That might be the most rational thing I've heard all day...

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index...on?id=55886848


He said it better than I would have. And I agree.

Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft. and Gonzales, have not
exhibited symptoms of sociopathic behavior ? I would not be surprised if many
in the European Union and in Canada, think that they have behaved like
sociopaths. I'm guessing that many members here think that they have.

A convincing argument can be made that the Bushco have fomented war
of aggression, instigated via a carefully crafted campaign of deception.
They planned and ordered the torture and abuse of those captured by
military and civilian intelligence forces under their command. They violated
the Geneva Convention by hiding select captives from the Int. Red Cross.
By your logic, why would it not be appropriate for European or Asian
authorities to use any means necessary to reduce the U.S. nuclear
capability, since it is under the control of sociopaths. Might makes right,
in your world, and in Bush's, too. Lots and lots of people have been, and
will continue to be needlessly maimed and killed until you and Bush wake
the fuck up. You're so myopic, self centered, and quick to choose aggression.
U.S. state sponsered murder doesn't scare the Iraqi resistance, and it
doesn't achieve the intended political or economic result. The initial military
result is reversed over time. You're living in the past and you're fucking up
the world by encouraging and supporting the Bushco.

Nice article billege. Whilst many will not agree with it, I most certainly do.

I just don't see Iran as such a huge threat. I think it's a phantom.


Mr Mephisto

Stompy, I almost didn't take the bait. I just couldn't resist.

You stated, "I hope America invades, and falls." Stop and think about what you said. If that isn't an anti-American statement, hoping that your country falls (at something that hasn't even happened) than I don't know what is. At least now everyone here knows exactly where you're coming from. Your hatred for America is quite evident.

.....enter Pan6467 in all Caps

It has been made clear that only way a nation can defend itself against American military aggression is to own nukes and not be afraid to use them.

As such, I now sympasize with nations that wish to work on nuclear programs. In fact, it would probably be wise for current US allies to work on nuclear programs, in case things change.

The exitance of beligerant nations with nuclear weapons is a horrible thing for the world as a whole.

The veto powers can effectivly do no wrong under the UN, unless they don't show up.

Any of the veto powers can veto any and all UN security council votes that call for santions on their own nation.

Law is the application of power. Good law is a good application of power. You are above the law if the law has no power over you.

So long as there is someone above the law, I personally treat the law as if it where any other form of coersion. Not ethically superior to a schoolyard bully.

You draft people who have finished their military service, and only them.

This will cause a future problem (people not wanting to join the military), but it will make certain that most people can believe "oh, it won't happen to US, so that's ok".

Yes, the Iraq war was cheap. More people where murdered in California during the than died in Iraq during this ongoing war and occupation.

Compare Iraq to other wars. WW1 or 2. Civil war. Veitnam. Even Korea. Look at what the economies of other nations do when they go to war.

The Iraq war was cheap. The size of the military budget during the Iraq war wasn't all that much higher than the size of the peacetime US military budget.

Admittedly, 90%+ of casualties where kept alive by the improved emergency medical care, so the death rate in Iraq is much lower than the level of danger would indicate. If this war where to have happened 20 years ago, the same level of damage to soldiers would have caused 2 to 4 times more deaths.

I'm saying that a successful war against Iran would be expensive. You'd have a serious economic impact from fighting it. The USA has the capacity to crush Iran, but it would cost the USA.

And maybe I'm wrong -- maybe the USA could strip Europe and Japan and forces at home, call up all reserves, hire mercinaries in Afghanistan and Iraq, and defeat Iran's military.

Bush won the election, and has stated this clears him of all culpability on Iraq. The US people said 'we saw what you did in Iraq, and approve'.

The current American government doesn't care about international opinion.

