Colin Powell is an idiot!

[Wayne Grabert]

Colin Powell and the bozoes in the Bush administration continue to play into al Qaida's hands. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_240) Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told a Senate panel Tuesday that what appears to be a new statement from Osama bin Laden shows why the world needs to be concerned about Iraqi ties to terrorism.

Powell said he read a transcript of "what bin Laden — or who we believe to be bin Laden" will be saying on the Al-Jazeera Arab satellite station later Tuesday, "where once again he speaks to the people of Iraq and talks about their struggle and how he is in partnership with Iraq."

"This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored," Powell told the Senate Budget Committee.

But Al-Jazeera chief editor Ibrahim Hilal told The Associated Press his station has no such tape. Al Qaida is massing along the Iran-Iraqi border, according to what I heard on a radio report of what CIA director George Tenet has just told Congress. To me, this is evidence of what I have been warning about for months: that al Qaida will mount a guerilla war against the US in Iraq--and it will be very well funded by donations from Muslims around the world.

Concerned about the "stage orange" terror alert? I predict that al Qaida will not launch a major attack (or attacks) until the US invades Iraq. That will be their time of opportunity. That is what the terrorists are preparing for.

Al Qaida is responding US policy toward Iraq by making PR overtures to the Iraqi people (and NOT the Iraqi government). Colin Gump is exploiting that to make the false argument that it is all the more reason why we need to invade Iraq--that there is a tie between the Iraqi regime and al Qaida. That, like nearly everything else that comes out of the incompetent Bush adminstration, is a lie.

For al Qaida it will soon be the 1980's all over again, but with the USSR replaced by the US and Afghanistan replaced by Iraq. They'll win this one too. The US will eventually leave Iraq in chaos. Taliban-like governments will have control of Afghanistan and most of Iraq. Resources that could have been devoted to stabilize Afghanistan and build it a national army and infrastructure will instead be sucked away by the misguided Iraq effort.

That's what happens when you allow a chimp to be president.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Colin Powell and the bozoes in the Bush administration continue to play into al Qaida's hands. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030211/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_240) Al Qaida is massing along the Iran-Iraqi border, according to what I heard on a radio report of what CIA director George Tenet has just told Congress. To me, this is evidence of what I have been warning about for months: that al Qaida will mount a guerilla war against the US in Iraq--and it will be very well funded by donations from Muslims around the world.

Concerned about the "stage orange" terror alert? I predict that al Qaida will not launch a major attack (or attacks) until the US invades Iraq. That will be their time of opportunity. That is what the terrorists are preparing for.

Al Qaida is responding US policy toward Iraq by making PR overtures to the Iraqi people (and NOT the Iraqi government). Colin Gump is exploiting that to make the false argument that it is all the more reason why we need to invade Iraq--that there is a tie between the Iraqi regime and al Qaida. That, like nearly everything else that comes out of the incompetent Bush adminstration, is a lie.

For al Qaida it will soon be the 1980's all over again, but with the USSR replaced by the US and Afghanistan replaced by Iraq. They'll win this one too. The US will eventually leave Iraq in chaos. Taliban-like governments will have control of Afghanistan and most of Iraq. Resources that could have been devoted to stabilize Afghanistan and build it a national army and infrastructure will instead be sucked away by the misguided Iraq effort.

That's what happens when you allow a chimp to be president.

A lot of "doom and gloom" predictions there...

Or is it maybe wishful thinking? Hmmm...

Instead of simply expressing your obvious bias, could you please explain how Powell's statements about a future Al Queda communique are either "idiotic" or "playing to Al Queda's hands"??

I for one would prefer it if Al Queda launched its attacks conventionally against military targets, as opposed to terrorist attacks against civilians...

[circuitslave]

"Colin Powell is an idiot!"


"...the incompetent Bush adminstration"


"That's what happens when you allow a chimp to be president."



The irony lies in the fact that the U.S. government is fighting for your right to make these statements.

