[ohio]

this is simply an intractable demand. your statement painted the u.s. with too broad a brush, as i could've done if i stuck a flag up my ass & farted "hail to the chief"
i won't make up outrageous statements when yours will suffice; again, i am not convinced we have whatever the opposite of the midas touch is
we both know our country hasn't been administered by the boy scouts. this doesn't exactly put us on par w/ the khmer rouge.

I'll have to keep this short and will hopefully remember to come back to it later. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming there are other countries (and/or political parties) that would have done any better, and many of them far worse, when left to their own devices and selfish interests. Almost without exception all of these groups are shortsighted in addition to their clear self-interest, and that's a dangerous combination.

I have little faith in this process, because we have refused to allow coordination/coopoeration with dissenting views and strategies WITHIN our own country, let alone from without, when ultimately that humility and fallibility protects us from ourselves.

(Ill have to read Overthrow... and embarassingly, I've only read excerpts of Freakonomics)

 

[$tinkle]

um, yes we did.

i think he meant 9/11 was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition

 

[$tinkle]

I'll have to keep this short and will hopefully remember to come back to it later. Just to be clear, I'm not claiming there are other countries (and/or political parties) that would have done any better, and many of them far worse, when left to their own devices and selfish interests. Almost without exception all of these groups are shortsighted in addition to their clear self-interest, and that's a dangerous combination.

I have little faith in this process, because we have refused to allow coordination/coopoeration with dissenting views and strategies WITHIN our own country, let alone from without, when ultimately that humility and fallibility protects us from ourselves.

agreed.

 

[WheelieMan]

um, yes we did.

Afghanistan:



Iraq:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Prior to the invasion, the United States' official position was that Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction and had to be disarmed by force.

WMD was not the main reason we went into Iraq????

 

[rockwool]

You have to differentiate what politicians say, and what they mean or are thinking at when they say something..

 

[$tinkle]

so 9/11 == wmd?

 

[rockwool]

9/11 = viking like bezerk looting

 

[RenegadeRick]

WMD was not the main reason we went into Iraq????

WMD seasoned with a dash of fear from 9/11.

Without 9/11 Americans would not have been able to picture Islamofascists (or whatever the term would have been in 2003) harming the American people.

"Sure lots of states have WMD, but why does this matter to me?"

 

[$tinkle]

pakistan?

 

[Changleen]

ISI - Follow the money.

 

[$tinkle]

ISI - Follow the money.

yeah, sumthin's efft-up there.

and you know me...

 

[RenegadeRick]

yeah, sumthin's efft-up there.

and you know me...

Yeah, I had never heard that Pakistani ISI stuff before I watched 9/11: Press for Truth.

Anyone know anything more about this?

 

[$tinkle]

found something at global research

dig, dig, dig....more later

 

[Old Man G Funk]

WMD was not the main reason we went into Iraq????

I'd say that none of us know for sure the real reason we went into Iraq. The admin. certainly made ties to 9/11, they played up any intel that pointed to WMD while simultaneously downplayed any intel that contradicted that view, and they made non-existent links to al-Qaeda.

The best I can tell, the reason we went into Iraq is because some one or some group in power wanted to and felt that the American people could be whipped up into enough frenzy to go along with it due to 9/11.

 

[RenegadeRick]

I'd say that none of us know for sure the real reason we went into Iraq.

Amen!

The best I can tell, the reason we went into Iraq is because some one or some group in power wanted to and felt that the American people could be whipped up into enough frenzy to go along with it due to 9/11.

Should the American people not be the group in power? Surely the government exists with the permission of the people, no?

You can't seriously be saying that Americans are just too distracted by Survivor and American Idol to get off their fat, SUV driving, freedom fry smelling asses and give a funk that they have been lied to. I must be confused as to your point.

 

[ohio]

agreed.