/shrug, WW2 and WW3 where profitable for those in control of the American economy. Starting a new one would also be good for them, probably.

the problem is not the reality of any threat posed by iran, but that iran as target fits neatly into the neocon fantasy of themselves as avengers of previous wrongs done to the american hegemon--iran is obviously as big a deal in that world as iraq, but the logic is a bit different: it fits neatly into the question of their favorite phantasm, "islamic fundamentalism" (which you see repeated ad nauseum in the various space within which conervative rationalizations for the actions of a basically pathological administration get deployed).

selling the war to a credulous tv-viewing public would not be as problematic as selling a war unrelated to these already existing terms would be.

thing is that invading iran would be a total disaster.
a much bigger disaster than iraq has so far been.

on the other hand, bush, like his 1920s-1930s ideological predecessors, seems to require constant war to legitimate his policies, and his administration more generally, before the public. this is the other logical space that makes anyone who thinks about it worry a bit that this neocon fantasy may well end up generating alot more deaths for very little reason.

on the other hand:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185205.stm

it appears that the only population on earth that finds this administration to be coherent, its policies admirable, are american conservatives. the only population that finds this policy of absurd war in iraq to be reassuring, and who would potentially welcome an even more idiotic invasion of iran, are american conservatives. it is not in the least surprising to find this same population totally incapable of relativizing its positions--like their boy bush, they appeal to an arbitrary higher authority, one that enables them to imagine 51% is an overwhelming mandate, an affirmation of policy blah blah blah.

Agreed 100%. I think if people looked which countries had the most to gain from an attack on Iran, the picture would become a lot clearer from a power broker point of view.

It wasn't "bait".

You're over-analyzing, and because of this, you missed my point.

Calm down. Take a step away from the computer... breathe.

You don't need your hand held to understand what I'm trying to say, and if you do, then I don't know what to say. Quit wasting my time and everyone else's. I said what I had to say, it means nothing more, nothing less.

Agree with it, disagree with it, whatever. Just move on with it and quit making mountains out of molehills.

FYI - I'm not a blind patriot, and yes, I hope our govt gets taught a lesson. There's nothing anti-american about it. You're just another one of those typical "if you aren't with us, you're against us" folk. It gets old.

Move on.

...dot org?

The bible fits directly into all of this. We have a president who believes he was appointed by God. He believe God speaks to him and he is doing God's will with the war on terrror (aka Islam). He has called his war a crusade and he has campaigned on the fact tha t he is a self-avowed christian.

You say pacifism is a disease, then I pray that I am sick. Because if I have this disease then I am one step closer to Jesus. Jesus told us to love our enemy as ourself. He told us to turn the other cheak. When his dicipiles grabbed a sword to defend him he told them stop, those who grab a sword to defend me will loose their life. He then proceeded to heal the soldier who got his ear chopped off. Now you tell me if it sounds like Jesus wanted Christains to wage war on other nations.

It should be noted that withdrawing from a treaty is not illegal. Treaties are an agreement between nations in good faith. But at any time any involved in that treaty can decided that treaty is no longer valid and as such do as they please.

I think the biggest way to remove the "threat" of Iran is to help their fledling democracy grow and remove the fundamentalist threat that seeks to overthrow it. Imagine that, a democracy there, that ends up friendly or at least neutral to the U.S.? That would be a lot easier and probably smarter than bombs away.

and how do you propose we go about doing this? They hardly have a "fledling democracy" now and their current government is extremely hostile towards us. Their fundamentalist leadership keeps their population held down and there are no resistance groups within the country that we potentially support to overthrow their current government, and even if there were, they would probably be crushed immediately after rising up. Kinda makes it hard to set up a democracy in that kind of environment....

yup.
interesting theory about Bush policy being psychologically driven, and there might be some truth to it. However, it reminds me of all the times that I have agreed with Rush Limbaugh's conclusions, though a very different thought process led me there.

I might get a little preachy here, and feel free to call me judgmental, jingoistic, and full of typical American arrogance, but I doubt you'll change my mind.

I think we were justified in going into Iraq, and I think we would be justified in getting rid of Iran's nukes, for many of the same reasons. If it was the right thing to do then, and we were mistaken, then it is even more right to do so now, when there is even more evidence that the assumptions about nuclear weapons are correct. I don't think Bush totally fits the strong, stalwart, damn-the-opinion-polls-we're-doing everything-we-can-to-win-the-war-on-terror image that some people like to paint of him, or we would be doing something about it. Then again, he might be.

