by him. The rights of a terrorist to not be embarrassed or made uncomfortable are more important than the need of an innocent victim about to be beheaded. So, a pre-emptive strike against a country with a track record for terrorist acts and that is on the record as having intentions to hurt you must not be touched until they commit the act.
...
Suppose all but one of the reasons given by either Blair or Bush for invading Iraq was known by both to be the only actual valid reason. Would that one reason be sufficient for invading these two countries, if that one reason were:
The US invasion of Iraq and the US invasion of Afghanistan were both
pre-emptive wars by both US and British govenment declarations, and by valid logic in order to prevent future murderers of US and British citizens. Al Qaeda declared war against Americans in four different fatwas in 1992, 1996, 1998, and 2004. These fatwas (except the 2004 fatwa) and the war they repeatedly declared were actually perpetrated against Americans prior to our invasions of Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in March 2003.
Quote:The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report alleged, 8/21/2004 in CHAPTERS 1, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1: Before we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, al Qaeda et al perpetrated the following mass murders of Americans:
1. 2/1993 WTC in NYC--6 dead Americans;
2. 11/1995 Saudi National Guard Facility in Riyadh--5 dead Americans;
3. 6/1996 Khobar Towers in Dhahran--19 dead Americans;
4. 8/1998 American Embassy in Nairobi--12 dead Americans;
5. 12/2000 Destroyer Cole in Aden--17 dead Americans;
6. 9/11/2001 WTC in NYC, Pentagon, Pennsylvania Field--approximately 1500 dead Americans plus approximately 1500 dead non-Americans.
Quote:President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "harbor" terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "support" terrorists.
The US subsequently attempted to
pre-empt further attacks by al Qaeda and remove al Qaeda training bases and camps by invading and replacing the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, because of the failures of the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq to remove al Qaeda training bases and camps from their respective countries.
The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Afghanistan was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Afghanistan and the replacement of the Taliban regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda bases and camps to be re-established in Afghanistan once the US left Afghanistan.
The real objective (all the contrary political propaganda not withstanding) of the invasion of Iraq was removal of the al Qaeda training bases and camps in Iraq and the replacement of the Saddam regime with a government that would not allow al Qaeda taining bases and camps to be re-established in Iraq once the US left Iraq.[/quote]
After both Bush and Blair voluntarily submit to public, satellite and cable, network-televised, one-hour spankings, would it be ok with eveyone, if we were to proceed to win in Iraq and Afghanistan by securing in those countries democracies of their people's own design?
