WASHINGTON -- The US-led war on terror has made the world more dangerous, rather than safer, and has prompted the most sustained erosion of human rights and international law in 50 years, Amnesty International ...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/05/27/right_report_slams_us_war_on_terror/

I heard because of this Iraq War and all the mismanagements, Al Quidea has been able to get 18,000 new members?

But Ashcroft saying we are going to have attacks, and that dramatic rise in members, is just proving the Iraq War is doing everything to prevent and make America safer!

And that “gas” they found that accounts for all the justification for going in Iraq (All weapons of mass destruction, biological, and chemical) hasn’t been mentioned by President Bush or any of his administrators. Maybe he should start reading the newspaper, but wait, that’s liberal...

:@@:

lmao

Originally posted by Overdose
I heard because of this Iraq War and all the mismanagements, Al Quidea has been able to get 18,000 new members?

"members" ? It's not a club !

I doubt anyone is able to quantify so precisely the consequences of the war. Even thinking of Al Quaeda of a structured organization with members is pretty irrelevent.

However, quantity do not matter in terrorism. A few people with cutters can do more harm than 10 000 with AK 47 if they are in the right place at the right time.

I think the TOTAL of Al-Qaida is 18,000 not NEW followers. Even still, the total is sickening. But, there are those countries that feel the same way about the USA now - sickened.

We need to recoup the good reputation that this administration has dragged through the mud. Bush and company should be focusing on "how" to do that as well. Otherwise our Country will never be trusted again.

Its now impossible for the Bush administration to rectify world opinion against the US. They have too much bad will and too much baggage.

Hostory will tell - but I fully expect this period to go down in the history books as one of the biggest failings of foreign policy in US history.

Originally posted by DrewM
Hostory will tell - but I fully expect this period to go down in the history books as one of the biggest failings of foreign policy in US history.

And what gets me is that so much of it is just clumsy diplomacy. Which is amazing given that Bush Sr. was widely regarded as an expert at foreign relations. I guess none of it rubbed off.

It's the absolute arrogance of the Bush administration and his team - it has just about pissed off the whole world.

The only saving grace is Colin Powell - who by all accounts is equally as disgusted and counting the days until he can get the hell out of this B team.

Originally posted by korg
lmao
WOW laughing at terrorism. That is just scary.

Originally posted by Overdose
(All weapons of mass destruction, biological, and chemical) hasn’t been mentioned by President Bush or any of his administrators. Maybe he should start reading the newspaper, but wait, that’s liberal...

:@@: beirut....this statement is what i was laughing at......dont turn into travh on me. i dont think any of this is funny.....especially some of you guys deep trust in this crap bush and his boys are doing. but this argument is like trying to argue about religion. i cant convince anyone completely that god exist, i just know for myself.....we will never find the real truth because , as evidence, there are things that I FEEL, almost make it clear cut that something is not right with this, but an intellgent fellow like yourself thinks otherwise. i respect you, because you sound like you did your research. but to me , you research like a lawyer: guy stands there with a smoking gun, and you say, how do we know HE pulled the trigger?, i say, here's the gun, in his hand, powder burns and all.....he's guilty........differing opinions, but unless bush tell us all that this was a hoax from day one and all he wanted was oil or something, this will be debated like JFK's death.

Korg my trust is in our military not the President, my trust in the people who are doing what everyone should do and thats protect the freedom that some take for granted. Dont even say there was no threat in Iraq it was not percieved it was real. I am tired of this argument and maybe we should discuss what we will do when they strike us next. Because, as I have said in other threads, there will be counterstrikes in the war and we must be prepared to respond properly and not start yelling at each other or pointing fingers. Blame and distrust has destroyed many nations, so unless we unify against the terrorist then they will win, if they win and have control over us then no one will be safe I dont care who you vote for. Kerry, Bush and other politicians are not the enemy, I am not your enemy we must become a solid wall against the threat.

Bush isn't the enemy? I’ve explained to you, his decisions have made us less safe. His administration has made us less safe. I refuse to be a solid wall with these people, who create a rise in membership to Al Quidea, and OK prisoner Abuse. I just won’t do it, nor will I support them.

Again, if Iraq was a threat, why have we found almost nothing? Our intelligence was from a fraud, and we went almost all on that. The UN came back with almost NO signs of weapons, and you can say Clinton and Kerry all said he had WMD’s, but they never went to war against him on this information.

He was not a threat, and to say he his more of a threat then countries like Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia is just idiotic. He was a bad man, but that does not change the fact we have massive killings all the time and wrong Governments. Hell we OK'ed much of the killings he did do, when we gave him the weapons to fight the curds.

~Regime change starts at home~

Originally posted by Overdose


Again, if Iraq was a threat, why have we found almost nothing? Our intelligence was from a fraud, and we went almost all on that. The UN came back with almost NO signs of weapons, and you can say Clinton and Kerry all said he had WMD’s, but they never went to war against him on this information.


