It's this simple: come clean on WMD, or leave Iraq - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

eple · 10-26-2003, 01:59 PM

Afghanistan still exist?

Ustwo · 10-26-2003, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I am satisfied with our policy even if the threat of WMD was needed to galvanize public and world opinion so that those who would have kept us from doing what was and is the right thing to do - given the geopolitics of the region and the need for security and stability in the world - were and are rendered sufficiently powerless to subvert the effort.

I second that motion.

Nizzle · 10-26-2003, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
I am satisfied with our policy even if the threat of WMD was needed to galvanize public and world opinion so that those who would have kept us from doing what was and is the right thing to do - given the geopolitics of the region and the need for security and stability in the world - were and are rendered sufficiently powerless to subvert the effort.

Interesting wording. Let me get this straight. What you are saying is, "I don't mind that we were lied to, because if people were told the truth, they might not agree it was the right thing to do."

I just want to be clear on this. Is that what you are saying? Perhaps I misunderstood. I really hope I did, because that's outright insane. If you can't sell the truth to the general public in a supposedly democratic society, maybe it isn't the right thing to do.

We elect our officials on the basis that they will represent our beliefs. It is not their job to then subvert the wishes of the electorate through outright deception and distortion of reality. If the Bush administration could not get public support for an invasion by telling anything but the truth, then by golly, he has no business going in there.

To suggest that our leaders do not have to adhere to the beliefs of the populace that elects them is to advocate fascism, pure and simple. I am not okay with that, thank you very much. I love this country and I am becoming increasingly disturbed with the trend of some conservative pundits to openly embrace the principles of fascism, and then to my utter astonishment turn around and accuse their detractors of being un-American.

Again, whether this war was just or not is one issue. The fact that we were lied to is another, and it is an important one. Supporters of the war need to stop tying one to the other. Yes, we overthrew a cruel dictator. But that was not the stated reason for the invasion -- it was a side effect. And a convenient one for those who would like to derail the debate with rhetorical devices such as "Saddam was a bad man, to not support the war means you support him."

I did not support his dictatorship. And I do not support Bush behaving as a dictator for the same reasons. Yes, Saddam is guilty of much more evil than Bush. But by that logic, Bush could do anything short of murdering thousands of his own people and still be a saint. Sorry, but being less evil than a really evil person does not make you good. It may be a cliche, but it's a fundamental truth: the lesser of two evils is still evil.

So, can we put the question of whether this war was just or not aside for the moment, and address the fact that the administration intentionally misled the public by playing off the lingering fear and anger caused by the bombing of the World Trade Center to gain support for a war it might otherwise be reluctant to wage? We cannot go back in time to change this. What's done is done. But I think it is high time that the administration come clean to the public about this.

Sun Tzu · 10-26-2003, 09:55 PM

Nizzle your taking the discussion into the larger spectrum. Not within the logic its not OK that the public is lied to. The flip side of that is would a government that had the same situation as Jim Carey had in the movie Liar Liar where dishonesty was impossible would the US be better off? There are past events in Americas history that create generations of conspiracy theories because of facts or lack there of, and theres events that have taken place that everyone knows the government has lied about (or most), but as always bills are more important, who won the super bowl, that was a good episode of Hannity and Combes--whats up next, and the it eventually disappears into history. THis has been going on for a long time on both sides of the political parties . . . and, is it OK were lied no, yes, ? Grab a gun, picket a store, write a congressman who wont listen anyway? Vote--- no comment. . .

IMO the middle east doesnt hate America because of its freedom (there are many people that come from the middle east **not counting terrorists** to attend American Universities. They are coming here; were not going there; and yet in a general sense they hate America; why? Once you answer that question it goes beyond whether you agree with it or not. At the will of others actions the realization occurs that supporting what may be the truth is most likely going to be against the power that has crafted the progression of where not only America is; but those that now dispise it. THen the consideration becomes an awareness if anything a person or persons were to do that would effectively counter the increasing pace of what I see as "the quickening" they therefore invite they're own safety to be compromised.

What do you want to keep you up at night: the feeling of living in an unsafe environment because of retaliation in methods the attackers deem justified; or let politicians and a few others do actions that no one is going to stop anyway in the name of protection but feel it being wrong?

