http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=513&e=2&u=/ap/20041211/ap_on_go_ot/saddam_s_smuggling

I didn't think Saddam was after illegal weapon systems, missles, etc.

Hmmm...

Gatsby,

Saddam's goal was to be THE strongman of the Middle East. It's too bad for him that the United States intervened.


It's like Bush said, Saddam was a gathering threat. Missle technology, air defense technology, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. The Oil For Food profits. All it would've taken was for the U.N. to have decided to lift sanctions and Hussein would've gone after all those technologies full force.

Yeah, I know. Who's to say what he had that ended up in Syria anyways.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Gatsby,

Saddam's goal was to be THE strongman of the Middle East. It's too bad for him that the United States intervened.


It's like Bush said, Saddam was a gathering threat. iran is a "gathering threat ", how come we're not there.......just keep buying this bullshit........that man was not the threat to us that osama was, yet, bush is not concerned about his whereabouts.......his own stupid ass words !

ya, we should have goten Osama before we got hit on 9-11, that was a big mistake, and a costly one for thousands of Americans. At this moment in time though Osama is irrelevant. It would be nice to catch the SOB and see him hang, but in reality he has no clout or control over anything. His inability to hit us again has cost him all the clout he earned on 9-11, and to the arab world he looks weak and innefectual. Now we have bigger fish to fry, in Iran, as you were saying.

Korg,

The United States does the best it can with what it has. I've went over this before, and nobody seems to take it in. We have toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, we have crushed Saddam's rule in Iraq, and now are trying desperately to move those two countries toward a freer more PEACEFUL nations. Also, in the mix, America's action has convinced Qadafi to give up his WMD ambitions. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is moving away from supporting terrorists. In short, the U.S. is spread pretty thin right now. But at least the United States is DOING something. Not like the Euroweenies and the U.N. who stand idly by while genocide is going on in Rwanda.

Iran and North Korea will be dealt with in due time. Another thing the Clinton Administration, the Euroweenies and the U.N. don't want any part of.

About this Bush not being worried about the whereabouts of Bin Laden. I must congratulate you on taking something competely out of context, and coming up with an argument designed to fool the stupid. Libs and Creationists seem awfully good at that. What Bush meant was that he believed Bin Laden was and is irrelevent just now. He has no money, no power and is living in caves. He is not a threat, and he is being hunted. Bush is not losing sleep that Bin Laden has been captured or not.

Dammit!

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
I've went over this before, and nobody seems to take it in.
And I’ve refuted your points over and over before.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
now are trying desperately to move those two countries toward a freer more PEACEFUL nations.
This will not work unless the people want a free Government. Right now the Iraqis want us out of their country, and the Generals in Iraq say we need more troops to stabilize them. It’s almost impossible to give them a “free” country in the middle of Islamic land/extremists.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is moving away from supporting terrorists. In short, the U.S. is spread pretty thin right now. But at least the United States is DOING something. Not like the Euroweenies and the U.N. who stand idly by while genocide is going on in Rwanda.
The Europeans attacked Afghanistan with us, because Afghanistan was a very terrorist-prominent place. Sorry, but they did help us when we were actually fighting terrorism effectively.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Iran and North Korea will be dealt with in due time. Another thing the Clinton Administration, the Euroweenies and the U.N. don't want any part of.
In due time? Many people have projected that it will take years to stabilize these Democracies. And you think we can move to Iran and NK without enough troops or an increase in world support?

good god you sound like a broken record overdose.

I think you forgot to mention the terrorism study

and you say europe attacked afghanistan with us becasue they actually had terrorism. does that mean when we attack these other places you say are full of terrorists we can rely on thousands of troops from Europe and canada?

iran is a "gathering threat ", how come we're not there
I love how liberals think if you attack one "gathering threat," you therefore have to attack all "gathering threats." Hilarious.

