Fahrenheit 9/11

Re: Iamthepope

Could you at least make an effort to condense your posts all down to one response? Making individual posts to respond to each person is rediculous, and I keep hoping that I'll see someone else who isn't just spouting off. But nope, I see you 4 times in a row.

Depressing.

Besides, hippies are just the polar opposite to the psychotic war-mongers, who think that everyone who opposes the war needs to be shot/hung. They're no less scum than the war-mongering folks that we have both leading and supporting this administration.

 

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

the reason we have WMD's is as a deterrent against a potential enemy (formerly the Soviet Union). Saddam had WMD's to wage an aggresive war against Iran - <font color="orange">his potential enemy</font> - and then used them to slaughter the Kurds in the north in order to keep them under control - <font color="orange">like we did to Japan</font>. We have never used WMD's(except in Vietnam which was a mistake in any case) unless you count the bombs we dropped on Nagasaki and Heroshima which probably saved lives and ended the war sooner - <font color="orange">and cost a lot less money (and, yes, I count them as the ultimate WMD)</font> - than would have been the case had we carpet bombed Japan into oblivion and then invaded the Island with 7 million soliders in which case the Island would have most likely been divided between the Soviet Union and the U.S. causing all sorts of trouble in the future - <font color="orange">which is similar to what is happening in Iraq</font>. so, no, no other country could use that argument to "attack the U.S." (like anyone would) - <font color="orange">because we would bomb the shit out of them</font> - since we are a benevelent and democratic nation with the intent of maintaining the stability of the world - <font color="orange">which is probably not what most of the world thinks right now</font> - and promoting freedom and democracy - <font color="orange">as long as there is money in it</font> (even if we have sometimes failed to do so).

[/ QUOTE ]

We are now waging an agressive war against Iraq. I don't see anything so great about that. Even if we're not using our WMDs. I don't want us to rule the planet because we have the biggest fist. Domination by fear does not sit well with me.

It's ok for you to feel strongly about your position, but when I read words like ridiculous, stupid, and scum coming out of your posts - it sounds like a bunch of "I'm calling you names cause you disagree with me" bullshit.

I'm not saying your logic is faulty. I just think it can be used by anyone on earth. We think terrorists are evil. Terrorists think we are evil. That's the end. There is no reasoning beyond that. There is no special standard that applies to the USA. We are not good. Terrorists are not good. We all just are. I don't think killing each other over these things is the answer. It's happened since time began and nothing has changed. I think there might be another way.

 

Wow! It looks like maxi has a new rhetorical ally. Curses! And its a clever Texan no less! Retreat!!! These foes are beyond our reckoning!!

Seriously though, I feel a twinge of sympathy (but only a tiny one) for Bush supporters. Bush and his supporters have painted themselves into corners, really in every area of policy, but most obviously in regards to this tragic war. All that they can do now is say that Bush/the Iraqi invasion is great and then work backwards from there. People get invested in politics like they get invested in sports teams. Try convincing a Red Sox fan to root for the Yankees.... Groupthink or partisan blindless, they're both unsavory and are among the bigger pitfalls of democratic societies.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Even if we're not using our WMDs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name a greater weapon of mass destruction than the fully mobilized military of the United States of America.

 

Very clever indeed!
Just because you can't think of anything to say in response to my humiliating assualt on your precious Micheal Moore and the lunacy he preaches doesn't mean you're allowed to insult a whole half the population of the U.S. (Bush's approval ratings are like a 48% right now)

Your right, our Military is pretty badass . that's an understatement of course, the U.S. annually spends 400 billion on defence. thats as much as the next 40 countries combined!!!! (the second highest spender is Japan at 40 billion, and then China at like 25 Billion)

But a weapon of mass destruction is generally defined as a nuclear chemical or biological weapon.

 

Re: Iamthepope

[ QUOTE ]
IamthePope said:

In response to what Vith_dos said:

he is a Hippie(or protester, or activist,or whatever he calls himself). Hippies are the scum of the earth and have little or no common sence. never try arguing with a hippie, it is impossible to reason with them or make them see reason. Hippies come crawling out of the woodwork whenever there is a war to protest for rediculous, nonsencical, reasons they probably don't understand. people who throw out comments like "[the Bush Administration] should be hung" and consider themselves "protesters" are the real evil to society. If you can't understand the Bush Administration, read a book or watch the news, but don't waste my time by saying stupid things.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL you must be starved for attention.