Nizzle · 10-26-2003, 10:03 PM

Sun Tzu - I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I haven't seen the movie Liar Liar.

I'd like to point out that Iraq was not a terrorist nation by the definition you are using here. They didn't blow up the World Trade Center. So, no, I don't feel safer. In fact, I am worried that the growing tide of animosity towards America because of our actions in Iraq might ignite a new unprecedented wave of violence against Americans, possibly on our own soil.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-26-2003, 10:27 PM

I wouldn't be so sure of that assesment Sun Tzu. Look at Saudi Arabia where you have the Wahabi's (most of the Islamic world can be used for this example). You have a theocracy running the show. They keep their people oppressed and stupid. In the land where the religion is king, and the religion is run by the government you have big problems. Going to the mosque is mandatory, and what they teach in the mosque's is hate. The state appointed clerics tell the masses that the woes of the Islamic world is the Great Satan (thats America if you didn't know). They preach death to those who won't convert, and that is everyone even other Muslims of different sects. Osama Bin Laden is a Wahhabi, 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 were Wahhabi's. But it's not limited to the Wahhabi's. The Taliban is popular in Islam, Hamas is popular in Islam, Wahhabism is growing in the Islamic world (its the main school in England, and it has schools all around the world), the Iranian theocracy is Islam and as I write this they are pushing for the same thing in Iraq. What it comes down to is that the religion of Islam abuses its masses to retain its power, it tells people that America is the problem along with the Jews and the only way to get rid of us is Jihad.

Long story short thats one of the big reasons this war was waged and why it was necessary. Islam is a growing threat to American security, a stable Iraq fucks with those who would destroy us.

Also Nizzle Iraq might not have had a role in 9-11, but it definently supported terrorism. Saddam let many Palestinian terrorist organizations operate out of there. He granted people like Abu Nidal safe haven there, not to mention groups like Ansar Al- Islam.

Nizzle · 10-26-2003, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I wouldn't be so sure of that assesment Sun Tzu. Look at Saudi Arabia where you have the Wahabi's (most of the Islamic world can be used for this example). You have a theocracy running the show. They keep their people oppressed and stupid. In the land were the religion is king, and the religion is run by the government you have big problems. Going to the mosque is mandatory, and what they teach in the mosque's is hate. The state appointed clerics tell the masses that the woes of the Islamic world is the Great Satan (thats America if you didn't know). They preach death to those who won't convert, and that is everyone even other Muslims of different sects. Osama Bin Laden is a Wahhabi, 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 were Wahhabi's. But it's not limited to the Wahhabi's. The whole religion of Islam, which I whole heartadly believe is evil, hates America and as a whole promotes hate. The Taliban is popular in Islam, Hamas is popular in Islam, Wahhabism is growing in the Islamic world (its the main school in England, and it has schools all around the world), the Iranian theocracy is Islam and as I write this they are pushing for the same thing in Iraq. What it comes down to is that the HATEFUL religion of Islam abuses its masses to retain its power, it tells people that America is the problem along with the Jews and the only way to get rid of us is Jihad.

Long story short thats one of the big reasons this war was waged and why it was necessary. Islam is a growing threat to American security, a stable Iraq fucks with those who would destroy us.

This is utter nonsense on so many levels I don't know where to begin. I think you're just trolling. I urge the other contributors to this thread not to feed the troll and stick to the point at hand -- that the administration lied to us, and that is not okay under any circumstances.

Thanks.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-26-2003, 10:35 PM

Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The fact of the matter is that Saddam did have weapons. But those were just a way for us to get in the door to rattle the cage.

XenuHubbard · 10-26-2003, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
But those were just a way for us to get in the door to rattle the cage.

Which is why "Old Europe" did not lend you the support.

The Pre-emptive strike concept doesn't feel very safe to me, since it effectively gives China the right to drop a bomb on my head whenever China wants to. Taiwan definetely pose a threat to China. Taiwanese army-boots are marching all over Formosa already.

Tibet could be demolished on the basis of the War on Terror alone.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-26-2003, 11:52 PM

Hey you know what, do what you gotta do. Like I've said in the past regardless of if you think that Iraq was a good example for pre-emption, it is necessary in this time and place. Your a fucking fool if you wait to get hit first. Why should America let some punk bitches get the jump when it comes to our security?