I think it's probable that we have operatives in Iran. In fact, if we do not, the Congress ought to be asking why not. When a nation that is adamantly opposed to the US has WMD, we ought to be able to do something about it. Not only is it in the self-interest of the US, but in the long-run, it would make the world a better place to get rid of a nation such as Iran. In the medium run, it would make the world a safer place to get rid of the nuclear capability of Iran. Yes, in the short run, an attack on Iran would probably not make the world a safer place, and certainly not safer for our troops, but that is America's obligation and price we pay, both for our protection and as the world's leader.


As for the remarks about Jesus and turning the other cheek posted by Rekna:

Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is His. Paul told the people to obey their government, and that it was placed there by God's will. The personal acts of Christians and the behavior of Nations are two very different things. While a Christian myself, I strongly feel that the seperation of Church and State should apply to more aspects of the government than whether there can be nativity scenes in the town square. The disciples practiced what is basically communism, and if people want to act that way, it may even be admirable, but it does not work for governments to adopt those methods. Should the government forgive everyone that commits crimes, as Jesus taught Christians to do? Obviously not. Don't mean to hijack this thread, but I wanted to address that.

That sure worked out well for Neville Chaimberlain.

That line is CLASSIC.

And I agree with most of what Mojo is saying. It would probably be better if people were nice and cuddly and sweet all the time, but it doesn't work in practice. And what ends up happening is you need to balance practicality with idealism. Now I could see how some people think maybe the US is curently too practical, but the mentality of alot of people changed after 9/11. Personally, I think it was a big overreaction, and gave alot more power to terrorists than was necessary. But it isn't hard to see how after being attacked a country would get alot more aggressive, to the point of preemptive strikes. Also, there was this massive military complex sitting around with nothing to do after the cold war. I remember it being a big topic as to what all these agencys would do in a post-cold war world, and what our military's purpose was. Nobody is really asking that now.

The main problem with Iraq was not the war itself, but the occupation afterwards. The US gravely miscalculated in assuming that Iraq would just instantly breathe a sigh of relief, and that the troops could just leave. That obviously wasn't the case, instead what was created was a vacuum that without US presence would allow the same sort of terrorists to come into power that are in Iran or were in Afghanistan. And I think the same misjudgement might be on the horizon for Iran. If we can go in for just a military action, I think it will be a big success. But before that we must make sure that the people are as ready for revolt against the current theocracy as certain people are claiming, or it will be an even greater disaster.

I'd be all for Democratic change peaceably in Iran, thing is I don't see it happening. The prime minister seems to be pretty legit, but the Guardian council or whatever has the run. Didn't 2000+ people get blocked from running for office? I'm thinking it's an Iraq thing, they know how false the government is, but what are they going to do about it?

The quote give to ceaser what is ceaser's and god what is god's is in referal to paying taxes. It occured when some pharasis were trying to trick jesus by getting him to denounce the rome so he would be killed.

Romans teaches us to follow the government but the US is different we as individuals are part of the government. It is our duty to question our governments actions and help direct them to what is best for it. As a christian I feel that I should try to direct the government to behave as Jesus taught us. The reason I feel I can hold this current administration to the bible is because the administration has told everyone how great they are as chirstians. If we had an agnostic president I wouldn't hold him to these standards (though I would still try to get him behave as we have been taught). The president has abused his "religion" to gain support of christains all over by taking advantage of propaganda.

Here is a question for everyone. If war has not been successfull to bring peace the the middle east for 2000 years what makes you think it will be successful now? Every crusade was a dismal failure that only made things worse. Doesn't anyone see that you can't get rid of hate by using hate? There is only one thing that can stop hatred. Ghandi and MLK jr both knew this. So why can't we learn this?

ditto

I would be suprised if there weren't US operatives inside Iran right now. You see, whether you want to believe it or not this is WW3. It is freedom vs. fascism. The next nuclear bomb to go off will be detonated by islamo-fascists either by Iran directly or by way of Iran. And when that happens it might as well be over because the response from the US is going to end this war. The US is doing everything in its power to keep this from happening, and hopefully our efforts will not have been in vain.

