Erios, I love you for that post you made [no homo]. I can't see how some people can still continue to be fooled. As I said before, Bush listened to defectors who obviously wanted Saddam to be removed, and were con men and criminals themselves. And Bush listened to the Israelis, and pro-Israel neocons in his cabinet. And the Brits. Yeah, all the these people had no vested interests vis-a-vis having an anti-Western strong Arab leader in power, and were really after the truth.

Bush had his mind made up about attacking Iraq since he took power. He was going to do it one way or another. 9/11 just gave him a great excuse, and anybody who questioned it was called as a traitor. False "intelligence" from con men and criminals was believed so as to present it to the world as justification for attacking.

Benyamin Netanyahu (YES, the former ISRAELI leader), Daniel Pipes, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Douglas Feith, and other rabid Likudniks/Zionists crafted this war as far back as 1999. Look it up.

The war was to remove a "threat to Israel". It was not for

- bringing democracy to Arabia
- bringing freedom to the oppressed under Saddam
- WMDs
- whatever other facade that was presented to the world



And tmmercer,

Quote :

"If we had'nt no country was ever going to respect our agreements in the future."

What drug are you high on? The reputation of the US on the international stage has been brought down to the lowest levels because of the aggression called as the Iraq War.

9/6/2007 5:25:52 PM

Quote :

"The reputation of the US on the international stage has been brought down to the lowest levels because of the aggression called as the Iraq War."

and because of people like you

9/6/2007 5:28:41 PM

To be fair, I think that at the time, most people genuinely thought that Saddam had WMDs in there somewhere. It is entirely possible that the entire country, possibly even much of the world, was guilty of the supposed "groupthing" that had allegedly infected the CIA.

I really think that you need to sit back and look at the time that this happened, 9/11 notwithstanding. How many times had we heard that Saddam had frustrated the UN's weapons inspectors? A ton, and the whole world was hearing this in the 90s. So, even when (if, in my mind) Saddam did comply with the UN inspectors, most of the world still held a high level of doubt.

Now, this doesn't absolve anyone of any guilt, especially if the actual intelligence was pointing elsewhere and they knew it and intentionally ignored it, but I don't think it is 100% fair to look at this as if it all occurred in a vacuum.

And then, 9-11 hit us and that pressured even more people not to do the diligent thing in oversight (read: Congress), because they didn't want to look soft. While some may accuse the neo-cons of calling dissenters traitors, I think the problem is more indicative of the current state of politics overall, not just in one party or the other or in the current administration: politicians are more concerned with making the voters happy today than with doing what they should do. I wish that both parties would take at look at this issue from that perspective, instead of sitting there covering their ass on one front and attacking the other party on another. Ultimately, the problem will recur if the politicians don't pull their heads out of their asses (or the people who vote in said politicians time and time again...)

9/6/2007 5:31:47 PM

Quote :

"So I'm confused. What exactly is the "top-secret intelligence" on which the CIA briefed Dubya? Is it something the Iraqi Foreign Minister (IFM) said directly? Is it documents from him or his office? I'm having a hard time seeing why "information from the [IFM]" would be considered "top-secret intelligence""

From the original article:

Quote :

"who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD"

Basically 'documentary intelligence' suggests that the information was gathered not through conversations with the IFM but rather through some sort of correspondence, assessments, etc (ie: Documents). Now how they were aquired is another topic entirely.

9/6/2007 5:39:12 PM

Quote :

"tmmercer : Evidence was presented to the UN that suggested the presence of weapons of mass destruction"

oh, you mean those posterboards with cartoons drawn on them about how Saddam had poison missles pointed at grandma's bedroom window?

LOL

the only thing that was presented to the UN was Colin Powell's substantial personal and professional credibility.

9/6/2007 5:44:15 PM

Quote :

"because thats international politics? I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you saying we shouldn't be talking to the Iraqis just because they're "bad" people?"