Let me ask you Xenu, does Taiwan posess WMD's? Because thats what the Bush Doctrine addresses.

XenuHubbard · 10-27-2003, 12:01 AM

I'm sure China could find a few if they wanted to find them.
Why should China let some punk bitches get the jump when it comes to their security? They don't even need WMD's as an excuse. The Taiwanese are already in China.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-27-2003, 12:06 AM

I hear what your saying, but I think it is completely different context in regard to the Bush Doctrine.

XenuHubbard · 10-27-2003, 12:18 AM

That's true. But China could point at both the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine if they felt like it. It would be difficult for the US to say anything about it. Taiwanese forces pose a much bigger threat to China than Iraq did to the US.

That's why I believe that Iraq was a bad precedent to set. People outside of the US didn't oppose the war because they thought Saddam Hussein was a nice guy - it's more as if it opened a Pandora's Box of international politics.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-27-2003, 12:40 AM

Does not the U.S. back Taiwan as far as that whole fiasco goes?

XenuHubbard · 10-27-2003, 12:53 AM

The official policy is that the US wants a peaceful solution.
While the US is clearly leaning towards Taiwan, the current situation is very comfortable for the US.

For continued support, the US can pull that card whenever it wishes. Taiwan continues to be valuable when it comes to negotiations with China as well. So the best thing for the US would be if the current situation continued.

I think that if China becomes a more valuable ally in the future, Taiwan would be negotiable.

As for the governments - the Chinese government today is quite similar to Taiwan's government 25 years ago. Neither country has had a nice history.

Out of a neocon perspective, backing Taiwan will only be profitable for 20 to 25 years more. After that, China will be depending on either USA or Canada for food, if the current population growth continues. Then, of course, supporting China taking over Taiwan would be more profitable for the US.

While typing this I just realized that I have committed myself to living in Taiwan. Should probably stock up on canned food and ammo...

2wolves · 10-27-2003, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
quote:
Originally posted by 2wolves
Ok, one at a time redux:

1. Still dodging the original question. I asked how you'd feel about that possibility as that is what
the United States did to Iraq. You ran from the premise.

I accepted your premise, but there is nothign to say, as no nation would have done that, and if they did, then the world wold be a truly fucked up place as no nation would have been able to stand up to the communists and you problably wouldnt have the freedom to complain about what ever nation would have conqured north America for a glorious communist regime.
I asked you how you'd feel, once more you are dodging while extrapolating about the possibilities of who would have opposed marxist-leninism.

2. "Mired in the past"? Yeah, yesterday was a real iron clad bitch. Tomorrow looks like more of the same.
Nice bitter attitude you got.
The truth offends you? I'm usually in an a good outlook mode, but wishing doesn't create real change nor erase the idiot attitudes of bigots and morons. So, yes, a less than sweetness and light bitterness comes out.

3. Germans.... Nuremberg.... Tell me, when was the last time a caucasian stood in the dock for killing an American native
or taking away their language, or ..... you've probably stopped reading already.
What about the Natives that waged war, killed, raped and tortured other natives? You are making it sound like America was utopia before Europeans came. Dont forget, the the tribes that were slaughtered to extinction BEFORE white man showed up. Are you complaining about that too, or just the white man? Why did so many tribes join with the settles AGAINST other tribes? Whites were acting JUST like the natives and vice versa. Does it make it right? Not at all, and today we know better.
Having had the vast majority of our recorded history burned or simply wiped out means the only written record was produced by whom? D'oh!

4. "Wage war on his terms" The Republicans didn't seem bothered by this when the Iran / Iraq war was going on. What changed?
The world is complex. We also didnt seem to concered with Stalin when we were fighting the nazis, does this make America evil?
No, but does make the United States less than honest. The socialist haters in this country often forget the fact that the U.S.S.R. made enormous sacrifices during the time the U.S. geared up for that war.

5. Saved whose lives? Not citizens of the United States. I worked with an Iraqi in the 80's, who's job it was
during the aforementioned conflict, to crawl into the desert at night with a one meter metal rod to find Iranian
land mines. His personal view? Vote against any and all Republicans he could find after getting citizenship.