Originally posted by Overdose
And I’ve refuted your points over and over before.


is it me or do some people get the term "disagree with" and "refute" mixed up?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
I love how liberals think if you attack one "gathering threat," you therefore have to attack all "gathering threats." Hilarious.
Wrong. You should attack the threats that are of more threat. Iran was more of a threat.

thus we get into the never ending cycle....

i say "dang we should take out iran along with iraq...lets go get iraq"

response " we dont have enough troops"

I say "well, then lets not worry about iran"

response "but they are a big threat"

I say "well...lets go get them then"

response "but we dont have enough troops"

etc.....

How many more whistleblowers do you need before you buy into LIHOP/MIHOP ?

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/16/1445203

Dop

OD,

So if country X is not THE most dangerous threat in the world, that means it is automatically wrong to attack that country, period. Right?

quote: Originally posted by DaveTooner----
"I love how liberals think if you attack one "gathering threat," you therefore have to attack all "gathering threats." Hilarious."

Originally posted by Overdose
Wrong. You should attack the threats that are of more threat.

Wrong.

This country and this govenment has no right --moraly, ethically, militarily or any other way-- to wage war on foreign countries just because you think they might someday pose a "threat" to the US.

The very notion is unspeakably villainous.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Wrong.

This country and this govenment has no right --moraly, ethically, militarily or any other way-- to wage war on foreign countries just because you think they might someday pose a "threat" to the US.

The very notion is unspeakably villainous.

Um...........I never said to attack countries that could "potentially" become a threat to us.

Answer my question OD.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
OD,

So if country X is not THE most dangerous threat in the world, that means it is automatically wrong to attack that country, period. Right?

If that country isn't a threat, or a PRESENT threat, the yes, it's wrong to attack that country.

That's not a sufficient answer. Let me reword the question.

Suppose country X is a threat.
Suppose country Y is a bigger threat.

Does this mean it is wrong, period, to attack X and not Y? Or to attack X and THEN Y? These are Yes/No questions.

I think it's wrong to attack either of them. Unless they've done something, become an agressor, they're merely a "threat", and we have no right to prejudge them. We may even be wrong on a "threat" status. Our military should stay out of it.

So we must wait until they attack us?

So we must wait until they attack us?
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. Or should you be thrown in jail because rednecks have a tendency to get drunk and cause violence?

Originally posted by DaveTooner
That's not a sufficient answer. Let me reword the question.

Suppose country X is a threat.
Suppose country Y is a bigger threat.

Does this mean it is wrong, period, to attack X and not Y? Or to attack X and THEN Y? These are Yes/No questions.

You are entirely incorrect on your examples. Firstly, Saddam wasn’t a threat he was a potential threat. He could have produced weapons, but he didn’t actually have them. So, would I support attacking a potential threat? No.

Would I support attacking a nation that is a threat, that has weapons as we speak, and is in huge ties with terrorism? Possibly, I’d have to look at all the facts before making a decision. But we all know Iran had larger ties to terrorism, so why didn’t we go after them? If Bush truly cared about terrorism, he would have done that. He didn’t.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
So we must wait until they attack us?

Cluephone for Davetooner;

Iraq had never atttacked the US homeland.

Iraq was not intent on attacking the US homeland.

Iraq did not possess --in any way, shape, form or fashion-- a means of attacking the US homeland.

Ergo, subjecting the civilian population of Iraq to the horrors of war on the flimsiest, most insubstantial, most UNsubstantiated CLAIMS [IOW, on outright LIES] that Iraq was a "threat" to us is just WRONG.

You are entirely incorrect on your examples. Firstly, Saddam wasn’t a threat he was a potential threat.
What Saddam was or wasn't has NOTHING to do with my question.

Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. Or should you be thrown in jail because rednecks have a tendency to get drunk and cause violence?So you're telling me that if our intelligence found that a country was planning an attack against us, we would have to wait until they actually DID to fight back? Holy cow, I am glad you aren't in charge.

So you're telling me that if our intelligence found that a country was planning an attack against us, we would have to wait until they actually DID to fight back? Holy cow, I am glad you aren't in charge.
So your saying that it can't be stopped in the process? If we found out they were planning an attack against us they can be thwarted, but unless they actual move into it, they cannot be attacked. Idle threats, unfounded plans. Those can't be proven until they do something. We should be able to stop them, if not, then I think we have serious issues in some other areas. The US must never become an agressor. We are supposed to be a democratic nation, we shouldn't be making judgements about other nations unless something happens.