:rolleyes:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by circuitslave


The irony lies in the fact that the U.S. government is fighting for your right to make these statements.

:rolleyes:
The irony is that you believe that they're not fighting for the big money interests, and that they're taking away many of your rights as we speak.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by circuitslave
The irony lies in the fact that the U.S. government is fighting for your right to make these statements.

:rolleyes:
BULLS**T!

Expansion of "Patriot" (sic) Act. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0)

Yet I suppose I should be so grateful for the "fight for my rights" that I should not use them and should obediently fall in line? :rolleyes:

[Richard G]

To me, this is evidence of what I have been warning about for months: that al Qaida will mount a guerilla war against the US in Iraq--and it will be very well funded by donations from Muslims around the world.

This will be most welcome. Draw them out of hiding so we may more efficiently and expeditiously kill them.

They'll win this one too.

I think you, and everyone else in the world understimates our resolve. We are going to kill terrorists, and those that aid and abeit them. No nation or agenda is going to derail us from that. [Translation: Don't get between a dog and its meat]

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

BULLS**T!

Expansion of "Patriot" (sic) Act. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0)

Yet I suppose I should be so grateful for the "fight for my rights" that I should not use them and should obediently fall in line? :rolleyes:

Gosh Wayne, I can't recall a time when you were so upset lol.

I do not think we will wind up defeated like the Russians were in Afghanistan. The weapons we are using now will not leave any of the Al Qaidi alive to continue attacking us in that region.

Also, if Iraq becomes chaotic, that is better than having an intact Iraqi state using its resources to attack us.

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Richard G

I think you, and everyone else in the world understimates our resolve.
Vietnam.

[circuitslave]

"The irony is that you believe that they're not fighting for the big money interests"


If it wasn't for September 11th. I could see your point. But this isn't about oil. It's about those same people who bitched about 911 and the government knowing and warnings and did nothing about it or try to prevent it, aren't going to get the opportunity again.

It's a risk the U.S. isn't going to take.


And Wayne, if you don't agree with their policy I understand that, but name calling and attacking personally, you come off as a biased liberal.

I'm not saying that you are, but stick to the facts to prove your point.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
For al Qaida it will soon be the 1980's all over again, but with the USSR replaced by the US and Afghanistan replaced by Iraq. They'll win this one too.

Care to explain why it wasn't the 1980s all over again last year, with the USSR replaced by US and Afghanistan playing the same role?

MattJ

[Richard G]

[Vietnam] Different administration with no intestinal fortitude, and bungling with the top Generals plans and recomendations. That hard lesson will not be repeated with this administration.

[SFB]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Vietnam.

The first Gulf War, Afghanistan.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Al Qaida is massing along the Iran-Iraqi border, according to what I heard on a radio report of what CIA director George Tenet has just told Congress. To me, this is evidence of what I have been warning about for months: that al Qaida will mount a guerilla war against the US in Iraq--and it will be very well funded by donations from Muslims around the world. God I hope this is true! This truly made my day. Sadly it is probably BS and it won't happen. Oh but if it was true. A true wet dream. Oh god, yes I am damn serious. Please, please, please let this be true.

Before the Gulf war there was lots of doom and gloom. 50,000 body bags, etc. However one retired General said, we will clean there clocks. We no longer fight the way we did in Vietnam. We will use sufficient forces and sufficent stratagey and technology to from the start to defeat them in a short period of time.

Anything is possible of course but if this is true the odds are highly in our favor.

Thanks Wayne, this really made my day....of course....

If it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Let's keep our fingers crossed and pray to god it is true.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Care to explain why it wasn't the 1980s all over again last year, with the USSR replaced by US and Afghanistan playing the same role?

MattJ
Again? I suppose you missed the other threads when I made the point that our small military presence in Afghanistan in no way compares to the USSR's military occupation, how we relied on local militias to do most of the fighting and how these same points were made repeatedly by talking heads in the Fall of 2001 to explain why our campaign WOULD NOT be like that of the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, our occupation of Iraq WOULD resemble the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Vietnam.