Save Iraqi lives. Saddam killed on average 100.000 people per year of his reign. The year the big bad Americans waged war less then 5000 people were killed. So why was the year that there was a war the safest in recent Iraqi history? And thats wonderful your friend gets to vote agains who he doesnt like. Pretty soon that right will be extended to Iraqis. And even if they doent like Rebublicans, they can thank them for that right.
See point #1

6. Al Quida is not a governmental organization. They did not attempt a coup in the 'stan. They have not tried
to overthrow the Saud family. What G-2 do you possess that is not available to the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc, etc, etc?
You dont think Al Queda is in Iraq now? You dont think they would love it if America pulled out? You dont think they will take advantage? They dont take over Afganistan or Saudi cause the military, abandon Iraq, and that another story.
What intel do you posses to show that A.Q. has attempted to take over ANY country? You're dodging.

2Wolves

Food Eater Lad · 10-27-2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2wolves

1How would I feel? I dont know, as I wouldnt be born as my Gypsy parents would have no safe place to flee to and the nazis would have been turned them into a lampshade like my uncle. Had it happened the world would be vastly different, and mostly likey living under horrid communisism. Its not a dodge its what would have happened.

2 Bitter is as bitter does,

3 So you are saying that you disagee with archeolgical evidence? Can you provide any prove that PRe Columbian America was a utopia and not a place full of wars, torture and fighting as it really was. Cant blame whitey for natural human behavior. I await your documentation.

4 thats right, cause that was OUR terms. I see your knowlegde of international politics is quite limited.

5 And I still say that the free Iraqis can safly vote how they want in the next election, as can your friend. What a wonderful country.

6 LOL again, your hatred for white men and the US government, plus your feelings that you are entitled to anything because of your ethnicity has blinded you to the fact that Al Queda, as well as other islamic fundie terrorists groups are working in Iraq.

eple · 10-27-2003, 03:50 PM

FEL, you are making less sense with every post, and I think everybody will be much happier if you could stop trying to label anyone not agreeing with you as anti-american or hater of white men or whatnot.

matthew330 · 10-27-2003, 06:03 PM

I'm still confused with what the significance of WMD's are. The whole deal prior going to war was that Saddam Hussein had to prove that he didn't have them. Bush single handedly got the inspectors back in, Saddam Hussein had every opportunity to avoid being attacked. I think my timeline's right:

Bush single handedly got the inspectors back in, with the UN kicking and screaming the whole way. Untill Bush convinced them of the importance of making sure Iraq had no WMD.

The deal was if Saddam didn't comply fully with the weapons inspectors and "prove" to the world he didn't have weapons - we'd kick his ass out. It was said over and over - we don't have to "prove he does", it's up to him to "prove he doesn't."

Saddam was fuckin with them the entire time making no effort to cooperate - doubtfull he would have been so comfortable doing this if the UN had some balls, but Saddam knows they haven't any sort of spine.

Bush said "fuck you guys", we're goin in cause you're inspectors suck ass and your putting no pressure on Saddam. They cried for more time, Bush gave it to them, made a case for why he "believed" they had WMD, and the UN reluctantly agreed. Their are two constants here - Bush always stands firm and the UN are whining fuckin babies. Had Saddam simply done what he'd been given every opportunity to do, their wouldn't have been any question about whether or not they existed and none of this would have happened.

Now that it has - everyone who disagrees with the war throws in the disclaimer that (yeah it's probably a good thing Saddam's gone). Whether or not you agreed with the war before is irrelavant now - you'd have to be a total idiot to think the best thing for that region would be for us to pull out, but Jesus Christ did anyone here some of those idiots during that prostest yesterday yelling to "bring our sons and daughters home immediately." Ignorance at it's finest - you're hatred for Bush getting in the way of common sense and what really is at this point best for the world. AS much as I love Bush I'm tempted to vote against him just so I don't have to listen to another 4 years of the biggest fuckin bunch of crybabies yelling in my ear whining about him.

Food Eater Lad · 10-27-2003, 07:48 PM

Matthew, It seems that that people are choosing to forget the facts. Thanks for reminding them.