Now what specifically kills me about the profiteering in this case, is that it may well crush our economy and our security in the long run, and it results from a war entirely created, I would even say manufactured, by the US. While we would like to think that at least the money is funnelling back to US corporations, it is in fact funnelling back to US-based corporations. A minimal amount of our tax-payer money that is flowing to the Bechtels and KBRs will recirculate through our economy thanks to the wonderful mechanism of globalization. What you are hearing is the huge sucking sound of a trillion taxpayer dollars being sucked overseas and into a few select pockets. In the meantime, it's not just distracting us from issues like education and domestic investment in R&D and manufacturing, it's starving those programs even from the people who haven't been distracted. And if, god forbid, they try to mention it ("please, let's focus on America") we're labelled as aiding the terrorists (by the way, another completely manufactured and abused term. Thanks, Mr. President for creating your own enemy and then either through cultural idiocy or cunning purpose helping them organize themselves from a thousand impotent factions to a single, powerful, cohesive body).

How anyone can simply accept where we are now as where we are now, and not hold that against the administration and majority of congress is beyond me. How can you not feel duped, cheated, lied to, abused as a public? Even if you support the latest strategy in Iraq (now that we're there, we've got to stay the course), how can you allow the team who put us there to sit in office? If I ran you through 2/3rds of a meat-grinder for my own damn pleasure, sure the easiest way out is the last 1/3rd, but would you still support me as your valiant leader?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Now what specifically kills me about the profiteering in this case, is that it may well crush our economy and our security in the long run, and it results from a war entirely created, I would even say manufactured, by the US. While we would like to think that at least the money is funnelling back to US corporations, it is in fact funnelling back to US-based corporations. A minimal amount of our tax-payer money that is flowing to the Bechtels and KBRs will recirculate through our economy thanks to the wonderful mechanism of globalization. What you are hearing is the huge sucking sound of a trillion taxpayer dollars being sucked overseas and into a few select pockets. In the meantime, it's not just distracting us from issues like education and domestic investment in R&D and manufacturing, it's starving those programs even from the people who haven't been distracted. And if, god forbid, they try to mention it ("please, let's focus on America") we're labelled as aiding the terrorists (by the way, another completely manufactured and abused term. Thanks, Mr. President for creating your own enemy and then either through cultural idiocy or cunning purpose helping them organize themselves from a thousand impotent factions to a single, powerful, cohesive body).

How anyone can simply accept where we are now as where we are now, and not hold that against the administration and majority of congress is beyond me. How can you not feel duped, cheated, lied to, abused as a public? Even if you support the latest strategy in Iraq (now that we're there, we've got to stay the course), how can you allow the team who put us there to sit in office? If I ran you through 2/3rds of a meat-grinder for my own damn pleasure, sure the easiest way out is the last 1/3rd, but would you still support me as your valiant leader?

Well said.

 

[N8 v2.0]

How anyone can simply accept where we are now as where we are now, and not hold that against the administration and majority of congress is beyond me. How can you not feel duped, cheated, lied to, abused as a public? If I ran you through 2/3rds of a meat-grinder for my own damn pleasure, sure the easiest way out is the last 1/3rd, but would you still support me as your valiant leader?

No sh!t I used to feel that way too...


Until the Clintons/Algore were tossed out of office and the Dim's lost control of Congress.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No sh!t I used to feel that way too...


Until the Clintons/Algore were tossed out of office and the Dim's lost control of Congress.

So it was Clinton/Gore that got us into Iraq? Wow, I didn't know that.

 

[$tinkle]

Thanks, Mr. President for creating your own enemy and then either through cultural idiocy or cunning purpose helping them organize themselves from a thousand impotent factions to a single, powerful, cohesive body).

so bush, perle, et. al., radicalised muslims? was al-qaeda impotent when they aided hezbollah in the bombing of the khobar towers in 1996? was al-queda impotent when they bombed 2 u.s. embassies, killling hundreds, within the same hour in 1998? or the uss cole in 2000?

If I ran you through 2/3rds of a meat-grinder for my own damn pleasure, sure the easiest way out is the last 1/3rd, but would you still support me as your valiant leader?

the seeming alternative - which in my estimation is equivalent to appeasement - was addressed 70 years ago by winston churchill when he said: "Appeasement is like feeding a crocodile one bite at a time in the hope that he eats you last."

it's utterly incomprehensible that resisting terrorism is the very cause of it.