Wayne, there will be no more Vietnams. Trust me. When I was in the military all the training that we did was for swift, violent attacks specifically designed to prevent Vietnam-esque situations from arising. The government knows that a Vietnam-type war is political poison.

Why do you think that leftist CNN announced yesterday that the US government is developing a new 15,000 pound bomb that dwarfs the Daisy-Cutter?

There will be no more Vietnams lol.

JK

[Kodiak]

I must be on Wayne's ignore list...

It can be the only reason why he wouldn't respond to my post, the second one in the thread...

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by SFB


The first Gulf War, Afghanistan.
Apples and oranges. See my reply to aerocontrols above.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I must be on Wayne's ignore list...

It can be the only reason why he wouldn't respond to my post, the second one in the thread...
Your post wasn't worth a reply because I provided the answer to it in my original post.

Edited to add: Hint: al Qaida WANTS us to invade Iraq.

P.S. I have business to attend to and I will be away for the next several hours.

[rikzilla]

Simmer down there Wayne.....you've angered the Bidlackian god!



:eek:

[circuitslave]

"al Qaida WANTS us to invade Iraq"


Actually, from their previous statements, al Qaida WANTS us all dead.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Again? I suppose you missed the other threads when I made the point that our small military presence in Afghanistan in no way compares to the USSR's military occupation, how we relied on local militias to do most of the fighting and how these same points were made repeatedly by talking heads in the Fall of 2001 to explain why our campaign WOULD NOT be like that of the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, our occupation of Iraq WOULD resemble the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan. You leave out the big key of our success was strategic and tactical bombing. It was a huge source for the victory. Remember the previus milltias hd been fighting for a long time with no success.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


Al Qaida is responding US policy toward Iraq by making PR overtures to the Iraqi people (and NOT the Iraqi government). Colin Gump is exploiting that to make the false argument that it is all the more reason why we need to invade Iraq--that there is a tie between the Iraqi regime and al Qaida.


Regardless of the other matters being discussed here, I still haven't seen any convincing evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive. If I recall, that mysterious tape of OBL from a few months ago was analyzed by the CIA and they thought it was him, but other intelligence agencies were doubtful. I think if he were alive, we'd have seen him or heard more from him.

Al Jazeera denies having the tape the Powell refers to--does anyone think that they actually might, and that they would lie about it?

I agree that al Qaeda wants us to attack Iraq; anything that would inflame Muslim distrust, dislike, or hatred of the U.S. and the West in general suits their purposes.

[Mike B.]

Isn't there a huge difference in terrian between Iraq and Afganistan?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Bluegill


Regardless of the other matters being discussed here, I still haven't seen any convincing evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive. If I recall, that mysterious tape of OBL from a few months ago was analyzed by the CIA and they thought it was him, but other intelligence agencies were doubtful. I think if he were alive, we'd have seen him or heard more from him.

I think he is dead also, though I do not remember any intelligence agencies making any claims about the last tape. There was that Swiss group that tested it but I thought their tests were inconclusive since they did not have enough samples of his voice.

Al Jazeera denies having the tape the Powell refers to--does anyone think that they actually might, and that they would lie about it?

They are not denying it:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SPLPVZLWC5SY4CRBAEZSF FA?type=topNews&storyID=2209343

----
the U.S. government is fighting for your right to make these statements.
----


Spare the dramatics.

The US gov. is also "fighting" for things many people don't want them to be "fighting" for, and "fighting" for things that actually hurt the US.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bluegill


Regardless of the other matters being discussed here, I still haven't seen any convincing evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive. If I recall, that mysterious tape of OBL from a few months ago was analyzed by the CIA and they thought it was him, but other intelligence agencies were doubtful. I think if he were alive, we'd have seen him or heard more from him.

Al Jazeera denies having the tape the Powell refers to--does anyone think that they actually might, and that they would lie about it?