But going on believing that there is no threat from Islamo-fascists that want to kill ALL the infidels is not going to keep you alive.

The reason this war is different is because we are not trying to conquer people, we are spreading democracy, which will spread capitalisim, wealth, and the improvement of standards of living....which is good for humanity.

Democracy at gunpoint. Yay team. :rolleyes:

A rose by anyother name...

Whose at gun point? You have a VAST minority of Iraqi's making shit bad for everyone else, hell a lot of them aren't even Iraqi nationals! Do I think they want us there? No. Do I think they support the insurgency? No, they insurgents are fucking everything up and killing innocents Iraqi's on purpose. They are holding everything up and prolonging our presence there. Plus you should note that the insurgency is only focused in 3, count them, 3 of the 18 provinces, mostly focused in the Sunni triangle, where <gasp> Saddam was from and where his base and loyality all stem from! You have ex-Saddam loyalists and Islamic Fundamentalists perpetuating this bullshit and stiffling the democratic process that could flourish in Iraq.

And what Stevo said rings true Rekna, you think the world will be a better place with a failed state in Iraq? You think it will be better with the Baathists back in power? maybe you want another Shiite Theocracy next door to a nuclear Iran, oh yeah that'd be great.

People really need to get over this shit and stop reenforcing the paper tiger mentality to these insurgents.

How did this get shifted to Iraq? I thought this discussion was on Iran. We made a mistake going into Iraq and have now created the very thing we feared (a breading ground for terrorism). Do we want to do the same to Iran? Tell me something mojo if you piss off your wife and she slaps you do you punch her and kick her as a response? How about if your neighbor does the same? Doing that will get you thrown in jail (rightly so). If your neighbor puts up a sign you don't agree with do you burn down his house? Why does our nation get lead in ways we wouldn't lead our lives? You say it is different because these people hate us. Why do you think they hate us? I'll give you a hint it isn't because they hate freedom.

The US is arogent thinking everything it does is right. Didn't you ever run into people like that in school? People who thought they were always right (even when clearly wrong) and felt they had to convince everyone else they were right via whatever means possible. I'm reminded of a verse in the bible "Humble yourself or God will humble you".

Instead of spending all our money trying to find and kill these people who "hate" America maybe we should spend some time and money figuring out why they hate us and see if we can fix that. If you think the US has squeaky clean hands you need to realize that we are not perfect.

Oh I know you didn't just call Saddam's former government a Shiite theocracy!? :eek:

So much for staying on topic.

Saddam's government was a secular Sunni government, he fucked over the autonomous kurds and the Shiites. The reference to the shiites comes from people like Al-Sadr, a big leader of the insurgency in and around Baghdad, he along with many of the Shiites are trying to take over the government and make it similar to Iran's seeing as to the Majority of the country is Shiite.

Glad you cleared that up.

But how exactly would a Shiite theocracy be bad when the majority of the people are Shiites? In and of itself it would seem to be expected. What do you expect, a Roman Catholic theocracy?

Or do you have issue with there being a theocracy in Iraq at all?

I'm with Coppertop on this one.

What are you going to say if they vote in a Shiite theocratic government? Surely the US is not going to object? America, the great defender of freedom and democracy!

Or do you only support democracy when it results in what YOU want it to?

Like Latin America. Like Algeria. Like (maybe?) Iraq?

If the people in Iraq vote for a Shiite theocratic government (as they could quite possibly do), who are you to object or criticize, and what are you going to do about it?


Mr Mephisto

I'm opposed to a theocracy if it's going to turn out to be something like Iran yes. Iraq is an ethnically divided country 55-30-15%. As bad as Saddam was, Iraq was a very good westernized country as far as practices of law and economics. It was a very smart country, highest literacy rates in the WORLD, and some of the best medical knowledge in the Arab world. I would bet the farm that this was because Saddam kept it secular, where you won't find so much repression as is common in Muslim theocracy's. After the embargo things went to hell.