I hope you enjoy your rights because if it werent for protestors you wouldnt have many of them. I'll be a hippy but you are an ignorant jackass. I'm done with replying to this thread.

 

Re: Iamthepope

It's funny when someone accuses another of lacking common sense when they can't spell "sense."

Iamthepope, I know where you are coming from. I feel like I've met you in countless incarnations. I am not going to respond to all your posts. They are so poorly written they refute themselves. You are making MAXIMUM seem clever.

And it's just silly to go after VithDos and call him a hippie and then declare all who you deem "hippies" "protesters" or "activists" to be "scum of the Earth." I've now responded to you in excess of what you deserve. If I were in charge I would ban you, less for your politics and more for your outright stupidity and mangling of the English language. Yes, I said it. Your writing is an embarrassment to the world of internet message boards, and the bar isn't set so high. For the good of mankind, please do not go forth and multiply.

 

[ QUOTE ]
SgtRamrod said:

Wow! It looks like maxi has a new rhetorical ally. Curses! And its a clever Texan no less! Retreat!!! These foes are beyond our reckoning!!


[/ QUOTE ]

You really are a condescending prick and a fucking snob to boot. Your insulting posts have really shown the limits of your tiny middle-class brain.

I've answered all your ridiculous ignorant ramblings about the war. Don't try and drag me into a debate about G Bush or American elections, because I don't care. My stance on the war has more to do with my personal beliefs, not because I support a particular political figure.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Your right, our Military is pretty badass . that's an understatement of course, the U.S. annually spends 400 billion on defence.

[/ QUOTE ]

And wouldn't it be a shame if we let all that money go to waste?

[ QUOTE ]
But a weapon of mass destruction is generally defined as a nuclear chemical or biological weapon.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've got those too!!!

Word, dude...we kick major fucking ass. You could line all the great armies of history up in a row and we could assfuck the lot of them with lead. We're so fucking cool.

In fact, I blow myself to sleep every night imagining my cock is a smartbomb and my mouth is a carefully selected target located by satellite from high above the earth.

Oooh oooh. Nono...located by one of those AWAX spy planes with the big plate things on top. With night vision. Yeah. Fucking night vision. I see you!

When the missile reaches its target and its rock hard fury burrows into the quivering wetness of my mouth, I forget about the pain in my neck and back as the ordinance splashes about my face. If it hits me in the chest, I like to call it collateral damage.

We should find a chatroom, just the two of us.

 

In response to Iamthepope:

“Saddam was a pretty bad dudeâ€Â
“Saddam was thought to have WMD's and be in contact with Al Queida.â€Â
“No WMD's were ever found but Saddam had the capacity to make WMD'sâ€Â
“He may not have been an imminent threat but he was a threatâ€Â

So because Saddam was a bad dude, we went to war? Because he had the capacity to build WMD’s? Because he was in contact with Al Qaeda once? The US was in contact with Al Qaeda also. Why aren’t we attacking all countries which have contact with terrorist groups, or all countries that have the ability to build WMD’s? Is the US able to look into the future and determine whether Saddam would be an imminent threat, and does this justify attacking Iraq? Why don’t we attack N. Korea, who has threatened the world with real WMD’s? Is that more of an imminent threat than Iraq?

“Finally, if you can't recognise the fact that George Bush is a very intelligent man I pity you partisan blindness, and foolishness.â€Â

How do you measure intelligence? Grades? George Bush went to Yale and graduated with a 2.35 GPA. He got a C in “Introduction to the American Political Systemâ€Â. His SAT was 200 points lower than the average Yale freshman but he was able to attend because he was a child of George HW Bush, an alumni.

A quote from Laura Bush, spouse: "George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."

How do you determine whether someone is smart or not? Is it someone who thinks before they acts?

“But there is no way around it, Micheal Moore is a crazy socialist conspiracy theorist who makes propaganda films.â€Â

What’s the definition of propaganda? Is propaganda spreading misinformation to the public? What happened before the Iraq war? Bush stated that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States. He said that Iraq was storing WMD’s. He said that Saddam was plotting to attack the US. Is this propaganda? Was this done knowingly and based off of faulty intelligence? Was the war ‘pushed’ for any reason?