Food Eater Lad · 10-27-2003, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
FEL, you are making less sense with every post, and I think everybody will be much happier if you could stop trying to label anyone not agreeing with you as anti-american or hater of white men or whatnot.

Nice personal attack. Its easier than debunking my posts i guess.

Nizzle · 10-27-2003, 09:39 PM

No, you're just not making sense.

Cheers.

Food Eater Lad · 10-27-2003, 10:28 PM

Again, nice personal attack. I can sure see how you shredded my claims.......

Ustwo · 10-27-2003, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
So, no, I don't feel safer. In fact, I am worried that the growing tide of animosity towards America because of our actions in Iraq might ignite a new unprecedented wave of violence against Americans, possibly on our own soil.

I feel quite the opposite. There are very important lessons the US taught the world in Iraq.

#1 - You can only push so far before we call your bluff.

#2 - You don't stand a chance.

Do you think that the other Arab national governments, be they kings, dictators, or elected , will want to even HINT of being a terrorist supporter, at least while a Republican is in office?

I know these people as well as any outsider, I have several friends from Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia and I always like to get their opinion on these issues. The one thing they say their governments respect is strength. In 1980 when the hostages came back, you know the main reason they were released? It wasn't some magical secret deal by Reagan/Bush to make Carter look bad, Carter was good enough at that on his own, it was because they were scared SHITLESS of Reagan.

We ARE safer, because the terrorists can only get very limited help from any government, can only seek sanctuary in a few places, and can only travel under deep cover.

Sure we may well have another major terrorist attack in the US, we all know how open we are, and no one is really willing to take steps to prevent it, so we watch and we hope, but you can be damn sure no government is going to allow ANY ties to it.

filtherton · 10-28-2003, 03:07 AM

Quote:

I'm still confused with what the significance of WMD's are. The whole deal prior going to war was that Saddam Hussein had to prove that he didn't have them. Bush single handedly got the inspectors back in, Saddam Hussein had every opportunity to avoid being attacked. I think my timeline's right:

Surely you're not saying the war was the result of merely a technical issue about iraq not conforming to the un. Israel does that too.
If WMD's are so unimportant, why was the idea of iraq as an imminent threat built up so much? Why all of the deception about why we needed to go to war? Why the implied links to al quaeda? Why all of the flip-flopping? Either it was about liberation or looking out for our security, the administration just chooses whichever reason is currently most convenient.

ustwo

Quote:

I feel quite the opposite. There are very important lessons the US taught the world in Iraq.

You left out
#3- It is acceptable to invade and occupy a country with no more justification than the fact that they might attack you in the future.

matthew330 · 10-28-2003, 03:37 AM

Quote:

If WMD's are so unimportant, why was the idea of iraq as an imminent threat built up so much? Why all of the deception about why we needed to go to war? Why the implied links to al quaeda?

To quote the title of this thread, it's this simple: Iraq has WMD, Iraq doesn't hesitate to use them. Being that it was unclear whether or not he did, and made no effort to prove to the world he didn't - he was an imminent threat.

Inspectors hadn't been there since 1998, and to quote President Clinton at that time: ""If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people." I guess noone reacted to this in 1998 because noone believed what the hell Clinton said anyway, but we all know Bush means what he says.

Not to mention 4 years had passed with nothing having been done since Clinton made this statement - do you really think Saddam was of his own volition adhering to UN sanctions, or do you think the situation was becoming more volitile?

One more quote from Muhammad Mansour Shihab Ali, now captured: "Killing is something I did. I killed. This was for the Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda."

To suggest that the reasons the Bush administration laid out for removing Sadam are at best gross overstatements and at worst bold faced lies I think is nieve (that was more of a general statment and not directed at you in particular filtherton).

eple · 10-28-2003, 05:22 AM

Well, whatever opinion I muight have on Iraq2, I don't really support pulling out of a country after destroying infrastructure. The war is won, the fight for peace and stability has hardly started at all. The precense of the US in the region to maintain stability is needed for many years to come.