I'm driving at why would Tenet even tell it to Bush? If you're determining whether to invade Iraq on whether they have mass weapons or not, why would Tenet take the trouble to tell Bush what the Iraqi Foreign Minister says on whether they have WMDs or not?

Bush: "Are we sure Iraq has WMDs?"
Tenet: "I just talked to the Iraqi Foreign Minister, and they told me they did not have any."

That just doesn't sound right. Why ask your rival and give anything he says an ounce of legitimacy?

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM. Reason : /]

9/6/2007 5:50:36 PM

^ Check out my post two posts above yours. The article makes no mention of any direct conversations between the DCI and the Iraqi FM. The information was gleaned from 'documentary intelligence'

9/6/2007 6:49:55 PM

Quote :

"and because of people like you"

Wow, if I have been able to measureably bring down the reputation (on the international stage) of the strongest country the world has ever seen, then I must be a pretty powerful and influential guy.

[ ]

P.S. Actually, because of people like you, and all the other hawks and warmongers in this country (several on this board).

********************************************************************

Quote :

"How many times had we heard that Saddam had frustrated the UN's weapons inspectors?"

For how many decades has Israel flouted UN resolutions and international laws? What about Israel's WMDs, including it's 200 nukular warheads? Those are kosher, right?

This is the flagrant and insidious hypocrisy that is destroying the world, and will destroy the world one day.

When Israel is brought up, all the neocons, Zionists, evangelical Zionists, pro-Israelis say the UN is bullshit and its resolutions mean nothing.

But when Iraq is brought up, the same people again point, this time approvingly, to the UN resolutions Iraq was flouting.

Interestingly enough, all this has been foretold in Islam. I don't practice Islam at all, nor believe in it much, but it keeps proving its predictions and prophecies right.


[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 7:07 PM. Reason : ]

9/6/2007 6:51:19 PM

Quote :

"Interestingly enough, all this has been foretold in Islam. I don't practice Islam at all, nor believe in it much, but it keeps proving its predictions and prophecies right."

Interesting. I'd like to hear more about this.

9/6/2007 7:23:24 PM

Somewhere in Sweden, Hans Blix is shaking his fist right now.

9/6/2007 7:57:23 PM

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

(CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.

Quote :

"The parts, with accompanying plans, were unearthed by Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago under orders from Qusay Hussein and Saddam Hussein's then son-in-law, Hussein Kamel. U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking."

http://us.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

Suspect shells examined in Iraq

Coalition experts are examining dozens of mortar shells found in southern Iraq which could contain chemical weapons.

Quote :

"Danish troops who found them said they showed traces of blister gases - compounds which include mustard gas."

Quote :

"The 36 120mm shells appear to have been buried for at least 10 years, the Danes said."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3386357.stm



U.S. Jets Fire on Iraqi Missile Site

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 29, 1998 – U.S. fighter jets patrolling the no-fly zone over northern Iraq fired on an Iraqi missile site after it launched surface-to-air missiles at them Dec. 28."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=41722

Apparently, according to the "logic" used by some here, it's perfectly acceptable for a rogue, dictatorial state to use and possess WMDs--in violation of United Nations' rules--as long as that country buries them for a while and the United States maintains the status quo. In addition, it's all right for that rogue state to fire on US jets. Is that about right?

I think many of you simply suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 8:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2007 8:44:39 PM

Do you just queue these posts up and then when you think you can apply them, you just paste em in and sit back and smile like you accomplished something, when what really happens is we sit here scratching our head wondering what the hell point it was you were trying to make?

Just wait a damn minute.

You posted that shit in some other thread last week, and got summarily owned because of it.

Stop copying and pasting bullshit you vapid cunt.

9/6/2007 10:07:16 PM

Quote :

""If we had'nt no country was ever going to respect our agreements in the future." Not to be an asshole, but . . . um . . . Iraq really hasn't helped us there."

I'll offer you N. Korea. A country we said we didn't want to sit down with 1 on 1 (for whatever bunk reasons). Then we quietly did, and they agreed to stop their nuke programs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/world/asia/03nkorea.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And we didn't even have to invade them.