“(After the info about the torture in Iraq): listen to this moron rant about how much he hate George Bush. pretty dumb aint he.â€Â

Why is he dumb? Because he doesn’t like torture? Do you like torture? Is it not true that Bush’s administration signed documents exempting soldiers from international torture laws? Is it not true that he used the media to dehumanize the Iraqi people and make them seem almost, not real to us? Would you hate someone if they tortured someone close to you?

“Name one Company George Bush "ran into the ground". he only entered public life when he bought stock in the Texas Rangers(which was enormously successful) and ran for Governor(which he served the maximum of 4 terms as).â€Â

George W. Bush formed Arbusto Energy in 1977, which was bought by Spectrum 7 after it went bankrupt. Spectrum 7 was also bankrupted in 1986, when it was saved by Harken energy. These financial troubles are partially explained by the oil crisis, but his father’s businesses were still alive during these years.

George W. Bush then allegedly used insider information when trading shares of Harken but investigations done as his father was president turned up false. However, the investigation concluded that wrongdoing was certainly possible.

Therefore he technically was CEO of two companies that went bankrupt.

“we are a benevelent and democratic nation with the intent of maintaining the stability of the world and promoting freedom and democracyâ€Â

Democracy means listening to other people’s opinions when making a decision, right? Why is it that many of the US’ allies did not support a war with Iraq, but we went ahead and did it anyway?

“people who throw out comments like "[the Bush Administration] should be hung" and consider themselves "protesters" are the real evil to society.â€Â

Are protestors evil? What about the protestors of the Vietnam War? Were they evil? What about anti-abortion protestors? Are they evil? What about the Tiananmen Square protestors? Are they evil? The African American protestors of the 60s? The Women’s Rights protestors? Should we always keep our head down and agree 100% with what the government says?

“Just because you can't think of anything to say in response to my humiliating assualt on your precious Micheal Moore and the lunacy he preaches doesn't mean you're allowed to insult a whole half the population of the U.S.â€Â

How did you assault Moore? You called him a “crazy socialist conspiracy theorist who makes propaganda filmsâ€Â. You didn’t offer any backup. You didn’t refute any of the points he made in his movie. Half the population of the U.S. supports Bush, and half supports other candidates; many of these people are ‘protestors’. You’ve insulted them.

“Your right, our Military is pretty badass . that's an understatement of course, the U.S. annually spends 400 billion on defence.â€Â

Is this a good thing to spend a ton of money on the military? Do we want to defend our nation or attack other countries? Who attacked first in the Iraq war? Is this defense?

Iamthepope, what are your views on the war? Do you think that Iraq deserved to be attacked? What exactly did they do to the US after 9/11? What kind of connections did they have with the terrorist attacks? Did they have WMD’s after we searched the country? Was Bush wrong?

Sorry about the length of this post, but I just wanted to know what you think. I’d appreciate it if you responded to the points that I’ve made. I read every one of your posts and put them all together, so it’d be cool if you read mine.

All factual information about GWB taken from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Laura Bush quote and grade in Yale class lifted from:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064/

Maximum:

Don’t listen to people insulting you. Screw them.
Democracy isn’t about letting the people have control over every policy decision. However, large decisions that impact the entire nation, economically and politically, are a little more important then a small policy change. I believe that the countries leaders that supported the war should have presented their case to their people and let them decide in a matter like this. Getting involved in a war can open up a country for counter attack later. The safety of the people is paramount, at least in my opinion. After all, we came into Iraq, at least partially, to allow the people a better way of life. Whether that desire will be realized is only for the future to decide.

On Israel and Palestine: I feel that the war has been so historical and unending to the people that they don’t know how to stop. People are so entrenched in their beliefs that they will never stop fighting. I wish everyone would stop killing each other and try to share the land. At this point, it doesn’t matter whose it is anymore. As long as everyone can live peacefully without worrying about getting shot, I think it’s a better life than a constant, never ending struggle.

I don’t think the ends will justify the means in Iraq. I don’t think the means were intended for the ‘right’ ends in the first place. Time will tell...