10-26-2003, 09:55 PM	#44 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	Nizzle your taking the discussion into the larger spectrum. Not within the logic its not OK that the public is lied to. The flip side of that is would a government that had the same situation as Jim Carey had in the movie Liar Liar where dishonesty was impossible would the US be better off? There are past events in Americas history that create generations of conspiracy theories because of facts or lack there of, and theres events that have taken place that everyone knows the government has lied about (or most), but as always bills are more important, who won the super bowl, that was a good episode of Hannity and Combes--whats up next, and the it eventually disappears into history. THis has been going on for a long time on both sides of the political parties . . . and, is it OK were lied no, yes, ? Grab a gun, picket a store, write a congressman who wont listen anyway? Vote--- no comment. . . IMO the middle east doesnt hate America because of its freedom (there are many people that come from the middle east not counting terrorists to attend American Universities. They are coming here; were not going there; and yet in a general sense they hate America; why? Once you answer that question it goes beyond whether you agree with it or not. At the will of others actions the realization occurs that supporting what may be the truth is most likely going to be against the power that has crafted the progression of where not only America is; but those that now dispise it. THen the consideration becomes an awareness if anything a person or persons were to do that would effectively counter the increasing pace of what I see as "the quickening" they therefore invite they're own safety to be compromised. What do you want to keep you up at night: the feeling of living in an unsafe environment because of retaliation in methods the attackers deem justified; or let politicians and a few others do actions that no one is going to stop anyway in the name of protection but feel it being wrong? __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

10-26-2003, 10:03 PM	#45 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	Sun Tzu - I'm sorry, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I haven't seen the movie Liar Liar. I'd like to point out that Iraq was not a terrorist nation by the definition you are using here. They didn't blow up the World Trade Center. So, no, I don't feel safer. In fact, I am worried that the growing tide of animosity towards America because of our actions in Iraq might ignite a new unprecedented wave of violence against Americans, possibly on our own soil. __________________ Nizzle

10-26-2003, 10:27 PM	#46 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I wouldn't be so sure of that assesment Sun Tzu. Look at Saudi Arabia where you have the Wahabi's (most of the Islamic world can be used for this example). You have a theocracy running the show. They keep their people oppressed and stupid. In the land where the religion is king, and the religion is run by the government you have big problems. Going to the mosque is mandatory, and what they teach in the mosque's is hate. The state appointed clerics tell the masses that the woes of the Islamic world is the Great Satan (thats America if you didn't know). They preach death to those who won't convert, and that is everyone even other Muslims of different sects. Osama Bin Laden is a Wahhabi, 15 of the 19 hijackers from 9-11 were Wahhabi's. But it's not limited to the Wahhabi's. The Taliban is popular in Islam, Hamas is popular in Islam, Wahhabism is growing in the Islamic world (its the main school in England, and it has schools all around the world), the Iranian theocracy is Islam and as I write this they are pushing for the same thing in Iraq. What it comes down to is that the religion of Islam abuses its masses to retain its power, it tells people that America is the problem along with the Jews and the only way to get rid of us is Jihad. Long story short thats one of the big reasons this war was waged and why it was necessary. Islam is a growing threat to American security, a stable Iraq fucks with those who would destroy us. Also Nizzle Iraq might not have had a role in 9-11, but it definently supported terrorism. Saddam let many Palestinian terrorist organizations operate out of there. He granted people like Abu Nidal safe haven there, not to mention groups like Ansar Al- Islam. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 10-26-2003 at 10:44 PM..

10-26-2003, 10:35 PM	#48 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Your entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. The fact of the matter is that Saddam did have weapons. But those were just a way for us to get in the door to rattle the cage. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-26-2003, 11:52 PM	#50 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Hey you know what, do what you gotta do. Like I've said in the past regardless of if you think that Iraq was a good example for pre-emption, it is necessary in this time and place. Your a fucking fool if you wait to get hit first. Why should America let some punk bitches get the jump when it comes to our security? Let me ask you Xenu, does Taiwan posess WMD's? Because thats what the Bush Doctrine addresses. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 10-26-2003 at 11:57 PM..

10-26-2003, 01:59 PM	#41 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Afghanistan still exist?