 

[N8 v2.0]

So it was Clinton/Gore that got us into Iraq? Wow, I didn't know that.

You really don't know much does ya?

Revelation: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2283925&postcount=100

 

[Echo]

so bush, perle, et. al., radicalised muslims? was al-qaeda impotent when they aided hezbollah in the bombing of the khobar towers in 1996? was al-queda impotent when they bombed 2 u.s. embassies, killling hundreds, within the same hour in 1998? or the uss cole in 2000?

And those things have what to do with Iraq?

Oh yeah, all them durn ay-rabs is the same right billy jim-bob?

 

[BurlyShirley]

And those things have what to do with Iraq?

Oh yeah, all them durn ay-rabs is the same right billy jim-bob?

Im not saying I agree w/ anyone but radical islam has nothing to do w/ geographical or political borders.

 

[Echo]

Im not saying I agree w/ anyone but radical islam has nothing to do w/ geographical or political borders.

Then why haven't we invaded Syria, Pakistan, etc? Oh yeah, because they would kick our asses.

 

[ohio]

so bush, perle, et. al., radicalised muslims? was al-qaeda impotent when they aided hezbollah in the bombing of the khobar towers in 1996? was al-queda impotent when they bombed 2 u.s. embassies, killling hundreds, within the same hour in 1998? or the uss cole in 2000?

No, clearly radicals already existed, but they were factioned. Iraq provided a magnet for them to join forces. Bush provided rhetoric that helped them see through their differences and unify. And the scale and consipcuousness of the conflict has encouraged those who weren't radical to become so. I never said radicalism didn't exist. I said there are more radicals and they are more powerful now than they were before. Kind of Obi-wan Kinobe-ish...

the seeming alternative - which in my estimation is equivalent to appeasement - was addressed 70 years ago by winston churchill when he said: "Appeasement is like feeding a crocodile one bite at a time in the hope that he eats you last."

it's utterly incomprehensible that resisting terrorism is the very cause of it.

What I offered was that we SHOULD stay the course. We have to. But we don't have to reward the jackass that put us on that course.

And there are many ways to resist terrorism. The alternative isn't to NOT resist terrorism. It's to be (at least) mildly intelligent about how we fight it. There are many ways to fight fire... we chose to blow on it really hard.

 

[$tinkle]

you people are like frikkin' bees! i'll never get back to listening to rush at this rate.

 

[Silver]

it's utterly incomprehensible that resisting terrorism is the very cause of it.

Ok, another grade school analogy. Let's pretend you got bit by a dog on the way to school. It's a mean, possibly rabid dog. It took a nip out of you that hurt pretty bad, but it certainly didn't come close to killing you.

Now you come home, and realize that your neighbour's puppy is next door. He's a dog, and a dog bit you! Plus, you've heard your neighbour complain that the puppy pees on the rug! Eureka. (As an added bonus, the puppy is easy to get to, and he's pretty little, so he'll be easier to abuse then the dog that bit you.) You go over, and beat the puppy with a stick everyday. The puppy grows up, and bites you when you come over to beat it with a stick one day, and you lose your hand.

Next week we'll go over your multiplication tables. I expect you to know up to 4...

(You may also notice I didn't mention the dog that bit you in the first place...how's Osama doing?)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

so bush, perle, et. al., radicalised muslims? was al-qaeda impotent when they aided hezbollah in the bombing of the khobar towers in 1996? was al-queda impotent when they bombed 2 u.s. embassies, killling hundreds, within the same hour in 1998? or the uss cole in 2000?

Straw man argument. That is NOT what he said.

the seeming alternative - which in my estimation is equivalent to appeasement - was addressed 70 years ago by winston churchill when he said: "Appeasement is like feeding a crocodile one bite at a time in the hope that he eats you last."

False dichotomy.

it's utterly incomprehensible that resisting terrorism is the very cause of it.