 

Wow. thats a big post. let me start at the beginning and I'll try to explain myself since you obvious put alot of work into that post.

When I said Saddam was in contact with terrorists I was reffering to the contacts Al Queida operatives and the Iraqi embassy in the Sudan(sorry I don't have a news link for this). What reason would there be to be in contact with Al Queida? If you are doing business with Al Queida, you are aiding them. The U.S. was not in contact with Al Queida in that way since we have been after that terrorist group ever since the 1993 WTC bombing. As for why don't we attack N. Korea, Saddam had been a continuing problem for 13 years ever since the end of the Persian Gulf War. He had spent that time making fools of the U.N. weapons inspectors( he would not let them enter sites, move stuff around in trucks behind their backs and play all sorts of games with them). N. Korea is a greater threat but we must take one thing at a time. Also N. Korea is in the immediate vicinity of S. Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. All of these nations are capable of dealing with N. Korea either diplomaticly or militarily so there is still a hope that the North Koreans can someday reunite with the South as a democracy without the need to use military force.

Ok, maybe "very intelligent" was going too far( don't look too much into his grades since George Bush always said he had a "mispent youth") but he's at least as smart as his father, as smart as Reagan, as smart as Carter, so you don't need to be a genius to be a good president.

I said Micheal Moore was a "conspiracy theorist" and that he makes "propaganda films". Well, he is a conspiracy theorist in that he theorizes about conspiracies. He has spoken about George Bush rigging the election or somehow manipulating the voting. When I said his films were "propaganda" that was a generalized statement. Micheal Moore presents selective truths and ignores contradictory evidence in order to convince people of his views. His "documentaries" are in no way fair, they don't allow the other side to express their views, they are in a sence like a big campaign ad, and we can agree those ads are election year propaganda.

The "misinformation" that the president was alledgedly spreading was what he and everyone else at the time beleived. It's not his job to find out weather or not Saddam had WMDs. He and every other head of state was told Saddam had WMDs. The President did not lie because he beleived he was telling the truth.

About that torture post. I was just angry a the way Sgt. Ram-Ass presented it. I will admit I was being cheap and spiteful.

As for the Presidents business past, I was unaware of the companies that went under when he was in charge. thanks for the info. but as you said that wasn't entirely his fault since in the 70's oil companies were going under left and right.

About democracy, we did listen to our people and before the war 2/3 of the populace(and nearly the entire House and Senate) supported the war. But being the President of the United States means also being a leader of your countrymen and a leader of nations. As the worlds most powerful nation the U.S. holds the position of leadership in the international community. When some of our allies supported us and some did not we lead a "Coalition of the Willing" to topple Saddam.

No, all protester are not evil. I was speaking in context to the rediculous remarks that Vith_Dos made about the President being hung. sorry if I went overboard.

Don't read to much into what I say to Sgt. Ram-Ass, we were in a shouting match.

No, it is unfortunate we must spend so much treasure on our military. If we could simply be isolationist and nuetral like Japan we probably would be. But since the U.S. is the greatest benefactor of the spread of capatalism and prosperity the responsibility for maintaining the stability of the world economy falls to us. If the U.S. were not to use it's mighty military who would contain the spread of Communism, repulse the N. Koreans over the 38th Parrallel, remove Saddam from Kuwait, destroy the Taliban, or depose of the Baath Party. Not the U.N., certainly not Russia( they would probably still be communist now), and not the E.U. (European militaries even though they use first world technology, are underfunded by pacifist goverment and laughably small with the exeption of France and the UK). That is why the U.S. must bare this burden, so the rest of the world can sleep safe at night.

As for my views on the war, I beleive the U.S. was morally justified in removing Saddam. Economicaly the invasion may have been a blunder since we have spent so much money waging war and rebuilding Iraq, and now we learn that Iraq had no WMD's so the potential damage that Iraq could have caused us and that the war would have prevented doesn't balace. Only time will tell weather making Iraq a democracy will have a positive effect on the Middle East and lead to some kind of reforms. This was an enormous risk that President Bush took and if it works out George Bush will be remembered as one of our greatest president for leading us in the days after 9/11 and having the vision to see a way out of an endless cycle of violence. If not, and this war goes terribly wrong, George Bush will be seen as one of our worst presidents for leading the U.S. into the greatest blunder in our nations history. I hope it works out. Only time will tell.