Why hasn't this news made more headlines? Is it just not sexy like the Iraq war? Does the Bush administration look weak when they have to settle for talk and things get accomplished, rather than fighting on a foreigners soil?

9/6/2007 10:11:49 PM

Quote :

"For how many decades has Israel flouted UN resolutions and international laws? What about Israel's WMDs, including it's 200 nukular warheads? Those are kosher, right? This is the flagrant and insidious hypocrisy that is destroying the world, and will destroy the world one day. When Israel is brought up, all the neocons, Zionists, evangelical Zionists, pro-Israelis say the UN is bullshit and its resolutions mean nothing. But when Iraq is brought up, the same people again point, this time approvingly, to the UN resolutions Iraq was flouting."

You know, when fucking terrorists in Lebanon fire rockets AT CIVILIANS in Israel and the UN turns around and blasts Israel for responding in defense, then I think it is fair to cast a wary eye at the UN and how it treats Israel. Furthermore, when Israel shows even the slightest hint of having a crazed lunatic, willing to use WMDs at the drop of a hat, as its dictator, then we can start talking about disarming Israel. Until then, get the fuck off of your Jew-hating kick, you racist asshole.

I didn't point to the weapons inspectors as a paragon of UN greatness. Rather, I pointed to them as an example of WHY people thought Saddam had WMDs. Stop with the red herrings here and get off of your anti-Jew agenda, ok?

9/6/2007 10:39:11 PM

Quote :

"Until then, get the fuck off of your Jew-hating kick, you racist asshole."

Quote :

"anti-Jew agenda"

See, the hypocrisy again. People can hate on Arab leaders and people, and nobody calls them racist. But point out the flaws of ISRAEL as a COUNTRY/government (not the JEWISH people), and you are called a racist, Jew hater, anti-Semite, etc.

Since I was lambasting Israeli policies/leaders, and you called me a "Jew-hater", "anti-Jew", and a "racist asshole", I can similar things to those who hate Saddam, Bin Ladin, Saudi government, Qaddafi, Iranian religious leaders, etc.

You are an Arab-hater, anti-Arab, anti-Semite, and a racist asshole for decrying Saddam, Bin Ladin, etc.

You pro-Israeli neocons are not known for fairness and consistency, are you? (and honesty)

Red-herring? If Benyamin Netanyahu along with several American Likudniks/Zionists were the architects of this war, how is the topic of Israel a red-herring?


[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 10:48 PM. Reason : ]

9/6/2007 10:47:10 PM

no, I call you a racist asshole because you ARE a RACIST asshole. I'm not talking about Arab leaders, unless you happen to be an Arab leader. Once again, ANOTHER red herring. Furthermore, you don't hate Israel for it's gov't. You hate it for its JEWS. And THAT is what makes you a racist asshole.

The fact is, Israel can do no right in your eyes. Never could, never will. And it's of its Jews, as far as you are concerned. So don't try and hide behind the "I was attacking Israel," because in all honesty, you are attacking the Jews. You just want to be able to hide behind your faux moral high-ground of "I don't like 'Israel.'" And I'll call you out for your bullshitting ANY day of the week.

Quote :

"If Benyamin Netanyahu along with several American Likudniks/Zionists were the architects of this war, how is the topic of Israel a red-herring?"

well, if you could actually support that with something a little more weighty than salisburyboy's typical fare, then maybe.

9/6/2007 10:54:30 PM

Quote :

"it's all right for that rogue state to fire on US jets. Is that about right?"

US jets flying over that rogue states airspace....no-fly zone or not...its still belonging to Iraq.

Israel is an aggressor, always has been. There is no denying that. And since when are soldiers firing rockets at its enemy considered 'terrorism'? I guess if you don't drive a tank and have proper artillery and an air force to hide behind, then you are a terrorist.