I am also hesitant to give the Shiite majority a theocracy because it is not democratic, and they will most certainly favor the shiite's like the Sunni's were favored under Saddam's regime (that might sound in conflict to what I posted in paragraph 1, it's not). You are already finding them on the verge of a civil war with the elections looming.

The Sunni's are being little bitches right now. You have the insurgents in the Sunni provinces threatening and intimidating the vote, it's looks like they wouldn't get a fair shake even if they wanted to participate, which brings me to my next point. The Sunni's are being punk bitches and complaining about the prospect of a democratic vote because they are used to being favored and it seems a lot of them are willingly and defiantly abstaining from the democratic process.

I don't want a theocracy in Iraq, not next to Iran. It would be nice if we could see a democratic secular country such as Turkey emerge here. If it's the will of the people then fine so be it, but it will just lead to more shit down the road.

Yes Coppertop I take issue to there being a theocracy anywhere, I don't think any religion should be running the state, history has proven the two to not be compatible.

Right now they are only voting for representatives to their constitutional congress, to develop a constitution. I'm sure after one is written and elections for leaders are held later on they won't vote a shiite theocracy into power.

i thought this was a thread about the potential for american "intervention" in iran as well--i am a bit confused about how we got derailed by the usual round of macho bluster from the "realists" in the crowd--but no matter, really.

despite the assurance written and echoed above that the americans are "better than" other folk--which i suppose functions to justify those "inferior" (often brown, often far away) people dying in great anonymous number for the Cause of maintaining some nitwit understanding of american supremacy at every level in the world--i would like to point out that if the americans, under any pretext, tried to invade iran, what they would run into would make iraq look like a day spent under mudpacks in a swish health spa.

the americans brought the shah to power.
the americans trained savak
the american maintained the shah in power
the main reason you have the regime you do in place now is that the mosques were the only spaces not surveilled and suppressed by savak, the shah's secret police.
with american backing at every step.

do you imagine that iran was a democracy under the shah?
do you imagine that anyone, at all, would believe the george w bush tripe about exporting democracy in such a context?

it seems that the rehearsal of pseudo-machiavellian nonsense with reference to iran (or iraq......or anywhere else for that matter) presupposes a total ignorance of history, a willingness to complete ignore context--the posture amounts to occasions for a conservative circle jerks based around group affirmation of tough-guy standing.
all of which is run out on message board.
where obviously the stakes are high for each of you personally.
cheap steak tough, as gil scott-heron once said, and bonzo substantial.



pacifism as "weak mentality"--what? taking human life as something to be protected, to be honored, is weakness? an ethical approach to human conflict is weakness? is disease?

gee.
what an inspiring political posture.
i am sure that the world would be a much better place were the conservative high-school "realist" mentality to be universal. why even try for peaceful resolution of conflict? much better to cut straight to the chase and simply murder many many people. maybe you can tell them about how much better americans are then they as they expire.

So you're going on record as saying you only support a democratic election in Iraq if it has a result that YOU approve of?

Interesting.

America supports democracy only if you vote the way we want you to!

Well said.

True again.

Well, first and foremost, it's not up to you to "give" a theocracy.

If the people vote for it, then they should be allowed to have it. That's my point.

I think the risk of civil war is low to medium, at the moment. Personally, I believe most of the attacks are aimed at the US and the occupiers, as well as members of the interim regime (which includes both Shi'te and Sunni).

Very constructive. And you wonder why they resent the US?

What do you mean, they wouldn't get a fair shake? Now you can dismiss an entire section of society, as well as simply reject democractic ideals? You really are a shining paragon of American freedom and ideals, eh? (joke - :)).

Does that make the Democrats "punk bitches" too?

OK, well at least here you seem to accept that the people have the right to elect whom they wish. That's good.

BTW, for the record, I don't particularly like theocracies either. I just think they should be allowed to vote as they wish though.

True. But if they want it, we can't stop it. Unless we do so illegally like in Algeria.


Mr Mephisto

How many people did you allow to be killed at the hands of Saddam by being diplomatic?