 

If we were waging war against every government that had terrorist ties, or had threatened the United States, I would not have the problems I do with this war. If I had any hope that the government we put in Iraq would withstand the test of time, that when we abandon it in ten or twenty years, it would remain our ally and would not fall, I would have fewer problems. If we were openly invading to conquer the country and its resources, I would have fewer problems than I do with the war in Iraq. If we were going and deposing every leader who was responsible for inhumane actions, I would have fewer problems than I do with the war in Iraq.

Our leaders lied to us about why we invaded Iraq. They lied when they said that Iraq was the number one threat to the United States. They lied about Iraq having massive amounts of WMDs. This isn't a just war. The reasons we invaded Iraq were not any of the above. We invaded Iraq because it had alienated itself from all of its neighbors, and because it has immense natural resources that people associated with those in positions of power can exploit for massive profits. Syria should have been invaded before Iraq. Libya should have been invaded before Iraq. Close your eyes and point at a map of Africa - odds are, you'll pick a government that is more brutal than Saddam.

You're sitting there saying "Well, we liberated the people of Iraq from the brutality of Saddam's regime. Isn't that a good thing?" Well, it would be... but that's not the reason we invaded. It's like telling your girlfriend you're going to take her out on a date in your brand new Porsche, and pulling up in a rusted out clunker. Yeah, it's not new, and it's not a Porsche, but at least I picked her up for the date, right? That makes everything OK, and she won't be ticked at all that she gets her clothes dirty from the nasty upholstery in your hoopty.

They lied when they said this would not turn into a protracted ground operation. The moment we overthrew the government of Iraq and took over the role of 'peacekeeper', we placed ourselves into a Vietnam situation. Go read the speeches of the presidents at the beginning of the Vietnam war and the end of the Vietnam war, then compare them to what you see happening today in Iraq and the speeches made by Bush. We are locked into several years of American troops dying, by a deliberate design placed into effect by our leaders against a foriegn country that was not at war with us and had not attacked us, that did not have hard ties to the people who were responsible for the attacks on US territory, that was less of a threat to the US than several other (poorer) countries.

I'm disgusted with this war. I hate every time I turn on the TV and see that more American troops have died. I hate when I hear that the fighting is more intense now than it has been since the war ended. And I hate that it's not a war that was waged for the safety of this country, that it's not a war that makes the world a safer place for Americans, that this war has been initiated for no benefit to America as a whole.

 

Iamthepope: I appreciate your (long) post man, Thanks for reading mine, I’ll try to make this shorter. =)

"When I said Saddam was in contact with terrorists I was reffering to the contacts Al Queida operatives and the Iraqi embassy in the Sudan(sorry I don't have a news link for this). What reason would there be to be in contact with Al Queida? If you are doing business with Al Queida, you are aiding them."

As far as I've heard, correct me if I'm wrong, Saddam had some kind of deal with them but then he cut all ties. I don't know if this constitutes as doing business... but the US has funded many extremist groups in the past and had them perform tasks in parts of the world where the US can’t afford to be involved directly.

“Saddam had been a continuing problem for 13 years ever since the end of the Persian Gulf War. He had spent that time making fools of the U.N. weapons inspectors( he would not let them enter sites, move stuff around in trucks behind their backs and play all sorts of games with them). N. Korea is a greater threat but we must take one thing at a time.â€Â

I don’t know how big of a problem countries need to be before we start a war with them. It’s kind of weird though, we got into the Iraq conflict with full knowledge of China and N. Korea’s larger, more ‘imminent’ threat. I just don’t think that Saddam playing with weapon inspectors from the UN was enough justification to go to war with them. It’s kind of like killing someone for saying that they have a knife in their pocket, or a gun, when there A. isn’t one, and B. there’s no solid evidence of one anyway. Just my opinion though.

“He(Moore) has spoken about George Bush rigging the election or somehow manipulating the voting.â€Â

There was a lot of controversy over that. There is also quite a bit of interesting coincidences about Florida. You have the strange ballot, you have the NAACP protesting that many African American votes were not recognized. You have Jeb Bush being governor. I’m not saying that it did happen, but there were a lot of problems with the election.