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 11:04 PM. Reason : fda]

9/6/2007 11:02:39 PM

Quote :

"You know, when fucking terrorists in Lebanon fire rockets AT CIVILIANS in Israel and the UN turns around and blasts Israel for responding in defense, then I think it is fair to cast a wary eye at the UN and how it treats Israel."

Did you see what they did to Lebanon?

Quote :

"You hate it for its JEWS."

I agree with basically everything Trap's said about Israel in this thread. I can't speak for him, but I certainly don't oppose Israeli foreign policy because of the religion of most of the country's citizens.

9/6/2007 11:14:45 PM

Quote :

"Did you see what they did to Lebanon? "

and what were they supposed to do? sit there and take the shelling and not respond?

Quote :

"And since when are soldiers firing rockets at its enemy considered 'terrorism'?"

And since when are civilians considered the "enemy" of those alleged "soldiers?" For what country were those "soldiers" fighting? You don't have to have tanks and an air force in order not to be a terrorist, but when you fire indiscriminately into heavily populated civilian areas for the express purpose of hitting civilians, then I'll call a spade a spade and say it's terrorism.

9/6/2007 11:25:25 PM

Quote :

"Furthermore, you don't hate Israel for it's gov't. You hate it for its JEWS."

Dude, you gonna tell me what I hate and for what? What are you high on, aarondonkey?

Quote :

"So don't try and hide behind the "I was attacking Israel," because in all honesty, you are attacking the Jews. You just want to be able to hide behind your faux moral high-ground of "I don't like 'Israel.'""

WTF is your problem dude? I have ALWAYS called out Israel, both here, and in real life, in conversations with Muslims, Arabs, non-Muslims, and non-Arabs. You are acting creepy man. I have never said anything about Jews, ever.

Also, when I bring up something relevant, you call it a red-herring (because you don't know it is relevant). But at the same time, you are telling me what I believe in.

WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE FALLACY WHERE YOU TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN AND WHAT THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN, AND IN FACT, SHOVE IT DOWN THEM FORCEFULLY USING CURSE WORDS AND INSULTS???

Should I also tell you that you hate Arabs and Muslims? Stop being an Arab-hater and a Muslim-hater

OBLIGATORY: I have a JEW friend (I did; he moved... heck, he even served in the Israeli military).

9/6/2007 11:27:14 PM

Quote :

"Apparently, according to the "logic" used by some here, it's perfectly acceptable for a rogue, dictatorial state to use and possess WMDs--in violation of United Nations' rules--as long as that country buries them for a while and the United States maintains the status quo. In addition, it's all right for that rogue state to fire on US jets. Is that about right?"

hooksaw, Reagan sold those WMDs to that rogue, dictatorial state in violation of UN rules. It's common knowledge dude. So do UN rules only apply to the US when we want them to?

Our arms sales are not correct, they weren't in this case, but for the Bush administration to get all up in arms over Saddam's arms is laughable, considering some members of Bush's administration helped sell them to Saddam. Arms sales to dictators are wrong all the time, you don't pick and choose. Why? Cause 10 years later they might be your f***ing enemy! Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Ladin, the Afghan mujahadeen and the Taliban, all former US allies!

And what did the administration do in August? They gave $13 billion in military aid to dictators in Saudi Arabia.

I am happy to hear though that you agree that the Bush administration selling arms to the Saudis is beyond stupid.



[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2007 11:28:53 PM

Quote :

"I have ALWAYS called out Israel, both here, and in real life, in conversations with Muslims, Arabs, non-Muslims, and non-Arabs."

yes, because it is convenient to call out 'Israel' so you don't look like the racist fuck that you are.

Quote :

"Also, when I bring up something relevant, you call it a red-herring "

well, if you would actually bring up something relevant, then I wouldn't call it a red-herring.

Quote :

"But at the same time, you are telling me what I believe in."

Actually, no. I'm calling bullshit on your claim of only attacking 'Israel.' Because it is bullshit.

