Here are three facts that the left needs to accept, though it will be painful for them to do so:

1. President Bush will not be tried for war crimes.

2. President Bush will not be impeached.

3. President Bush will be re-elected in 2004.

Will this be as accurate as your statement from last september ?

Look, Saddam is working hard on nuclear weapons, believe it or not.
DaveTooner
09-09-2002 02:07 PM

There is still no proof for or against that statement.



"Upward and Onward"

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Here are three facts that the left needs to accept, though it will be painful for them to do so:

1. President Bush will not be tried for war crimes.

2. President Bush will not be impeached.

3. President Bush will be re-elected in 2004.

fact n

1: a piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred; "first you must collect all the facts of the case"
2: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened; "he supported his argument with an impressive array of facts"
3: an event known to have happened or something known to have existed; "your fears have no basis in fact"; "how much of the story is fact and how much fiction is hard to tell"
4: a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts"

hope n

1: a specific instance of feeling hopeful; "it revived their hope of winning the pennant"
2: the general feeling that some desire will be fulfilled; "in spite of his troubles he never gave up hope" [ant: despair]
3: grounds for feeling hopeful about the future; "there is little or no promise that he will recover" [syn: promise]
4: someone (or something) on which expectations are centered; "he was their best hope for a victory"

Please understand the difference.

Will this be as accurate as your statement from last september ?


Damn, how long did you have to dig to find that? Now, are you insinuating that this was not an accurate statement? I believe it was and I believe you have no proof to the contrary.

How ‘bout a little more facts:

1.President Bush perfectly fits the definition of a dictator.
2.No bio-chemical weapons were ever found in Iraq.
3.Every country on Earth has some form of WMD, yet Bush singled out Iraq because he thought attacking Saddam would gain him respect.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Damn, how long did you have to dig to find that?

HA ! HA ! HA ! (sinister laughter)

I am in fact a psycho whose entire life is dedicated to spy on you. I have a closet full of pictures of you and your family, and I keep track of every word you say, write or even think in a gigantic database.

I sometimes even dress like you when I am alone in my bathroom.

Have a good sleep…

;)

liberals are funny. They cling to the "hope"

(hope n

1: a specific instance of feeling hopeful; "it revived their hope of winning the pennant"
2: the general feeling that some desire will be fulfilled; "in spite of his troubles he never gave up hope" [ant: despair]
3: grounds for feeling hopeful about the future; "there is little or no promise that he will recover" [syn: promise]
4: someone (or something) on which expectations are centered; "he was their best hope for a victory")

that no WMD are found like a man hanging over the eternal abyss clings to the rope of life. They are hanging their hat on it boys, and the minute 1 is found, say good bye to the left for at least 50 years. ITs great that we give them the time to dig their grave, becasue they will be laying in it soon. I just wonder how they can be so certain there are no WMD, and put so much faith in Sadaams good intentions and his desire to obey the UN.

And one last thing that I heard that is funny, but kinda silly is the point that people say about finding sadaam and the WMD. People say since we cant find the WMD they must have never existed, well, we cant find Sadaam either, does that mean he was a fabrication too?

Except we know for sure Saddam existed, while the so-called evidence about WMD existence that was supposed to be as hard as Thatcher's skull - has suddenly vanished.
Where are the sites that been identified by satellite photos ? Were are the secret plants buried underground ? Why do all the Iraqi scientists who have been interroged keep saying there are no WMD ? Where is the "classified evidence" that was supposed to have convinced congress members ?
Every day that passes without anything new on that point makes Bush's main reason for going to war appear more for what it was really : at best, a miscalculation based on unproven suppositions (I call this a bluff), at worst, a gross manipulation of the opinion.

let me get this straight, you trust the word of a bloodthirsty, paranoid, iron fisted, Stalinistic tyrant more than the word of the US Prez? Thats messed up, I dont care if you are from France, its still messed up. If you honestly believe Sadaam did not have, was not trying to get WMD, or had complied with the UN you are a naieve fool who needs to learn a thing or 2 about human nature and the nature of those who hold absolute power in particular. Let me ask you this, and give me a straight answer. If Sadaam didnt have WMD all along, why did he play games with the inspectors and him-haw around and delay and lie and all those things? Why were his facilitys not opened immediatly t any and all who desired? Why for 12 years did he dick around with the UN and the US? Sadaam Hussein would never willingly give up power, and to delay and stall and lie when there is no reason is willingly giving up power. If he really had no WMD he could have held power and made Bush look like a fool only by allowing inspectors to inspect as they pleased. Tell me why he didnt.