Truly a scary philosophy.

Originally posted by DaveTooner

So you're telling me that if our intelligence found that a country was planning an attack against us, we would have to wait until they actually DID to fight back? Holy cow, I am glad you aren't in charge.

Given the fact that we already KNOW that the Corporatist thugs who are running things are PATHOLOGICAL LIARS, how would any American citizen ever know if they were being told the truth about what other nations are "planning"...??

The uber-Conservatives in charge could simply single out a nation that had something they wanted, and that they wanted to wage war against, and CLAIM that that nation was a "threat" in order to drum up support for a war against that country.

Oh wait!!!.......that's already happened!!!

Hard to believe people are worried about being attacked by a country that can't even keep it's own electricity running. ROTF

Maybe they're gonna launch one of thier intercontinental ballistic missles our way ... er ... that is if they can find an AC out let that works.

ROTFLMAO

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Hard to believe people are worried about being attacked by a country that can't even keep it's own electricity running.

In reality, they aren't seriously worried about the nation of Iraq attacking the US.

They are --in the centuries old tradition of simpleminded sheep-- blindly going along with whatever the Powers-That-Be tell them is the necessary or "right" thing to do.

The callous Prosperous Few tell the gullible People that we "need" to go to war, and the masses ----oblivious to the reality that the "war" is being pushed for the sole purpose of the enrichment of the elites, and that it will mean the deaths of many of the commoners--- immediately take up the cause as if it made sense.

Sad.

And we fought in Vietnam because we wanted lots of free rice and in Afghanistan because we wanted to take control of the poppy business, right?

What Saddam was or wasn't has NOTHING to do with my question.

Conveniently ignored, Dave. Discussing principals doesn't get you very far with this set you're talking to. I don't know why you bother.

Truly a scary philosophy.

Truly. I certainly like a proactive approach better than a reactive. Waiting until a situation gets to a point where there is nothing you can do about it is very obviously a bad idea. Thank God these people aren't in charge, or we probably would have spent the last 60 years with nuclear missles pointed at us from Cuba. The "Cuban Missle Crisis" would have never happened, how pleasant a feeling that would be. What a stress free environment we would have.... there would be no worries!

Actually, we probably would have already had a few shot at us. We would wait until we had a few nuclear holocosts and then "do something about it." Wee, what a great philosophy that is.

Originally posted by Overdose
If that country isn't a threat, or a PRESENT threat, the yes, it's wrong to attack that country.

You're just mad at Bush cause his morals are 'straight'

Originally posted by Freethinker
Cluephone for Davetooner;

Iraq had never atttacked the US homeland.

Iraq was not intent on attacking the US homeland.

Iraq did not possess --in any way, shape, form or fashion-- a means of attacking the US homeland.

Ergo, subjecting the civilian population of Iraq to the horrors of war on the flimsiest, most insubstantial, most UNsubstantiated CLAIMS [IOW, on outright LIES] that Iraq was a "threat" to us is just WRONG.

So we should just wait around til they get bombs or something so they can attack us? Bush wasn't going to just wait around for a nother attack. Absoluteoy no one saw the 9/11 attack happen(and don't pull bull cra.p and say that someone did). But if we did nothing when it came to a threat to our country, than terrosists would think that we were weak and a barrage of attacks would have came our way. THIS IS A MESSAGE TO ALL LIBERALS: this is a war agaisnt terrorism. And we are probably going to do something about other threats. It's what we do to defend our country. Now, know liberals they'll read the first two sentances and then reply, but the whole message is the thing I'm trying to get through.