Quote :

"Should I also tell you that you hate Arabs and Muslims? Stop being an Arab-hater and a Muslim-hater"

Hell, it'd be no less credible than anything else you've been saying, why not?

9/6/2007 11:30:15 PM

Quote :

"and what were they supposed to do? sit there and take the shelling and not respond?"

Blowing up bridges and killing hundreds of civilians wasn't the only possible response.

Quote :

"You don't have to have tanks and an air force in order not to be a terrorist, but when you fire indiscriminately into heavily populated civilian areas for the express purpose of hitting civilians, then I'll call a spade a spade and say it's terrorism."

Yeah, it was terrorism. A lot of things in war are. As far terrorism, goes, though, it wasn't exceptionally effective. Only fifty or so Israeli civilians died.

9/6/2007 11:31:28 PM

Quote :

"And since when are civilians considered the "enemy" of those alleged "soldiers?" For what country were those "soldiers" fighting? You don't have to have tanks and an air force in order not to be a terrorist, but when you fire indiscriminately into heavily populated civilian areas for the express purpose of hitting civilians, then I'll call a spade a spade and say it's terrorism. "

Great...you said it, not me. Israel is a terrorist nation. Because last i checked....Israel lobbed artillery shells into Beirut and the civilian casualties FAR out weighed the 'enemy combatant' casualties. Oh and dont forget all the women and children too.....or are you saying all Arabs are terrorist and therefore its free game?

Quote :

"They gave $15-20 billion in military aid to dictators in Saudi Arabia and Egypt."

LOL you are comparing Saddam, who WAS a dictator, to Hosni Mubarak. Need I remind you which middle eastern country is the only one to sign a peace agreement with Israel?

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 11:36 PM. Reason : fdsa]

9/6/2007 11:33:16 PM

Quote :

"Blowing up bridges and killing hundreds of civilians wasn't the only possible response."

well, what exactly do you expect to occur when the terrorists use civilians as human shields and place their weapons sites in and among civilians? Why blame the Israelis for what is effectively the fault of the terrorists? Again, are the Israelis to sit back and let the terrorists keep firing solely because the terrorists are hiding among civilians?

it's nice how you failed to address any thing else I stated in that post, though...

9/6/2007 11:34:51 PM

Quote :

"well, what exactly do you expect to occur when the terrorists use civilians as human shields and place their weapons sites in and among civilians? Why blame the Israelis for what is effectively the fault of the terrorists? Again, are the Israelis to sit back and let the terrorists keep firing solely because the terrorists are hiding among civilians? it's nice how you failed to address any thing else I stated in that post, though... "

LOL with that logic then there are no Isareli civilians since every Israeli citizen has to serve in the armed forces at one point or another....

9/6/2007 11:38:26 PM

Quote :

"Why blame the Israelis for what is effectively the fault of the terrorists?"

Why blame the Israelis? Because they dropped the bombs. It's simple.

Quote :

"Again, are the Israelis to sit back and let the terrorists keep firing solely because the terrorists are hiding among civilians?"

Maybe they should have. They shouldn't have leveled Lebanon to stop fairly pathetic attacks.

9/6/2007 11:40:02 PM

Quote :

"LOL you are comparing Saddam, who WAS a dictator, to Hosni Mubarak. Need I remind you which middle eastern country is the only one to sign a peace agreement with Israel? "

Mubarak is a dictator that has ruled for 26 consecutive years and has destroyed all internal dissent except for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Israeli peace agreement has nothing to deal with that and is irrelevant to the point that Mubarak is a dictator.

(The peace agreement was not Mubarak, it was Anwar Sadat.)

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2007 11:40:33 PM

Quote :

"Mubarak is a dictator that has destroyed all internal dissent except for the Muslim Brotherhood. The Israeli peace agreement has nothing to deal with that and is irrelevant to the point that Mubarak is a dictator. (The peace agreement was not Mubarak, it was Anwar Sadat.)"

wow....ignorant much? First....Mubarak has been fighting from day 1 against the Muslim Brotherhood. Because they are so dangerously close to power in Egypt and that would be a sad day for Christians.