All these arguments are very convincing.
Now, why haven't they found any WMD ?

I figured you would dodge the question and reply with another question, typical liberal. But since you ask, its a big country. I live in California, a land mass of roughly the same size, and if you gave me a semi truck or 2 I could hide them somewhere where a big army would take years to find it. add to that the fact that the bully is still on the school yard, and you got virtually no help from the scared locals. US troops cant be everywhere all the time. When we are around all is cool, when we leave the Baathists crawl out from under their rocks and start intimidating people with threats of a Saddam return and retributions to those that collaborated with teh US troops. Use your head man. How long would it take to find a 55 galllon drum hidden in fance?

You may be right. Of course there may be some WMD hidden somewhere in Iraq - in fact we all know Iraqi did have some gas weapons before gulf war, so it is probable that a few will eventually be found.
The problem is that, before the war, these WMD have been a major argument to invade Iraq. Remember they were supposed to be ready in 45 minutes, lauched in missiles over all the Middle East. The main argument used by war supporters was : are we going to wait until Saddam sends us a nuke to react ? The US and UK govts stated they had very solid evidence to support this, and that it was urgent to act.

And now ? Everything has vanished. They are looking for a few gallons of old chemicals hidden in the desert.
Is that what American people feared ? Is that enough to justify a war ?

I know Saddam was a bloody tyrant, and I won't regret him, for sure. But if the case for war had to be pleaded now by Bush and Blair, they would get no support from their opinons on the basis of what has effectively been found in Iraq. And, most important of all, they still have to explain what kind of evidence they were referring to before the war. Because it seems more and more probable that they have deliberately lied to gain support for a war they had decided to do long before they officially started it.

Besides, if Saddam really was as much of a threat as Bush made him out to be, wouldn't he have already attacked the US?

WMD or not, Bush's philosophy of "get them before they get you" is a direct consequence of the post-9/11 paranoia, when we KNEW that we were not as all-powerful as we used to think. This is Bush's real motive in going to war: redeeming himself and US intelligence for the gross oversight they made during 9/11. Saddam was the same ruthless, heartless monster he was for over 25 years, why did we have to choose now to take him out?

I believe we may have even played into his hands, because although he does not have a country, he still has money, power, and the respect of the Iraqi people. Many there are ready to die for him, like Osama bin Laden, another man we've unsuccessfully hunted down so far. Oh, and we still haven't found any WMD.

North Korea, on the other hand, was in possesion of WMD for decades. Why haven't we gone after a country which starved millions of its own people since the 1950s? I'll tell you: North Korea holds two American interests hostage--South Korea and Japan. Any US action will trigger the absolute destruction of those two countries, as well as East Asian economy, maybe even the west coast of the US.

And what then? The US, caught up in this chaos, may even order a nuclear strike into North Korea, which will probably be ineffectual at killing anyone, save the millions of starving people out in the open. What will that show about the United States?



"Upward and Onward"

Originally posted by psamtik071

I believe we may have even played into his hands, because although he does not have a country, he still has money, power, and the respect of the Iraqi people. Many there are ready to die for him, like Osama bin Laden, another man we've unsuccessfully hunted down so far.


I mostly agree with you, except on that point. I believe (from what I have read or heard on radio and TV) that Iraqi people are really happy that Saddam is gone, and that very few of them are willing to help him. Maybe it is different in some other Arab countries where he could be seen as a "hero" of resistance against americans, but I think he hardly has the charisma and support Bin Laden has, and the fact he was a bloody tyrant is well known.

True, but we are finding out that those still loyal to him have boldened their resolve and those who only slightly respected Saddam are beginning to see him as the lesser of two evils.



"Upward and Onward"

With the dwindling numbers of loyalists, that resolve dissipates. The citizens of Iraq will not readily permit another gang of thugs to bully them into submission.

Originally posted by psamtik071
True, but we are finding out that those still loyal to him have boldened their resolve and those who only slightly respected Saddam are beginning to see him as the lesser of two evils.