10-27-2003, 12:01 AM	#51 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	I'm sure China could find a few if they wanted to find them. Why should China let some punk bitches get the jump when it comes to their security? They don't even need WMD's as an excuse. The Taiwanese are already in China. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

10-27-2003, 12:06 AM	#52 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I hear what your saying, but I think it is completely different context in regard to the Bush Doctrine. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-27-2003, 12:18 AM	#53 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	That's true. But China could point at both the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine if they felt like it. It would be difficult for the US to say anything about it. Taiwanese forces pose a much bigger threat to China than Iraq did to the US. That's why I believe that Iraq was a bad precedent to set. People outside of the US didn't oppose the war because they thought Saddam Hussein was a nice guy - it's more as if it opened a Pandora's Box of international politics. __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

10-27-2003, 12:40 AM	#54 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Does not the U.S. back Taiwan as far as that whole fiasco goes? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-27-2003, 12:53 AM	#55 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	The official policy is that the US wants a peaceful solution. While the US is clearly leaning towards Taiwan, the current situation is very comfortable for the US. For continued support, the US can pull that card whenever it wishes. Taiwan continues to be valuable when it comes to negotiations with China as well. So the best thing for the US would be if the current situation continued. I think that if China becomes a more valuable ally in the future, Taiwan would be negotiable. As for the governments - the Chinese government today is quite similar to Taiwan's government 25 years ago. Neither country has had a nice history. Out of a neocon perspective, backing Taiwan will only be profitable for 20 to 25 years more. After that, China will be depending on either USA or Canada for food, if the current population growth continues. Then, of course, supporting China taking over Taiwan would be more profitable for the US. While typing this I just realized that I have committed myself to living in Taiwan. Should probably stock up on canned food and ammo... __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

10-27-2003, 03:50 PM	#58 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	FEL, you are making less sense with every post, and I think everybody will be much happier if you could stop trying to label anyone not agreeing with you as anti-american or hater of white men or whatnot.

10-27-2003, 06:03 PM	#59 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	I'm still confused with what the significance of WMD's are. The whole deal prior going to war was that Saddam Hussein had to prove that he didn't have them. Bush single handedly got the inspectors back in, Saddam Hussein had every opportunity to avoid being attacked. I think my timeline's right: Bush single handedly got the inspectors back in, with the UN kicking and screaming the whole way. Untill Bush convinced them of the importance of making sure Iraq had no WMD. The deal was if Saddam didn't comply fully with the weapons inspectors and "prove" to the world he didn't have weapons - we'd kick his ass out. It was said over and over - we don't have to "prove he does", it's up to him to "prove he doesn't." Saddam was fuckin with them the entire time making no effort to cooperate - doubtfull he would have been so comfortable doing this if the UN had some balls, but Saddam knows they haven't any sort of spine. Bush said "fuck you guys", we're goin in cause you're inspectors suck ass and your putting no pressure on Saddam. They cried for more time, Bush gave it to them, made a case for why he "believed" they had WMD, and the UN reluctantly agreed. Their are two constants here - Bush always stands firm and the UN are whining fuckin babies. Had Saddam simply done what he'd been given every opportunity to do, their wouldn't have been any question about whether or not they existed and none of this would have happened. Now that it has - everyone who disagrees with the war throws in the disclaimer that (yeah it's probably a good thing Saddam's gone). Whether or not you agreed with the war before is irrelavant now - you'd have to be a total idiot to think the best thing for that region would be for us to pull out, but Jesus Christ did anyone here some of those idiots during that prostest yesterday yelling to "bring our sons and daughters home immediately." Ignorance at it's finest - you're hatred for Bush getting in the way of common sense and what really is at this point best for the world. AS much as I love Bush I'm tempted to vote against him just so I don't have to listen to another 4 years of the biggest fuckin bunch of crybabies yelling in my ear whining about him.

10-27-2003, 07:48 PM	#60 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Matthew, It seems that that people are choosing to forget the facts. Thanks for reminding them.

10-27-2003, 09:39 PM	#62 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	No, you're just not making sense. Cheers. __________________ Nizzle

10-27-2003, 10:28 PM	#63 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Again, nice personal attack. I can sure see how you shredded my claims.......

10-28-2003, 05:22 AM	#67 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Well, whatever opinion I muight have on Iraq2, I don't really support pulling out of a country after destroying infrastructure. The war is won, the fight for peace and stability has hardly started at all. The precense of the US in the region to maintain stability is needed for many years to come.