Second....who the hell do you think was Sadat's VP? Go take a history lesson before you preach to me about Egypt and its history.

Third...Mubarak is far from a dictator. It would be better to call Bush a dictator then Mubarak. President for life != dictator.

Sorry to break it to you but total freedom that you believe you have here does not work in all countries and because of this there's Walgreen's all over Egypt.

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM. Reason : fda]

9/6/2007 11:44:11 PM

^ I stand by my statement. Mubarak is as much an honorable person as Gaddafi.

I don't want total freedom. I don't want us to make allies of future Saddams and future Osama bin Ladins and future Pinochets and future Duvaliers and future Batistas and future Talibans and future Shahs...

It's kinda bitten us in the ass, don't you think?

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 11:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2007 11:47:05 PM

You are an idiot! I stand by that.

Mubarak has slaughtered so many civilians in his 26 years of infamous rule. I am a refugee here because its not safe for me to go back to Egypt and visit......he's also behind so many terrorist attacks on poor little defenseless Israel......I'm surprised bush didn't go for Mubarak before Saddam....he's such a threat to the international community. Heck, Christians can't even practice their religion in Egypt anymore because all Christians are now being hunted by the brotherhood.

^just like the rest of the world doesn't want allies like America.....

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 11:51 PM. Reason : fda]

9/6/2007 11:47:30 PM

^ You've given up on supporting your argument and went to attacking my person. That means I win.

Mubarak is not a saint. I am well within my rights in saying that. Is he better than Saddam? Sure. If that's your standard I consider it pretty low and I'm glad you're not our President and will never get close to having any say in this country. People like Mubarak do not need us to oust him cause he leaves us alone, but that does not mean we need to give him aid.

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 11:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2007 11:50:10 PM

there is no argument...take a middle eastern history class THEN we can have an argument.

9/6/2007 11:51:37 PM

Quote :

"well, if you could actually support that with something a little more weighty than salisburyboy's typical fare, then maybe."

Hey, is it my fault you don't know anything about the Project for the New American Century? No, that's not some small or insginificant group, on the contrary, members of it occupy the highest positions in Bush's cabinet. And guess what, most of them are admitted self-confessed Zionists/Pro-Israelis, even though they are Americans. (Bolton, Perle, Feith, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Zoellick, Cheney etc) (and also ARMITAGE the asshole/liar who revealed that woman spy's identity in revenge because her husband had debunked the NIGER YELLOW CAKE story)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#PNAC_role_in_promoting_invasion_of_Iraq

And here it is straight from the horse's snake's mouth:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm

That letter to Clinton is also there.

Look at the titles of their policy letters/publications:

Quote :

"How to Attack Iraq A Way to Oust Saddam A 'Great Victory' For Iraq Saddam's Impending Victory Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough"

And many more. And these are all before 2000. And remember, it was the Undersecretary (Douglas FEITH) who it has been shown now, falsified some of the crucial intelligence that led to the war. And he is a fucking Zionist first, American second, just like the rest.

As I said before:

Quote :

"The war was to remove a "threat to Israel". It was not for - bringing democracy to Arabia - bringing freedom to the oppressed under Saddam - WMDs - whatever other facade that was presented to the world"

Quote :

"Benyamin Netanyahu (YES, the former ISRAELI leader), Daniel Pipes, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, Douglas Feith, and other rabid Likudniks/Zionists crafted this war as far back as 1999. Look it up."

Quote :

"yes, because it is convenient to call out 'Israel' so you don't look like the racist fuck that you are."

Quote :

"Actually, no. I'm calling bullshit on your claim of only attacking 'Israel.' Because it is bullshit."

So I see that you are still/again telling me what I believe or not. Great job, you neocon warmonger.

9/6/2007 11:52:23 PM

he's also a crappy running back

9/7/2007 12:01:41 AM

Quote :

"And he is a fucking Zionist first, American second, just like the rest."