I agree that al Qaeda wants us to attack Iraq; anything that would inflame Muslim distrust, dislike, or hatred of the U.S. and the West in general suits their purposes.

Al Jazeera has their idol's tape. They will play it shortly. That is the word, anyway.

JK

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

BULLS**T!

Expansion of "Patriot" (sic) Act. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0)

Yet I suppose I should be so grateful for the "fight for my rights" that I should not use them and should obediently fall in line? :rolleyes:

Even if this was official, do you really think they are just out to get any U.S. citizen that disagrees with the government?

[DaChew]

Al Qaeda and the Iraqi army in the same general area? With the U.S. military buildup surrounding that area? You couldn't ask for a better situation. There really must be a god if we're that lucky. Talk about two birds, one stone.

What we REALLY learned from Vietnam is to ignore leftist, idiot, pacifists.

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by ssibal
[

They are not denying it:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SPLPVZLWC5SY4CRBAEZSF FA?type=topNews&storyID=2209343 [/B]

and a similar report from Jedi Knight

Oh! that's new. I think the first stories on CNN and Yahoo were saying that Jazeera said there was no such tape. Or maybe I misread them. Anyway, thanks for the update.

[Bluegill]

"We have a statement and we will show it later tonight. It has a message," Editor Saeed al-Shouly told Reuters.

--from Ssibal's link


I note that the news is very vague on whether the message is audio, video, or written.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

BULLS**T!

Expansion of "Patriot" (sic) Act. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0)

Yet I suppose I should be so grateful for the "fight for my rights" that I should not use them and should obediently fall in line? :rolleyes:

Apologies for the cross-post... you may find this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13722) interesting (or perhaps not).

[corplinx]

Well, the tape exists, now who is the idiot?

[Reginald]

If it actually is Osama Bin-liner then lets face it he may have just shifted a few points of public opinion towards war there!


I hope he keeps 'em comming with lots of references to his brothers in Iraq (with luck) and His best mate Sadam (I'm pushing it now) and lots of references to the Anthrax They gave him as a pressy (Oh Science fiction time!! LOL).


:D

[corplinx]

My hope is that a large contingent of al quaeda, hamas, and other islamic fundamnentalist terror groups go to Iraq to help fight the infidels off. That way we can wipe out a large portion of these people at once.

[rikzilla]

Iraq.

A Target Rich Enviroment.

I wonder where the rats will run when the Stars and Stripes are flying over Baghdad?? :D

Where-ever that is.....it'll be next.

-zilla

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Congratulations Wayne! You've actually made Jedi Knight sound perfectly rational after multiple posts, no mean feat in itself. Sorry, JK, but recently a couple of threads have had you sputtering a bit. This one is actually pretty good!

Looks like the OBL's Islamofascists are firmly allied with Iraq. There's no doubt now that we have to dismantle the Iraqi terror machine. I hope that we will indeed use the strongest weaponry we have against them, up to and including ER and TACNUKE. That should prove sufficient warning to Islamofascists everywhere that we will beat back the 7th century wherever we find it.

[panduh]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=1&cid=578&u=/nm/20030212/ts_nm/iraq_dc
'But the statement did not express support for Saddam. It said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government.

...

While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, the tape said Saddam's secular "socialist" government had lost credibility.

"Socialists are infidels wherever they are," the statement said. But it added: "It does not hurt that in current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders." '

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2210085

"The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government.

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the statement said."
Bin Laden clearly hates Hussein. He calls him an infidel and a socialist. He is rallying the Iraqi muslim folk to defy a U.S. invasion. There is no obvious connection between Saddam and Osama, except a common enemy.

[shecky]

Next move will be for Bin Laden to declare an alliance with Cuba. Ha! Knew it all along. ;)

Well, If Al Qaida does lead members to Iraq, all the better for U.S. My gut feeling, however is that Bin Laden is just playing the media. I doubt Powell is that gullible. I'm sure he's playing the news just as much.