Did you sleep through the 90's? Clinton attacked Iraq numerous times on this information as well. Look it up, know history before you parrot an opinion.

Was Clinton in office when the UN came back with new reports (2000), showing Saddam didn’t have much of anything that is “destructive”? He left in 2000...and Bush came in...and the Un was still searching...and found almost nothing.

Besides he may have “attacked” but he NEVER launched a full out WAR against Saddam.

He wanted to, talked about it many times. and the UN never said there were no WMD's. they said that there was evidence that he had manufactured them but no evidence that they were still in the country. The report never said yes or no, that was the argument of the left prior to the war, let the UN finish their job and if they say yes then attack but we decided that to give him more time would mean an attack backed by Hussein on us. Again check

Quotes of Clinton saying he wanted to go to war with Iraq, please. (Always bring Clinton, when BUsh fucks up)

Oh and if the UN said he could have "manufactured them", which we allowed when we first gave him weapons, but then they said he didn't have any, he must of disarmed.

Also of course he is going to have factories to make them, we let him when he was fighting to Curds.

Plus saying he could "make" them is not a good enough reason to go into Iraq. It's just silly to be like, well he could make them!

I mean honestly, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia all have harmful weapons and we do nothing to them. Yet we attack Saddam because he could "make" them. <--ridiculous.

Also what evidence was Bush going on? That liar, fraud in Iraq? Or the UN intelligence that made him say, "He has weapons, and we know exactly where they are" <-- We seem to not know where they are, because we sure as hell can't find them.

Ok look it up yourself, I am tired of doing your homework.
And to say that if he had them and then they could find them he must have disarmed is just ridiculous. Or at best so far left that even Berkely would say you are a liberal.

I have most of the UNSCOM report and have actually read it, unlike you I know what conclusion were drawn and by whom. Also before you lay alot on a report approved by Blix maybe you should see what his own people say about him.

based on this study,I guess not doing anything would have completly eliminated al qeada

Do you recall Saddam's brothers leaving Iraq and coming to American to report he had no WMD's? They disliked his brother, came here, and we questioned them. That was another source of evidence of him disarming...

PS: You say liberal as if it's a bad thing.

Originally posted by Travh20
based on this study,I guess not doing anything would have completly eliminated al qeada

And what we did has made them become stronger with more members.

ok here is an exerpt from that UN report you quote all the time saying that there are no WMD's in Iraq.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.


Now if you can not complete inspections how can you say that he doesnt have them?

(warning sarcasm )I guess if we all close our eyes then AL Qaeda will just go poof.

Ex-UN inspector not surprised that no WMD found in Iraq
Jan 31 '04

LONDON (AFP) — Former UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus said he was not the least surprised that US inspectors had failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
"We made very clear that we didn't believe there were any quantities... of chemical and biological weapons," Ekeus, who was head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) from 1991 to 1997, told BBC radio on Saturday.
"Our concern was what kind of production capability Iraq was trying to preserve and to clear up a couple of unsolved problems which were limited,"

--------------------------------------------------------
The report states that while UN inspectors were in Iraq they did not discover evidence of the continuation or resumption of WMD programmes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2958282.stm
----------------------------------------------------
Nuke Export: No Proof Of WMD’s In Iraq
http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=20528
------------------------------------------------------------
UN: Iraq No Weapons After 1994
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0302-07.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
UN weapons inspectors knew that Iraq no longer possessed WMD
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4869.htm
------------------------------------------
No WMD’s In Iraq:
http://www.truthout.com/docs_03/090803B.shtml
------------------------------------
Another Source: No WMD’s After 94
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
-----------------------------

Oh, and why haven’t we found any? Besides the gas that does not account for all the WMD’s Bush said he had? With all of these reports, the UN didn’t find anything. Regardless if he did sneak around, don’t you think it’d be hard to HIDE WMD’S? Plus, we thought he had them, we had NO proof. You don’t go to war without proof.

Damn dont you get it? A european saying that , I wish you would look beyond what is written in the media and look at what was written for the UN. GO look at the report(declas. parts) and then make you own conclusions. I am sorry that you believe that the only people who lie are Americans. It is sad that you have such distrust for this country after all it has given you.

...yes, I’m so anti-American. That’s why after September 11th, I went on a bridge and waved American flags, with my friends and family. That’s why my mothers bathroom is all red, white and blue. That why we have “grateful to be free” and American flags on our car. That’s why my mom hosts a 4th of July parade, for our town, every year. But yes, I’m anti-American and my mother, who is as liberal as I, is as well. You know nothing of my life or how much I love America. So please, get your facts before you speak.

When did I say ANti-American? I said you dont trust your country that doesnt mean you would want to subvert it. So get your facts straight my young friend.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
It is sad that you have such distrust for this country after all it has given you.

hahahahahaha
well, I'll admit I was wrong on this one (but that's it!)