Another straw man. No one said that.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You really don't know much does ya?

Revelation: http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2283925&postcount=100

Was linking to the post above supposed to demonstrate something? And, if I don't know much, what does that say about you?

 

[$tinkle]

Ok, another grade school analogy. Let's pretend you got bit by a dog on the way to school. It's a mean, possibly rabid dog. It took a nip out of you that hurt pretty bad, but it certainly didn't come close to killing you.

so this was an unprovoked attack by an animal acting on its hard-to-reverse instincts (i.e. indoctrination). was this first unexpected attack supposed to happen when i was walking to school during the clinton administration? (if there was a previous attack by al-queda i'm unaware of, do kindly inform).

Now you come home, and realize that your neighbour's puppy is next door. He's a dog, and a dog bit you! Plus, you've heard your neighbour complain that the puppy pees on the rug! Eureka. (As an added bonus, the puppy is easy to get to, and he's pretty little, so he'll be easier to abuse then the dog that bit you.) You go over, and beat the puppy with a stick everyday. The puppy grows up, and bites you when you come over to beat it with a stick one day, and you lose your hand.

ah, i think i get it: the big dog is in afghanistan (where i was walking to my madrassa?), and the puppy (iraq, right?) has been put on notice by neighborhood watch (the feckless UN) to stop peeing on the rug (or else!! this is your 4h from the last warning!!) with the memory of its previous acts of aggression against dogs in its own yard & other neighboring dogs, & even me a decade before. then, i get a few other less-threatening, but still threatened (by their own admission) neighbors, & we beat it to a bloody pulp. then, it licks its wounds & morphs into another breed & becomes truly rabid, lashing out at me, my neighbors, and even itself.
tell me: this hand that i lost...was this my shooting hand?
and do you think i went in his yard to take his dog food?

Next week we'll go over your multiplication tables. I expect you to know up to 4...

the jihadists know up to 72

(You may also notice I didn't mention the dog that bit you in the first place...how's Osama doing?)

he's dead; ann told me so.

 

[$tinkle]

Straw man argument. That is NOT what he said.

here's what ohio said:

Thanks, Mr. President for creating your own enemy and then either through cultural idiocy or cunning purpose helping them organize themselves from a thousand impotent factions to a single, powerful, cohesive body).

the 3 terrorist acts i reminded us of happened before w was prez, & i fail to see how mass murder by al-queda (the tap root of terrorism) can be trivilialized as impotent. that w was culturally idiotic does not absolve the terrorists' ideology. [and please make no mistake, this is a war of ideology, promulgated through terror]

and another thing to you who espouse the idea that "iraq has become a magnet for terrorism". how do intend to keep the magnet charged? do you actually think containment can work ** this time **? why would it? we had 100 insurgents [sic] in our sights days ago, but refused to take them out for what amounts to be amnesia that we're at war.

* spit *

 

[Old Man G Funk]

here's what ohio said:the 3 terrorist acts i reminded us of happened before w was prez, & i fail to see how mass murder by al-queda (the tap root of terrorism) can be trivilialized as impotent. that w was culturally idiotic does not absolve the terrorists' ideology. [and please make no mistake, this is a war of ideology, promulgated through terror]

You are the one that acted like Ohio said there was no radicalism before 9/11. And, obviously the terrorist groups had some punch before the response to 9/11. I hardly think he meant that the response to 9/11 is what provoked 9/11 in the first place. But, by and large, most of the terrorist cells were impotent and isolated. Now, due to the actions of our fearless leader, they are united against us and more powerful than before. We are creating more and more terrorists with our callous actions.

and another thing to you who espouse the idea that "iraq has become a magnet for terrorism". how do intend to keep the magnet charged? do you actually think containment can work ** this time **? why would it? we had 100 insurgents [sic] in our sights days ago, but refused to take them out for what amounts to be amnesia that we're at war.

* spit *

Why would I want to keep the magnet charged? That's a rather odd question. Either way, it's all a red herring. You counter the claim that Iraq is a magnet of terrorism due to Bush's actions by demanding to know what I'm going to do about it? How bizarre.