"Upward and Onward"


Please shut up already. Liberals always find the rain cloud in the silver lining. If anyone wants sadaam to live and be a threat to the US its you.

Look, labeling me as a liberal will get you nowhere. I never said that Saddam should live; that's just you putting words in my mouth.

Obviously you did not read my post carefully enough because I was putting Iraq in perspective as a threat compared to North Korea. I'm saying that Bush's actions are motived by fear, not rational thinking. I am also aware of numerous American attempts to "Democratize" other nations, with failure as the result: Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, and the entire African continent...



"Upward and Onward"

You don't want him alive but you don't want us to kill him. Hmmm... that leaves which option???

Obviously you did not read my post carefully enough because I was putting Iraq in perspective as a threat compared to North Korea. I'm saying that Bush's actions are motived by fear, not rational thinking. I am also aware of numerous American attempts to "Democratize" other nations, with failure as the result: Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, and the entire African continent...

Yes I read that. But answer this: were you for or against taking out Saddam? Pretty simple question.

dont expect to get a straight answer out of a liberal, they will only answer with another question, they are incapable of answering a direct question.

Not true. And the answer is no. That does NOT mean I want him to continue living. All I'm saying is that it is pretty hypocritical to take out someone who we actually helped out in years past, as well as set up corrupt governments around the world. Is that straight enough for you?

Didja hear they found 30 fight jets buried in the sand in Iraq? Wonder what else is in down there...

Originally posted by psamtik071
Not true. And the answer is no. That does NOT mean I want him to continue living. All I'm saying is that it is pretty hypocritical to take out someone who we actually helped out in years past, as well as set up corrupt governments around the world. Is that straight enough for you?

I guess then we should have never stood up to the communist soviet union, after all they helped out in WW2 right?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. We are selfish and hypocritical enough to first accept a nation as a friend if it fights with us against a common foe, and then turn our backs on it as soon as it conforms to an ideology that we don't accept. However, although I am not condoning the actions of Soviet Russia, I am pointing out that most of the the failures of both the US and Russian governments were inspired by fear, paranoia, and propaganda. Look what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII, Communists in America, and that Russian writer in the USSR?

In the immortal words of Yoda: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, HATE leads to suffering."

One can almost always look back into history and make better decisions than were made in the heat of the moment. For the United States, WWII began on 7 Dec 1941 when the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor. From the distance of 60+ years, what happened to Japanese Americans looks real bad. Those were different times, different social sensiblities. In the early days of the Cold War, Sen McCarthy & his anti-commie hearings made a whole lot of sense. Certainly more sense than they make by today's standards. Communism was a real threat to the US way of life. The Russians made it very clear that one of their goals was world domination & another, the downfall of the US. Try to have a little understanding of what the world was like in those days. Television was in its' infancy. No such thing as real time video feed from the battlefront. There were no great passenger planes capable of leaping from NYC to London in 5 or 6 hours without stopping. There were propeller driven aircraft that would stop in Newfounland, and Greenland or Ireland and flew at around 300 mph. Receiving a long distance call was a major life event for the majority of the population here.
When you're old & gray, the computer you're using right now will be an antique, your kids or grandkids (scary thoughts) will laugh at what you tell them about life in 2003, as it will be as alien to them as 1955 is to you now.

Originally posted by psamtik071
This is exactly what I'm talking about. We are selfish and hypocritical enough to first accept a nation as a friend if it fights with us against a common foe, and then turn our backs on it as soon as it conforms to an ideology that we don't accept. However, although I am not condoning the actions of Soviet Russia, I am pointing out that most of the the failures of both the US and Russian governments were inspired by fear, paranoia, and propaganda. Look what happened to Japanese Americans during WWII, Communists in America, and that Russian writer in the USSR?

In the immortal words of Yoda: "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, HATE leads to suffering." You ever hear the term "Business makes strange bedfellows of us"? The same applies to war. It was in our mutual interests that we made a coalition in WWII. Afterwards, all bets were off.

And only an idiot would not take precautions against having a group of people working behind the scenes to undermine American interests. What would you have done if you were in charge? Nothing im sure. And when we started losing American lives on our own soil you probably still would have done nothing. That's because there was no other viable alternative to imprisoning the innocent japanese american citizens as well as those who would have done our country harm. If there is an alternative, then please let us all know.