I thought it said "disgust" not "distrust.
My bad.

Ok I respect you made a mistake and admitted it.
Remember when people type that emotion doesnt come through so misreads are easy. I try to take them slow and see what was meant by it. I will not insult, I may say things that sound that way but just ask me, I am not a mean person just someone who believes that we have not been safe truly since 12/07/41. And that politicizing war is a BIG mistake and has never led to anything good.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Korg my trust is in our military not the President, my trust in the people who are doing what everyone should do and thats protect the freedom that some take for granted. Dont even say there was no threat in Iraq it was not percieved it was real. I am tired of this argument and maybe we should discuss what we will do when they strike us next. Because, as I have said in other threads, there will be counterstrikes in the war and we must be prepared to respond properly and not start yelling at each other or pointing fingers. Blame and distrust has destroyed many nations, so unless we unify against the terrorist then they will win, if they win and have control over us then no one will be safe I dont care who you vote for. Kerry, Bush and other politicians are not the enemy, I am not your enemy we must become a solid wall against the threat. beirut, how can you support this war and not support the president. it is he that is the reason we're over there. i support the soldiers wholeheartedly. and my heart goes out to them for i believe that they are even wondering if this is the right thing to do. they are not robots, they are people with feelings and families. but they do it without question. but when this whole thing first started, people were saying things like if you dont support the presidents decision to go to war , then you are unamerican. thats why i think that the democrats were wimps on this whole thing. but if you listen, even a lot of republicans are starting to feel that this was wrong. so from that, i think we will hear a lot more confessions on what really happened. to me, not one life was worth this lie . but i consider this bantor, not arguments. you make very good points, its just that the counter points are just as good......or better from where i stand. we can agree to disagree, discussion is good. i've learned a lot

Originally posted by Overdose
Was Clinton in office when the UN came back with new reports (2000), showing Saddam didn’t have much of anything that is “destructive”? He left in 2000...and Bush came in...and the Un was still searching...and found almost nothing.

Besides he may have “attacked” but he NEVER launched a full out WAR against Saddam. hey O.D. if thats your pic, you are a young man with a lot of wisdom...your so right on "bush fucks up, they bring up clinton"......bush fucked up, and we have the dead american soldiers to prove it.....this was all based on a lie.....thats it ! i know beirut thinks that we needed to get saddam out, and he's probably right, but not like this, this was a lie.

Originally posted by korg
beirut, how can you support this war and not support the president. it is he that is the reason we're over there. i support the soldiers wholeheartedly. and my heart goes out to them for i believe that they are even wondering if this is the right thing to do. they are not robots, they are people with feelings and families. but they do it without question. but when this whole thing first started, people were saying things like if you dont support the presidents decision to go to war , then you are unamerican. thats why i think that the democrats were wimps on this whole thing. but if you listen, even a lot of republicans are starting to feel that this was wrong. so from that, i think we will hear a lot more confessions on what really happened. to me, not one life was worth this lie . but i consider this bantor, not arguments. you make very good points, its just that the counter points are just as good......or better from where i stand. we can agree to disagree, discussion is good. i've learned a lot
I was one of them at one time and I had feelings but I did what I was asked to by my commanders. Why? Because I knew that if I didnt then many of us could die.
As for supporting the war but not the President is easy. He didnt create the conditions of the war he only responded to it. I can seperate the two, actually fairly simple. Kind of like, enjoying a job but not liking the boss. Bush didnt make me patriotic and want to protect this country, he didnt tell me that a man who has killed 500k of his own people, mostly women and children is bad, I already knew it. SO yes it is easy to support the war but not the leader.
I do not feel sorry for the troops because they may not agree with the war. Not part of the job, the job is different than any you have had.
We know more about the big picture than any of the soldiers in the field, trust me.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I was one of them at one time and I had feelings but I did what I was asked to by my commanders. Why? Because I knew that if I didnt then many of us could die.
As for supporting the war but not the President is easy. He didnt create the conditions of the war he only responded to it. I can seperate the two, actually fairly simple. Kind of like, enjoying a job but not liking the boss. Bush didnt make me patriotic and want to protect this country, he didnt tell me that a man who has killed 500k of his own people, mostly women and children is bad, I already knew it. SO yes it is easy to support the war but not the leader.
I do not feel sorry for the troops because they may not agree with the war. Not part of the job, the job is different than any you have had.
We know more about the big picture than any of the soldiers in the field, trust me. hey beirut, once again.....damn good explaination, and good analogy using the job boss metaphor....plus, i think its a shame that we know more, but i understand why, they need to focus on the task at hand.....good one beirut

We know more only because of the availabilty of media to us.

I would say this is an indication that the people of Iraq will be ok as long as they have the couorage to complete the fight to be free.

Human Rights Report (http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBS9Y1OVUD.html)