“The "misinformation" that the president was alledgedly spreading was what he and everyone else at the time beleived. It's not his job to find out weather or not Saddam had WMDs. He and every other head of state was told Saddam had WMDs. The President did not lie because he beleived he was telling the truth.â€Â

Maybe this goes back to the ‘think before you act’ thing. Why do you say Bush was not responsible for finding out whether there were WMDs or not? Wasn’t that one of the main reasons we went to war? In Moore’s documentary (which I agree is very biased and one sided), there are clips showing Bush say that he never claimed Saddam was a ‘imminent threat’, but shown right after those clips are him and several members of his cabinet telling congress and the American people that Saddam must be stopped now, before he starts blowing us up with the vast stores of chemical and nuclear weapons he had.

When Bush presented his case to the public for going into Iraq, much of the information he used was found to be false. However, the scary thing is that the intelligence agencies supplying the information knew that it was unreliable and could possibly be incorrect. Bush presented this information to the US as fact. He used ‘selective truths’, didn’t present any contradictory evidence, and many times, if people disagreed with them, they would be labeled as ‘unpatriotic’. Is this not the same thing Moore did? This is also the exact same thing that any campaign ad will do. I almost wish that a candidate could just not attack the opponent and be successful. There was a Reagan ad like that that I watched, I hope there are more of those.

“That is why the U.S. must bare this burden, so the rest of the world can sleep safe at night.â€Â

The US is a strong nation, and we have a good defense and military. It is our obligation, and burden, to help police the world, but in such a way as that the rest of the world appreciates and supports our actions, in my opinion. However, we don’t use our military to ‘protect’ others as much as we think we do, and as much as we did in the past. Moreover, many people from the Middle East hate the US. It’s not because they hate freedom. It’s because the US has been involved in so much conflict in the region that they come to symbolize the US with death and war. Not everyone in the world curls up at night, thanking the US for keeping them safe. And Europe was not the least bit threatened by Iraq at all. Who are we protecting, really?

“I beleive the U.S. was morally justified in removing Saddam...Only time will tell weather making Iraq a democracy will have a positive effect on the Middle East and lead to some kind of reforms.â€Â

This is the argument that Maximum is making, and it isn’t a bad one. However, think about the situation in Iraq right now. Many, many civilians have died. Many people have been tortured by our soldiers. Footage of interviews with soldiers show a basic lack of respect for the people. You might say, well it’s war, and these are soldiers, and they are high strung and stressed, etc. But as Americans, they are ambassadors to Iraq. Their actions are perceived as the US’ actions. That’s why when Bush signed documents nullifying international torture laws, it basically says to the world that we don’t have respect for people of other cultures. It is just part of dehumanizing people, so that as Americans they never become more than a statistic to us.

Sorry, not much shorter… =P

 

There was no Saddam/Al Queda co operation whatsoever.
Osama had a price on saddams head.
Why on earth would someone get into a partnership with someone who is out for your life?

Idiots.

 

the U.S. has done things in its past for it's own good that I'm not proud of and would rather forget. As for N. Korea, the world will deal with them soon enough. let's just take one problem at a time. About the Florida elections, in all probability no conspiracy took place. Micheal Moore is just connecting dots where there are none.

When I said "it's not the presidents responsibility to find out if Iraq has WMDs". It is not. that was former CIA director George Tenet's job, and he screwed up big time. True Bush could have second guessed his own intelligence agency. everything is clear in retrospect.

In the lead up to the war the Bush administration needed every bit of evidence available to convince congress and the media that the Presidents disicion was correct. because of this the CIA was preassured to turn in intelligence that may not have been completely verified to bolster the argument for war. When afterwards we find that some of these peices of intellegence were flawed some people say "Bush lied", but thats nonsense. He simply restated what was told to him by his intelligence agency. Clinton, the Congress, the Senate, and the United Nations all agreed Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't just George Bush who was mistaken. Don't compare Micheal Moore's Character assasination movie, with it's open disregard for the obvious truths, to the President's case for war.