Look, as I said before, I realize hindsight is much better than farsight, and I'm merely pointing out the the Japanese interment camps were a bad idea. So bad in fact that the US Government provided reparations for those "imprisoned." But it seems that you are rationalizing an act that was obviously inspired by fear and paranoia. I do not care if it was during wartime or not, the Japanese were feared even more than the Germans, just because they were an enemy with very different appearances and mannerisms. I would like to point out that today we are also in a war, and we ought to learn about our mistakes from the past. Therefore, would we place all Arab Americans in concentration camps just because we are in a war against terrorists who happen to be Arabs? Whatever happened to "innocent until PROVEN guilty"?

It was just as likely that German or Italian sabateurs would kill Americans, so the imprisonment of the Japanese was based on race and pure convenience. During that time, Japanese were propagandized to the point where they were not even human, and thus the term, "innocent Japanese" carried no meaning. Note the ruthlessness on both sides during the war in the Pacific. The Japanese AND the Americans were engaging in total war: "no prisoners", "better to die than surrender", "give up your life for your country and your emperor (or God)". This level of fear and agression toward an enemy was far less in the European theatre. (There are good and bad reasons for this such as the US being attacked but it could have been prevented, more than 9/11; all the intelligence and foresight were right there)

Besides, the Constitution was basically the same back then as it is today minus a few amendments added over the years. I understand that people did not have the access to information back then as we do today, but common sense and basic understanding of the Constitution still existed. Fear and paranoia existed as well, so don't give me that crap about "different times and different social sensibilities". Besides, Roosevelt acted unilaterally by giving an executive order without the approval of Congress.

True, one must understand the time period in relation to the actions of people in history. But that still does not negate the possibility that something done back then was bad, or inspired by fear. In addition, when one looks back into the past and extrapolates certain occurances, he will look at it from a modern point of view. Sure, one could probably sympathize with those in the past, but this is the present, and we must see how present actions will affect future circumstances.

In the year 2063, when I'm old and grey, when the computer I'm using today is an antique, my children and grandchildren will probably laugh at how frightened we all were of Saddam Hussein, just as we laughed in 2003 at McCarthy and his witch hunts.

Originally posted by es347fan
In the early days of the Cold War, Sen McCarthy & his anti-commie hearings made a whole lot of sense. Certainly more sense than they make by today's standards. Communism was a real threat to the US way of life. The Russians made it very clear that one of their goals was world domination & another, the downfall of the US.

Even at this time, Mc Carthy's option was not the only one. What was the real threat of the American Communist party ? I believe that the american democracy was strong enough to survive without this witchhunt.
In west European countries, the threat of USSR was much bigger than in the USA. The soviet army was just a few hours away from Paris or Rome. But the communist were not banned, they even took part in many governments. Democracy survived anyway. Thanks to the US protection, of course, but without having to make any witchhunt.
I do not see Mac Carthism as a way of protecting democracy, but as an attempt to ensure power by fear and propaganda.

Like for the Japanese during WWII, or the prisoners in Guantanamo, or for Chechens in Russia, a democracy should never act like its enemies or it loses its soul.

Like for the Japanese during WWII, or the prisoners in Guantanamo, or for Chechens in Russia, a democracy should never act like its enemies or it loses its soul.

It also loses its message.

For me, the prisoners at Gitmo fall into an entirely different category than the Japanese interred in the US during WWII, or the Chechens.

Yes, these 3 examples are different, but they have something in common : their human rights are not respected.
I have nothing against detaining suspects from terrorism and sending them to trial, but I do not see the point of doing so in a totaly out of legality context, and under so harsh conditions.

Do not shed even 1 tear for those imprisoned at Gitmo. They have their basic needs met. They are (were) stateless combatants and therefore do not fall under the Geneva conventions. The conditions in which they now reside are much less harsh than the caves & holes they had previously known.

That is not a matter of tears. That is a matter of principle. The USA are a democracy. They should treat these people according to the american law, which gives anyone some basic rights.

Maybe these guys did not care about human rights or international laws. But it is not a reason for a democracy to "be dragged down to their level" - as your signature says. It only helps the propaganda of those who cultivate hatred for America.