And you guys are ridiculous, you seem to think that just because I'd keep the option of being forceful on the table, I'm somehow about spousal abuse and murdering innocents (Wayne Campbell voice) Cha right. You are dealing with people who don't stick to their word and what's worse is they don't even try and hide it. These are bad guys, yet you are content to speak with empty words and let them run the show. You don't have the sack to stand up to them. I realize and understand that force should never be the first option, I agree. But there comes a point when you have to step into reality and be proactive and actually accomplish something.

Again, The appeasement of Hitler will forever stand testament to this. Wishful thinking and sunshine bunnies are ok, but there are crazy mother fuckers that don't care about their fellow man, they relish the fact that people out there won't stand up to them because they know they can get away with whatever. Caving into the bad man won't make him go away, because it's never enough!

Maybe this is about highschool mentality, maybe you never realized RB, but in life you stand up to the bully.

And that "something" is what?

Spout nonesense about self-determination and democracy, but ignore its results when you don't like the outcome?

Why not just be honest and say you don't give a shit about democracy, freedom and honesty and just admit you want to appoint a puppet regime in Iran and control their oil.

At least that way people will appreciate your honesty.


Mr Mephisto

Because I don't want a non-democratic theocracy? Because I don't think the world needs another Sharian regime to degrade and spit in the face of humanity? I have no indication that all the people of Iraq want a theocracy, and I know for a fact I don't want one there, like I said if they will it.

BTW they can keep their oil, it's nothing but trouble.

If I had my way we would partition the country and give the Kurds a homeland, give the Sunni's there triangle, and the Shiites have the south. But that isn't a possiblity, I think the 45% of the population that already feels displaced and disinfranchised deserves to have a say and not be relinquished to the power of some nut job clerics.

Mojo who are you to point out the spec in your neighbors eye? Remove the plank from your own eye so that you might then be able to see the speck in your neighbors eye clearly.

It's not the plank in my eye I'd be worried about, I'd say it's the one that's lodged up my ass.

Well I don't think theocracies spit in the face of humanity. That's just hubris on your part.

But I'm no fan of them myself. I'm also no fan of American empire building which this patently is.

Let the elections proceed and we shall see what happens.


Mr Mephisto

Good show Mojo_PeiPei! Way to keep your sense of humour in the heat of the moment. Altough I don't always agree with you, I appreciate your spirit here.

My hat's off to you!

Not to pick on you here but I really don't think Turkey is a great example. For one, I think they hate us too. Something like 86% of the population doesn't like us. Hang on...let me find the source...

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/050119/af...957people.html

Ok, this says basically, according to a global poll, Turkey, 82% polled think Bush is bad for world peace.

and here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4187525.stm

I dunno, I thought it was interesting.

Although I vehemently oppose a theocracy, if they democratically elect one, then we'll have to take our lumps. Otherwise, our credibility just keeps getting worse.

(Theoretical): Else, we could just say the hell with world opinion and try to mold it the way we want to. Put our money where our mouth is and do what we say. At least be honest and call it for what it is.

We could appropriate trillions for defense: training for strike capability and occupation, install friendly governments etc. No more bullshit, just straight up do it. Overthrow all those dictators in Africa, rebuild infrastructure with help from allies (EU, Japan etc), stabilize and mobilize those countries and economies. Draw a "line in the sand" in the Middle East - To the Sauds: clean your house and liberalise, guarantee Israel's security and give additional funding to buy out the settlements, declare Jerusalem an international sector and neutral zone; hold any countries harboring terrorists or actvity responsible and accountable.

I don't know, something like that.

Straight gang busters would be interesting...

dont worry, mojo, it is.
so is your ridiculous analogy to neville chamberlain---fill me in again--without resorting to repeating the standard, obviously absurd platitudes of the bush administration and their efforts to compare this colonial war in iraq with world war 2--how was saddam hussein--who presided over a country with a gnp the size of kentucky's before the first gulf war--who may have been an asshole, but he was an american backed asshole for many many years, during that long predictable period when american interests did not extend to human rights violations (how could they when they armed/backed doing the violations? american lackey turned bully? how does that work again?)--but he was an asshole without wmds, without links to "terrorism" who at the point of invasion had presided over a country crippled by sanctions for years--so how exactly does this parallel work? i mean apart from the fact that you probably did not like hitler and do not like saddam hussein....