Originally posted by Assassin
So we should just wait around til they get bombs or something so they can attack us? Bush wasn't going to just wait around for a nother attack. Absoluteoy no one saw the 9/11 attack happen(and don't pull bull cra.p and say that someone did). But if we did nothing when it came to a threat to our country, than terrosists would think that we were weak and a barrage of attacks would have came our way. THIS IS A MESSAGE TO ALL LIBERALS: this is a war agaisnt terrorism. And we are probably going to do something about other threats. It's what we do to defend our country. Now, know liberals they'll read the first two sentances and then reply, but the whole message is the thing I'm trying to get through.
Iraq was NOT AS MUCH OF A THREAT as Saudi Arabia (the home country of bin Laden, as well as some of the other al Qaeda members) or North Korea. If we truly were trying to ensure our safety, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, I think. In the "war on terrorism" (misnomer), Iraq is way down the list compared to a few others. Misplaced priorities.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Iraq was NOT AS MUCH OF A THREAT as Saudi Arabia (the home country of bin Laden, as well as some of the other al Qaeda members) or North Korea. If we truly were trying to ensure our safety, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, I think. In the "war on terrorism" (misnomer), Iraq is way down the list compared to a few others. Misplaced priorities.

Yeah, North Korea is a big threat. It probably would have been better if we went there first.

Iraq is the only country that I know of that could and DID annex other countries by force! Saddam Hussein is the closest thing we have ever had to Hitler. I do not understand how people can label him as a non-threat, regardless of whether he had WMD or not.

And as soon as I see a report that Saudi Arabia or South Korea is plotting to take over other countries, I'll have the same attitude towards their rulers. Until then, there is no comparison.

Could be that after Iraq we are going to try to overcome the Iranians and Saudis from with-in. Civil unrest can destroy these dynastys with less threat to Americans.

Originally posted by Assassin
You're just mad at Bush cause his morals are 'straight'...........So we should just wait around til they get bombs or something so they can attack us? Bush wasn't going to just wait around for a nother attack. ......if we did nothing when it came to a threat to our country, than terrosists would think that we were weak and a barrage of attacks would have came our way.

Your logic process operates on a juvenile level.

Trying to wage a "war on terrorism" is akin to madly swatting at a swarm of bees in order to force them to stop stinging you.

IF *terrorism* were a monolithic entity, like a single foreign nation, it might be subdued and prevented from ever attacking again, as Germany was in the Forties.

But terrorism is a movement, and all the militarist posturing of Bush and all the bombing from 30,000 feet and all the innocent civilians being caught up and killed in the "collateral damage" of the RightWing's war will only serve to accomplish the OPPOSITE of the end the Rightwing is (purportedly) seeking.

In point of fact, I believe that any person of intelligence could readily see that this government is doing the virtual antithesis of what would neeed doing IF the intent were actually halting terrorism........I believe that the warmongering leaders in charge are well aware that they will only EXACERBATE the problem with the course of action they have chosen, and that their real intent is to make SURE that an excuse for a "war on terrorism" remains in place forever, so that the massive profits for Big Defense and Big Oil will continue to flow.

The profits of war going TO the ruling elite --the Bushes, the Cheneys, the Rices, the Rumsfelds and the other warmongers-- is immense....

...the personal costs of war to the ruling political class is NOTHING....all it costs is the lives of a few of the People who are misguided enough to support the "war on terror", and the ruling political class care nothing about their lives.

Originally posted by Assassin
Yeah, North Korea is a big threat. It probably would have been better if we went there first.

Are you for real?

Based on what I see in Iraq -- there is a more than even chance N. Korea would have handed us our asses on a platter and especially now that rumsfeld and the other civilians in charge have managed to totally demoralize our troops.

I doubt we could successfully invade a Kinkos.

Dop

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Iraq was NOT AS MUCH OF A THREAT as Saudi Arabia (the home country of bin Laden, as well as some of the other al Qaeda members)

I take it we should have bombed the shit out of Austria since Hitler was born there right borg?

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Korg,

The United States does the best it can with what it has. I've went over this before, and nobody seems to take it in. We have toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, we have crushed Saddam's rule in Iraq, and now are trying desperately to move those two countries toward a freer more PEACEFUL nations. Also, in the mix, America's action has convinced Qadafi to give up his WMD ambitions. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is moving away from supporting terrorists. In short, the U.S. is spread pretty thin right now. But at least the United States is DOING something. Not like the Euroweenies and the U.N. who stand idly by while genocide is going on in Rwanda.

Iran and North Korea will be dealt with in due time. Another thing the Clinton Administration, the Euroweenies and the U.N. don't want any part of.