Eh, I don't know if I'd put it that way. I agree protecting/strengthening Israel was a major reason for the war, but I don't buy the idea that American policymakers care more about that country. It's all part of running the world. A strong Israel benefits America and so on.

9/7/2007 12:08:20 AM

To NoChance: Fuck you, you piece of shit. Yes, I post some of the same facts in a number of threads--only your "facts" change with the wind. Piss off.

To Golovko: Actually, it was no-fly zones--one northern and one southern. The US jets were patrolling the no-fly zones, which were originally established by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France (until France pulled out--again!), to prevent Saddam Hussein from attacking minorities and persecuted groups such as the Kurds, the Shiites, and relief workers. The fears at the time were that these attacks by Saddam would be with WMDs--again.

Your position--if it really is your position--is nothing more than sophistry. And it ignores the realities of geopolitics, then and now. I mean, are you saying that you disagreed with Bill Clinton's policy of "containment" in Iraq? Yes or no on this one, please.

To Flyin Ryan:

"It is good to strike the serpent's head with your enemy's hand."

--Chinese proverb

[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 12:28 AM. Reason : .]

9/7/2007 12:28:12 AM

OEPII1 hates America

9/7/2007 1:59:56 AM

Quote :

""It is good to strike the serpent's head with your enemy's hand." --Chinese proverb"

Yes













But actively supplying mercenaries with weapons is not.

9/7/2007 2:22:39 AM

Quote :

"Mahdi Obeidi who had hidden them under a rose bush in his garden 12 years ago"

Quote :

"The 36 120mm shells appear to have been buried for at least 10 years, "

To me, this evidence hardly legitimizes going to war pre-emptively. One barrel (with the possibility of three others) filled with centrifuge parts buried twelve years ago does not equal a nuclear weapons program. And artillery shells potentially filled with a blister agent is frightening but having been buried for ten years they likely posed just as big a threat to those digging them up. Sure, these cases were in violations of UN resolutions but that is a seperate argument altogether.

Quote :

"U.S. Jets Fire on Iraqi Missile Site"

I'm not really sure what the point of posting this is, id be interested in seeing a bit of clarification. So a SAM battery opened up on a US patrol in 1998, this wasnt terribly uncommon between the Gulf War and OIF. The aircraft on station returned fire and neutralized the threat, hardly reason for a full scale invasion years later.

Quote :

"Apparently, according to the "logic" used by some here, it's perfectly acceptable for a rogue, dictatorial state to use and possess WMDs--in violation of United Nations' rules--as long as that country buries them for a while and the United States maintains the status quo. In addition, it's all right for that rogue state to fire on US jets. Is that about right?"

So is it then right for us to use Iraq's violation of UN resolutions to justify our invasion which itself did not have UN approval? I understand that Iraq violated a number of UNSC resolutions, but I have yet to see one that specifically lays out a framework for US invasion. An Article 51 response seems to be commonly cited since the term pre-emptive was tossed around a lot during the run up to the invasion but as we all know, the invasion was hardly based on pre-emptive grounds.

Quote :

"And since when are soldiers firing rockets at its enemy considered 'terrorism'? I guess if you don't drive a tank and have proper artillery and an air force to hide behind, then you are a terrorist."

Call them whatever you'd like, be it militants, freedom fighters, terrorists, patriots, etc, but soldiers they are not. The distinction may seemingly be minor but it is clearly defined (regardless of how well trained, disciplined, and equiped they may be in comparison to soldiers of sovereign nations armies).

Quote :

"And since when are soldiers firing rockets at its enemy considered 'terrorism'?"

when your enemy targets are largely civilian and have little direct military value. i conceed that Kassam rockets are hardly precision weapons but simply pointing them towards Israel is not a militarily acceptable solution. However, this does not absolve Israel of some of its exploits either. I have no dog in that fight and frankly I think that both/all sides engage in some seriously disturbing things regardless of their justification.