 

[ohio]

the 3 terrorist acts i reminded us of happened before w was prez, & i fail to see how mass murder by al-queda (the tap root of terrorism) can be trivilialized as impotent.

Yup, and lets compare scale.

How many Americans died in those 3 attacks? How many have died in Iraq?

How many did Al Qaeda count among it's members at the time of those three attacks? How many now?

I'm not absolving anyone. We should wipe those ****ers off the face of the earth. But do you really insist that the best way to achieve that was to invade a country where they weren't?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

so this was an unprovoked attack by an animal acting on its hard-to-reverse instincts (i.e. indoctrination). was this first unexpected attack supposed to happen when i was walking to school during the clinton administration? (if there was a previous attack by al-queda i'm unaware of, do kindly inform).

Hard to reverse instincts? C'mon, you're being obtuse.

Whether Al-Qaeda attacked us during Clinton's time first or not, what does that have to do with Iraq? The analogy stands.

ah, i think i get it: the big dog is in afghanistan (where i was walking to my madrassa?), and the puppy (iraq, right?) has been put on notice by neighborhood watch (the feckless UN) to stop peeing on the rug (or else!! this is your 4h from the last warning!!) with the memory of its previous acts of aggression against dogs in its own yard & other neighboring dogs, & even me a decade before. then, i get a few other less-threatening, but still threatened (by their own admission) neighbors, & we beat it to a bloody pulp. then, it licks its wounds & morphs into another breed & becomes truly rabid, lashing out at me, my neighbors, and even itself.

The UN? More red herring, and you've subtly shifted from the dog being Al Qaeda to being Iraq.

 

[N8 v2.0]

Hard to reverse instincts? C'mon, you're being obtuse.

Whether Al-Qaeda attacked us during Clinton's time first or not, what does that have to do with Iraq? The analogy stands.

The UN? More red herring, and you've subtly shifted from the dog being Al Qaeda to being Iraq.

You need to work your favorite term "red herring" into your comments somehow.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You need to work your favorite term "red herring" into your comments somehow.

And you need to tweak your auto-reply. You tried to say something substantive not too long ago. You should look into that.

 

[$tinkle]

You are the one that acted like Ohio said there was no radicalism before 9/11. And, obviously the terrorist groups had some punch before the response to 9/11. I hardly think he meant that the response to 9/11 is what provoked 9/11 in the first place. But, by and large, most of the terrorist cells were impotent and isolated. Now, due to the actions of our fearless leader, they are united against us and more powerful than before. We are creating more and more terrorists with our callous actions.

it seems that for the purpose of this thread, "impotent & isolated" means "not within the lower 48", but what is minimized is they ran a sovereign nation (afghanistan). we kicked the camel $hi7 out of them, and do you think anybody else noticed? and after we toppled iraq, do you think anybody else noticed? do you see radical islam bloodying us up over here? please take note of this: 23 yala banks hit by bomb blasts in thailand - aug 31st & the mumbai bombings (w/ al-queda links), and the phillipines last summer, and in saudi arabia, and malaysia, spain, italy, germany, france, syria (yesterday), the UK, bali, ethiopia, morrocco, somalia, and oh-yeah i almost forgot about 1/2 of sudan. see a theme here? [hint: has nothing to do w/ our occupation of these named places].

for a group that is seemingly united against us, they sure behave like a bunch of keystone cops & can't seem to find the 4th biggest country in the world with what you seem to think has a big "kick-me" sign on it. or could it be that they know this is a fight that can't win over here, so they pick on children-of-a-lesser-god types elsewhere?

Why would I want to keep the magnet charged? That's a rather odd question. Either way, it's all a red herring. You counter the claim that Iraq is a magnet of terrorism due to Bush's actions by demanding to know what I'm going to do about it? How bizarre.

you're correct, i was being bizarre; i actually thought you wanted to do something about this pesky terrorism problem. (short of actually fighting it, that is)

 

[ohio]

they ran a sovereign nation (afghanistan).