About this Bush not being worried about the whereabouts of Bin Laden. I must congratulate you on taking something competely out of context, and coming up with an argument designed to fool the stupid. Libs and Creationists seem awfully good at that. What Bush meant was that he believed Bin Laden was and is irrelevent just now. He has no money, no power and is living in caves. He is not a threat, and he is being hunted. Bush is not losing sleep that Bin Laden has been captured or not.

Dammit! listen man, YOU buy that bullshit, you dont have to explain anything to me ! you have 2 type of people here, people who chose to think, and those who buy everything that jerk bush says ! so many inconsistancies, yet you buy them all, BUT if he were a democrat, you'd see everything wrong that we see.........that is what bothers me most.

korg, dont believe everyone who disagrees with everything bush says is somehow thinking more then those who agree with bush on issues. Its very wrong and very arrogant way of thinking, but if it makes you feel special or important go ahead.

Originally posted by Travh20
korg, dont believe everyone who disagrees with everything bush says is somehow thinking more then those who agree with bush on issues. Its very wrong and very arrogant way of thinking, but if it makes you feel special or important go ahead. so travh, does that also apply to the person who believes everything that guy says is true !?? there's an arrogance to that also

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Korg,

The United States does the best it can with what it has. I've went over this before, and nobody seems to take it in. We have toppled the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, we have crushed Saddam's rule in Iraq, and now are trying desperately to move those two countries toward a freer more PEACEFUL nations. Also, in the mix, America's action has convinced Qadafi to give up his WMD ambitions. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is moving away from supporting terrorists. In short, the U.S. is spread pretty thin right now. But at least the United States is DOING something. Not like the Euroweenies and the U.N. who stand idly by while genocide is going on in Rwanda.

Iran and North Korea will be dealt with in due time. Another thing the Clinton Administration, the Euroweenies and the U.N. don't want any part of.

About this Bush not being worried about the whereabouts of Bin Laden. I must congratulate you on taking something competely out of context, and coming up with an argument designed to fool the stupid. Libs and Creationists seem awfully good at that. What Bush meant was that he believed Bin Laden was and is irrelevent just now. He has no money, no power and is living in caves. He is not a threat, and he is being hunted. Bush is not losing sleep that Bin Laden has been captured or not.

Dammit! death penalty !!! where is the morality in that ? sending our young men and women to the wrong damn place to die...........where's the morality in that....YOU are just another bought and paid for republican....AND THAT DOESNT MAKE YOU RIGHT !! you just keep on defending that jerk...........and if you have a minute, show me ONE piece of evidence that a plane hit the pentagon !.....ONE ! that in itself ..is fishy enough !

who believes everything bush says is true? the only person I have ever heard think that is that guy freethinker says is the "dissenting" voice on the al franken show

Originally posted by Travh20
who believes everything bush says is true?

Judging from their actions and their attitude toward having a Republican in the White House???......i'd guess that at least a few tens of millions of people in this country would fit in that *I believe everything Bush says is true* category.

_________________________________

Osama bin Laden did not believe he would destroy America by leveling the World Trade Center; he was maneuvering us into stupidly destroying ourselves. He gambled that the smirking imbecile in the White House would react in an insanely disproportionate way. Just as it has happened.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Judging from their actions and their attitude toward having a Republican in the White House???......i'd guess that at least a few tens of millions of people in this country would fit in that *I believe everything Bush says is true* category.

_________________________________

Osama bin Laden did not believe he would destroy America by leveling the World Trade Center; he was maneuvering us into stupidly destroying ourselves. He gambled that the smirking imbecile in the White House would react in an insanely disproportionate way. Just as it has happened.

Oh, so did you talk to Bin Laden? Did he tell you all of this?

Oh, so did you talk to Bin Laden? Did he tell you all of this?
You've watched way too many good guy/bad guy movies haven't you? Do you seriously think that real evil people are that stupid?

Originally posted by Blibblob

You've watched way too many good guy/bad guy movies haven't you? Do you seriously think that real evil people are that stupid?

No, I'm just saying that you can't truly know what Bin Laden is thinking unless you're him.