so is your willingness to arbitrarily shift from a specific argument to general positions and back again---i assume the chamberlain analogy operates at the level of abstract statement--it certainly makes no sense in the present context (either with reference to iran or iraq).

so is your characterization of pacifism as weakness or disease.

so is the analogy between international relations and a high school playground.

so is your "theory" of democratic process that must result in regimes that you like (maybe the iraqi people should call you up before they vote in the coming sham elections?)

and not a bit of it to do with the possibility of the invasion of iran.




by the way, could you find an adult to translate this into adult language please....:

Sorry all adults I know are currently busy in the collective conservative circle jerk...

So Saddam financing Palestinian terrorism isn't a link? Funding Ansar Al-Islam isn't a link to Terrorism? Given haven to Zarqawi isn't aiding terrorism? How long did Abu Nidal get a pass in Iraq? Oh ok that's right, he didn't have links to 9-11, but he most certainly had operational ties to many terrorist groups including Al Qaeda back in the 90's.

And for the record I'm not an apologist for Saddam's American backing, he's always been bad news and he should've been dropped well before gulf war I.

But no, I mean I'm seriously wondering, what would you do with Iran?

It takes but one foe to start a war, and those that do not have swords can still die upon them. As long as there is still evil in the world (yes, I am one of those people that believes in a black and white) then there will be a continuing of wars, genocide, murders, rapes. Your pacifism is admirable, and granted, if everyone were like you, then there wouldn't be a need for nuclear weapons, territories, or governments. But mankind is not perfect, he requires governance and policing. The same thing could have been said about Europe before World War II. Starting with Rome and its conquests, then the uprisings by the Gauls, the Saxons, the Vandals, the Mongols, the Huns, etc. The fracturing of an Empire. The rise of the Merovingians and the Carolingians. The Franks striking out towards the East. The centuries long sacking of Byzantium before it fell in the late 15th Century. The Hundred Years War. The Napoleonic Wars. The Franco-Prussian War. World War I. World War II. The Cold War. This cycle of war and massacre occurred for nearly two thousand years, before some semblance of stability formed in Europe. Now democracy flourishes in states that were under the oppression of the USSR. Russia now looks as if it may returning to communism and to the old ways. I weep for them because oppression is against human nature and I pray that democracy flourishes in Russia before it is killed at the root. Just because it has not been successful before that we must not try and remove the despotism and tyrrany that oppresses these people daily. Call me an idealist, but I truly believe in the power of resistance to tyrants.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."~Thomas Jefferson

mojo:

that was fun.

as for your question: i would think the american have no choice but to work through the un/international community. i have not ben saying that no pressure can/should be brought to bear over the question of nuclear weapons capability---but i simply do not think that military action--particularly unilateral americna military action, is plausible.

We did work through the UN/International communtiy with regards to Iraq...Res.1441...But when push came to shove and the French and Russians had money on the line and the potential of their illegal agreements with saddam being exposed they decided to veto our action. Now we're supposed to work with them again with regards to Iran. I think we need to have intel as deep into Iran as possible and we need to have a coalition of countries with a spine that mean business and are serious about keeping nukes from the mullahs. Not pussy-footing around in the UN hoping for some agreement that will just be broken behind our backs.

I would believe that we are Iran with a president as dumb as we have. Just what we need to create 2 problematic countries that have terrorists running it!

drakers: Iran is already a problematic country with terrorists running it. Bush didn't create it.

ok guys, here's another link to an interesting read. pretty long article describes a war game with iran. appeared in the december issue of the atlantic.

http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_e...0Be%20Next.htm
edit: now that i've finished reading, here are some of the highlights

that is a completely fantastic version of what happened with the un on iraq.
by which i mean that it is close to made up.
for example: no wmds=the un system worked. explain that away.
on iran, such johnwayne posturing by the us would result in a complete fiasco. as i keep saying.
so i mean it when i say that the americans have no choice--no choice--but to work through the un.

whether you personally like the un or not is immaterial.