Define your "they."

 

[Old Man G Funk]

it seems that for the purpose of this thread, "impotent & isolated" means "not within the lower 48", but what is minimized is they ran a sovereign nation (afghanistan).

No, they had ties with a sovereign nation called Pakistan which installed the Taliban who in turn helped facilitate the training camps. Note, however, that Iraq was NOT part of the equation.

we kicked the camel $hi7 out of them, and do you think anybody else noticed?

Yet Afghanistan is still in shamble, Osama is still at large, and the Taliban is still around and causing trouble.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan, I'm saying we should have done the job right and not turned our attention to a country that had nothing to do with it. If anyone didn't notice what happened in Afghanistan it was the administration.

and after we toppled iraq, do you think anybody else noticed?

Hell yeah people noticed. The radical muslims saw a power vaccuum and a chance to spread their influence to a place where they were largely shut out, as well as a place to have live training camps against American soldiers who are at a distinct disadvantage in many instances.

do you see radical islam bloodying us up over here? please take note of this: 23 yala banks hit by bomb blasts in thailand - aug 31st & the mumbai bombings (w/ al-queda links), and the phillipines last summer, and in saudi arabia, and malaysia, spain, italy, germany, france, syria (yesterday), the UK, bali, ethiopia, morrocco, somalia, and oh-yeah i almost forgot about 1/2 of sudan. see a theme here? [hint: has nothing to do w/ our occupation of these named places].

No, we've been attacked once or twice by radical Islam in our history, but none lately. Of course, the rise of radical Islam in all those places you cite should be disturbing, because how long do you think it will be before those new hot spots do become our problem. Add the rise of radical Islam in Iraq and them killing American soldiers, turning Iraq into a civil war and a blood bath, and you've got a pretty messed up situation.

for a group that is seemingly united against us, they sure behave like a bunch of keystone cops & can't seem to find the 4th biggest country in the world with what you seem to think has a big "kick-me" sign on it. or could it be that they know this is a fight that can't win over here, so they pick on children-of-a-lesser-god types elsewhere?

That might be true to some extent. It might be easier to foment in other locations, but how long until it does spill over?

you're correct, i was being bizarre; i actually thought you wanted to do something about this pesky terrorism problem. (short of actually fighting it, that is)

So, because I point out your logical fallacy that means I don't want to do something about the problem? Should I point out that that is simply more logical fallacy?

 

[$tinkle]

Yup, and lets compare scale.

How many Americans died in those 3 attacks? How many have died in Iraq?

al-Q exacted these attacks on the embassies (killing mostly brown indigenous types; "lesser" people). a few dozen between khobar towers & the uss cole was 17 or so. but let's also look at the situations of these attacks: they were ambushes, plain & simple, outside of the theater of war. is this how you'd rather have it? a few dozen expected yet "tolerable" deaths? (OLGF, before you jump on my hump about false dichotomy, recall you have no recourse to counter terrorist groups but to hunt them down; sanctions don't work on people who have no use for UN-distributed powdered goats' milk)

but since we also care about browns, let's also factor this, if you will allow: i believe this is germaine to the topic:

in iraq, we targeted bad guys, w/ admitted collateral damage, but pales in comparison (recalling that we're comparing scale) to attacks carried out by terrorists using suicide truck bombs at the markets, bombing mosques of the "wrong kind of muslims", busloads of iraqi cop-trainees, and labor-queues

How many did Al Qaeda count among it's members at the time of those three attacks? How many now?

so, abdul hung up his felefal stand to join the fight? and that's somehow that's our fault & not that of the imam during friday prayers calling for jihad? my, you do have a measurable amount of self-loathing. by that logic, we shouldn't kill them: we created them!! we're the bloody problem!! if we would go away, they would just be peace loving rug-traders.

I'm not absolving anyone. We should wipe those ****ers off the face of the earth. But do you really insist that the best way to achieve that was to invade a country where they weren't?

you seem to think we should go after people, and not an ideology being lived out through people. i think this may be the fundamental disagreement we have. and i'm cool with it.