If an atomic bomb found its way into the hands of Al Queida they could just as easily blow up Paris, as New York (before the war started the CIA was coming out with reports that said Iraq would have Atomic weapons by 2010). Although Washington D.C. or Tel Aviv would have been the probable target of such an attack. Europeans didn't feel threatened because 19 hijackers didn't kill 3000 Europeans or knock down the Eiffel Tower. Don't you think its ironic that Isreal, the only other nation that has to deal with these fanatical, islamic, suicide bombers, was also the only nation whose populace supported the war. Europeans are asleep to the danger in the world as we were before 9/11. maybe one day they'll wake up and help us.(when I say europeans I'm not referring to the U.K., the U.K. seems to be separated from the mentality of the european mainland.)

I think what you are referring to when you say "Bush signed documents nullifying international torture laws" is a decision by the Administration that the U.S. soliders should not be held on trial at the international court in the Hague. This doesn't mean the guards from Abu Graib will escape justice. they are currently being court martialed and then will face a criminal court in either the U.S. or Iraq. Or you might be referring to the executive order signed after 9/11 that gave interrogaters more leeway in an interrogation. George Bush abhores torture and never authorized the techniques used in Abu Graib. Furthermore he never ordered anyone to torture anyone.

 

Good post, btw. I haven't necessarily agreed with all your posts so far but this one nailed a few very good points.

People seem to be assuming that failed intelligence implies a lie. I honestly think Bush and Blair went to war with good intentions - they listened to the intelligence available at the time and theorised what could happpen is fundamentalist groups secured chemical or biological weapons. 9/11 would be a picnic compared to the mass-murder these people could unleash on population centres with athe aid of WMD.

I also agree that allot of Europe is asleep to the threat. If the UK goverment is different perhaps it's because we've had to endure the terrorism in Northern Ireland. We've learnt the importance of disarming groups with a extreme cause and restricting their access to dangerous weapons.

Another thing we've learned is that terrorists don't just go away, nor can you make pacts with them by taking a neutral stance.

 

What bulshit.
They didnt act in good faith, they presented shoddy inteligence some of it disproven by the international community BEFORE they presented it as fact(Blair if only you could see the same clasified inteligence I saw no one would doubt the necesity, well then where is it?)

As for UK being different, urm there was no popular majority in the UK for the war so they were NOT different from the rest of Europe in any way, that and you again try to draw this into a struggle of people who have known Oppresion or terrorism so we who in your view have not known simply cant understand.

In doing so you twist the truth, insult us and are intelectually dishonest.
Not to mention downright wrong.
Or am i just imagening the CCC, November 17th, ETA, Bader Meinhoff and a dozen other terrorist organisation that have been active on mainland Europe in the last few decades.

You continue to spout uninformed dribble as fact.

Your not lowest on the pole though, your religious compadre here isnt even worth replying to, at least with you I get the urge to react now and then.

 

I said the UK goverment, and seeing as it was largely the responsibility of the goverment to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland I fail to see your point about public support.

As for the intelligence, the whole international community (yes including your precious France and Germany) believed Saddam had weapons stockpiles and was actively securing more. That's why a UN resolution was being drafted weeks before the war which the majority of members were willing to sign up to, except France, Russia and Germany.

These three countries didn't threaten to veto because they believed the intelligence was wrong. If you're trying to imply that, please don't. France wanted a resolution that would permit force after further breach of resolutions by Iraq.

The main point of contention was whether or not Saddam represented a "present threat". It's true certain nations took a particular stance on this, but it was never clearly proven either way with concrete intelligence. If it was there wouldn't of been a disagreement in the first place.

 

Sorry, I don't have time to write a response because I'm studying for a test. But check this article out: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

This is one of those things that just makes me doubt the validity of the 'Bush had nothing to do with it" argument. Also, even if Tenet screwed up, does Bush deserve no responsibility? Could he have waited a little longer? Why did he move so fast?

I'll respond more in depth later.

 

You really ARE clueless.
Check Joska Fischers comments before spouting of more nonsens.
Germany did threaten to veto BECOUSE THE CASE WAS NOT PROVEN, Belgium was actually the only country who used a REAL veto and that was at Nato level against sending anti rocket missiles to turkey becouse that would imply a war was certain when the deadlines had not run yet.

In short you are blatantly wrong yet again.

You are clueles as to what happened, who did what when and what their motives were yet you feel the need to lecture those who actually have a clue.