Without the WMD in Iraq how was Iraq in violation of resolution 1441? It allowed inspectors in and the inspectors couldn't find anything.

Iraq was in violation of UN Resolution 1441 on several counts.

1) Failure to disclose to UN inspectors a fully detailed report on the type/location of its weapons systems - all of them - not just wmd.
2) Denied the UN full access to the sites that it did reveal.
3) In 1998, ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA.
4) Failed to "comply with its commitments pursuant to Resolution 687 with regards to terrorism..."
5) "Iraq has failed...to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq."
6) "...to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq."

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq therein..."

"Determined to insure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687..."

7) "the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

UN Resolution 1441
UN Resolution 687

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan20.html

more indications that this is something other than a simple fantasy scenario in bushworld:

lather, rinse, repeat.

I insist upon a citation. This either means something very different than what it sounds like, or you are wrong.

9/11 commission:
That sure as hell doesn't sound like 'operational ties' to me.

I thought UNSCOM ceased asking to enter Iraq in 1998?

Wrong, Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 because Saddam kicked out the UN inspectors yet again, so obviously, they didn't stop asking to enter Iraq to inspect his weapons sites.

http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/exit_...ctors_1998.htm

http://www.cfr.org/background/backgr...nspections.php

I'm not claiming Iraq was fully cooperative: I'm claiming that saying that a withdrawl of inspectors (in anticipation of air strikes) by the UN is different than Iraq "ceasing all cooperation".

The UN withdrew all inspectors: Iraq did not 'cease all cooperation'. That's like a guy taking his dick out of a girl and leaving the room, then saying 'she ceased fucking me'.

Yakk, although I don't have the book on me (convienently borrowed it to a friend for a book report last semester), in Yossef Bondansky's biography of Osama Bin Laden "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America", he talked about how Osama Bin Laden and the Afghan mujahadeen had operations in Somalia in and around the Olympic Motel incident. Iraqi intelligence along with Iranian intelligence had established a network of support through Khartorum, they provided funds and logistical aid and training to Zarwahiri. Since I don't have the text on me to quote directly here is an article from Worldnetdaily(I know some here don't like the source, sorry best I can do atm) that mentions it...

Let me get this straight.

You're now saying that Bin Laden was responsible for the Somalia incident?


Mr Mephisto

That's the first I've heard of OBL being involved in the Somalia incident. Very interesting. Are there any other sources that back up the claim?

Not the famine, that was the warlords and internal strife. The reality is that he became involved somepoint after America and the UN got involved.

Here's frontline, seems reliable enough right? It's a little jumbled, think its from the DOJ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ndictment.html

If you remember at this point the war in Afghanistan was over and won, and Osama had been expelled from the Saudi Kingdom, I do believe this is the point when he was in Sudan which would put him right in the neighborhood.

Wow, I thought that was common knowledge...huh, guess not everyone's a military nut like me. Also, when the troops were there, they would intercept radio transmissions in Arabic. There's only one problem with that. Somalis don't speak Arabic. Plus Somalia was a hop skip and a jump away from Sudan, and Osama was more than willing to help out.

So, you claim that both Al`Queda and Iraq had provided resources to Warlords in Somalia?

And, that is what you mean by 'operational ties'?

Just trying to understand what you mean by your phrase.

Al Qaeda was in there of their own will to fight the Americans. They were trained and equipped in Sudan by foreign intelligence groups from places like Iraq and Iran. So yes that is operational ties, I don't think there was any doubt as to the reasons for them to get trained and equipped...

Now, the thing is, I have reason not to believe you.

The US 9/11 commission couldn't find such a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which you claim is common knowledge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

They spent far more time on this that I have, and presumably you have -- could you please provide me with evidence strong enough to make me doubt their accuracy?

Or, have I misunderstood the 9/11 commission reports?

And, as an aside, could you point out when the alledged training in Sudan occurred? I lost track.

The training would've taken place in and around 92'-93'. Also I believe the Commission only asserts there was no connection involving 9-11. If I get the book back I can look further into it, otherwise at this time I can't say much either way.