I disagree. They do not fall under the protection of US law. These are stateless individuals, apprehended while engaged in terrorist activities. Even lounging about in Gitmo is a waste of my tax dollars. Were it my call, each of them would be executed summarily after extracting whatever useful information they could provide, be that voluntarily, or through the use of chemicals. These criminals & their counterparts dared to attack my country & have sworn to destroy the US by any means possible.
Your countrymen demanded no less for the nazi war machine that decimated your countryside, your cities & towns, and your brethren.

Originally posted by es347fan
They do not fall under the protection of US law.

The american citizen who hold them detained are under the american law. So if they kill them without any duty of the american law that is just murder.

These are stateless individuals, apprehended while engaged in terrorist activities.

Stateless : none is. There are some citizen of arab countries, also some british, french or australian citizen.
And the "terrorist activity" still has to be defined. Is fighting with the Taleban a terrorist activity ? Remember just 15 years ago this would have made them hero of the fight against communism.

These criminals & their counterparts dared to attack my country & have sworn to destroy the US by any means possible.

This is what you assume. Only a fair trial could establish the truth. But none of them has had any opportunity to tell his story to the public so far.

Your countrymen demanded no less for the nazi war machine that decimated your countryside, your cities & towns, and your brethren.

There were some trials. They had the opportunity to have a defense. And only the leaders or the war criminal were judged.
Some of the guys in Guantanamo obviously just carried a gun at the wrong time and the wrong place.

They are stateless in that none were engaged by their respective countries to preform. Fighting for the Taliban - another stateless entitiy - is akin to belonging to the Crips, the Bloods, or perhaps the Mafia. While the inception of their organization may have been worthy of support for their ideals, as time progressed the Taliban did not. This is well documented. Associations with OBL took them into conflict with the rest of the civilized world. They may not have begun as terrorists, but that is how they became. Of all the Taliban dealt with thus far, one should ask "what makes these few hundred so worthy of continued attentions?" Apparently these few hundred are the rabid 'junkyard dogs'.

You still did not account for the fact that in America, any American citizen who is accused has certain rights: rights to trial, to face accusers, and whatnot. That includes murderers, theives, and "terrorists." How do we know that such and such person was a terrorist and attempted to threaten the security of the United States? What, intelligence? Evidence? Fine. But present those via a LEGITIMATE and accepted system of justice with an impartial judge and jury, not some one-sided military tribunal.

I'd like to mention that crime organizations in the US, although stateless in purpose, are mostly composed of American citizens, who are entitled imparitially to the rights all Americans enjoy until a court has ruled that those rights have been violated. That is how come the present situation with the prisoners in Cuba is somewhat reminiscient of the Japanese treatment during WWII.

Whatever organization they belonged to, whatever crime they are accused of, that does not change the principles of democracy. And amongst these principles one of the most important is justice and the right to an equal treatment for everyone.
If the USA stand for democracy as opposed to barbary, they should not treat these people that way.

"Show me your prisons and I shall say in which society you live."
W. Churchill

psamtik071, those individuals of which you speak are not American citizens. They are not entitled to the protections of which you refer to under U.S. law. Gitmo was set up to keep those individuals outside of the U.S. and have them fall under military jurisdiction rather than civil courts. A gaggle of litigators with much more education & experience in the law than any of us approved the establishment of the military tribunals for dealing with these individuals.

Originally posted by es347fan
Those individuals of which you speak are not American citizens. They are not entitled to the protections of which you refer to under U.S. law.

Do you mean that if i go to the USA and commit a crime I will have no right to protection under the US law and will be judged by a special military tribunal ?

The american law is perfectly able to deal with non american people.

And these prisoners are also refused the status of war prisoners, which would give them some rights under the Geneva Convention. They in fact are in a non-legal state which has been denounced by many lawyers.

Should the crime be comitted upon American soil, then the individual is subject to U.S. law.
As I described above, given the stateless status of those at Gitmo, they do not qualify for protection under the Geneva conventions.
That some lawyers do not agree with these decisions is not surpising in the least. Gather 100 litigators in 1 indoor spot, such as a theater, or an auditorium. Take them all outside at the same time to view the weather. Take them all back inside at the same time. Ask them each to write a description the climatic conditions they have just witnessed.

Yes, there is always a possibility to find a lawyer to justify or condemn anything. So that leaves us with our personal opinions and conscience.

When it comes to this subject, my opinions are well stated, my conscience clear.