Quote :

"Hey, is it my fault you don't know anything about the Project for the New American Century? No, that's not some small or insginificant group"

haha, I was waiting for this and I'm amazed that PNAC hasn't come up earlier. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit, if youre gonna get into this debate you should at least be familiar with PNAC. It's not like its a super secret.

9/7/2007 7:56:55 AM

I gotta agree with aaronburro on that battle. Seems to be a little latent racism from the non Jewish middle easterners of the board.

9/7/2007 7:57:17 AM

^el oh el....is that contributing? Calling everyone that doesn't agree with your pal a racist?

Quote :

"Call them whatever you'd like, be it militants, freedom fighters, terrorists, patriots, etc, but soldiers they are not. The distinction may seemingly be minor but it is clearly defined (regardless of how well trained, disciplined, and equiped they may be in comparison to soldiers of sovereign nations armies)."

so how is their fighting tactics different from Israel? Israel kills far more civilians then anyone else in the region. You get 5 Israelis killed and its headline news....300+ civilians in Beirut (mostly women and children) and its collateral damage/acceptable casualties. Sounds to me like we aren't the racists here....

[Edited on September 7, 2007 at 9:37 AM. Reason : fda]

9/7/2007 9:34:30 AM

Oh I think that their tactics are far different from those of the Israelis. Primarily the subscribe to a doctrine of asymetric warfare and tend to use guerilla tactics to diminish Israel's vast tactical advantages. However, my comment was not intended to suggest these differences or to condone Israel's response, it was simply to make light of the point that these guys are generally accepted to not be soldiers (in that they do not fight for a sovereign government military).

Yes, it is a true shame that the deaths of a handful of Israelis make far bigger headlines than the deaths of scores of their Lebanese counterparts.

9/7/2007 10:11:32 AM

Quote :

"Oh I think that their tactics are far different from those of the Israelis. Primarily the subscribe to a doctrine of asymetric warfare and tend to use guerilla tactics to diminish Israel's vast tactical advantages. However, my comment was not intended to suggest these differences or to condone Israel's response, it was simply to make light of the point that these guys are generally accepted to not be soldiers (in that they do not fight for a sovereign government military)."

well when you are undermanned and under powered against a far more advanced enemy, you have to resort to guerrilla tactics and other 'special' methods.

9/7/2007 10:21:36 AM

Oh I couldn't agree more. If they fought the Israelis heads up, everyone on earth knows what the outcome would be. Fighting a superior fighting force by exploiting their weaknesses to capitalize on your strengths is a tactic as old a war itself.

9/7/2007 10:28:59 AM

Quote :

"While I dont think the war has gone well at all, at the time it was the right thing to do regardless of whether or not we found WMDS or anything else. The United Nations is a worthless piece of shit and will eventually go the way of the League of Nations."

The US reminds me of a toddler sometimes. Mother says do not touch the hot stove but we know better and touch it anyway. Ouch that hurt

Why do we think we know more then the WHOLE rest of the world who thought invading Iraq was a horrible idea. oh yeah i forgot about the "coalition of the willing" who acted like yes-men to the Iraq war b.c they get aid from the US or stuck up George W's ass like Tony Blair.

9/7/2007 10:39:56 AM

but Mother has no power and is the laughing stock of the world because Mother doesn't have an army and is essentially just making corrupt side deals

Mother can't even find Saddam's hidden bag of weed because she is an incompetent moron...so Saddam gives his bag to his friend Syria who also laughs at Mother for being naive

9/7/2007 10:46:03 AM

somebody is a little too much into weed.

9/7/2007 11:14:04 AM

^^ thats the most retarded attempt at an analogy ive ever heard.

9/7/2007 11:49:29 AM

i'm just building of HUR's supremely retarded analogy

I can't take chicken shit and turn it into chicken salad

But I wouldn't expect any of the liberals who hate America like joe_schmoe to have the common sense to see what I am saying

9/7/2007 1:06:39 PM