[American]

You're a genius, Wayne! How could you risk your life to get this data on our enemy? Quickly, we need you in Washington to direct our intelligence agencies! I'll make sure I only vote for Democrats in the future to make the world safe again!

Honestly- thanks again, Wayne! You're the real hero, not our government services, nor our fighting military servicemen... it's all YOU!!!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Congratulations Wayne! You've actually made Jedi Knight sound perfectly rational after multiple posts, no mean feat in itself. Sorry, JK, but recently a couple of threads have had you sputtering a bit. This one is actually pretty good!

Looks like the OBL's Islamofascists are firmly allied with Iraq. There's no doubt now that we have to dismantle the Iraqi terror machine. I hope that we will indeed use the strongest weaponry we have against them, up to and including ER and TACNUKE. That should prove sufficient warning to Islamofascists everywhere that we will beat back the 7th century wherever we find it.

Yeah a nice SADM would do wonders underneath Saddam's palace.

JK

[rikzilla]

Funny how a thread with an ad-hom against Colin Powell in it's title gets turned into a warmonger-a-thon!!!
:D :D

We are on the brink of a historic victory and giant pay-back for 9/11!! I'm looking forward to seeing the bullet riddled corpse of Saddam jump up and claim victory....that'd be quite a sight. Hell, I'll join his filthy army if he can do that! :D ;)

Afghanistan and Iraq should hold down the islamic fundies for a while....then it's on to Pyongyang to mop up the nasty commies who, BTW, are coming out of the woodwork like cockroaches to lead the addle-brained in a movement for "peace".

I'll go back to being a liberal after all these islamofascists have reached room temperature. But after watching the Pentagon burn in person....and hearing of the death of a co-worker at the WTC...I doubt I'll ever be more than a half-assed liberal ever again.

I'm gonna stop drinking now and go to bed. Losing control can be so much fun.....but I'm gonna hate myself in the morning....:(

-zilla

[subgenius]

Oh don't do that, we hate you now.;)

[subgenius]

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/corrections.swf

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by DaChew
What we REALLY learned from Vietnam is to ignore leftist, idiot, pacifists.
No, what we learned from Vietnam is that reactionary, war mongering conservatives don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground and can't recognize a no-win situation even after half a century to acquaint themselves with the facts.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Kodiak
A lot of "doom and gloom" predictions there...

Or is it maybe wishful thinking? Hmmm...

There is some wishful thinking on this thread, but it isn't from me. You want some wishful thinking from me? How's this? I wish Kodiak would wise up soon rather than later.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, what we learned from Vietnam is that reactionary, war mongering conservatives don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground and can't recognize a no-win situation even after half a century to acquaint themselves with the facts.

Like the no-win situation in Afghan-land??? :D :D :D

Be happy Wayne,...once again people who's shoes you are not fit to shine will preserve this nation in spite of you....so that you will have the unbridled right to spit in their faces.

Gotta love democracy eh??

-z

BTW, had the US generals been allowed to attack N. Vietnam unfettered by political BS the Vietnam war would have been over in a week. They will be unfettered in Iraq....don't blink Wayne...it's gonna happen real fast and nasty.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by DaChew
What we REALLY learned from Vietnam is to ignore leftist, idiot, pacifists. And also to ignore everyone else you disagree with?

That's the same way you learned how to be a sceptic? :(

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Wayne, there will be no more Vietnams. Trust me. When I was in the military all the training that we did was for swift, violent attacks specifically designed to prevent Vietnam-esque situations from arising. The government knows that a Vietnam-type war is political poison.

The problem, Jedi, isn't the size of the bombs. We bombed Vietnam up and down many times. The problem is political inside the country being attacked. In Vietnam, most of the people we were supposed to be fighting for were fighting against us.

When the USSR lost in Afghanistan, it was because the government they were supporting (their puppet like our puppet in South Vietnam) had no legitimacy and they faced a large-scale guerilla war from within Afghanistan.

In Iraq, the country is likely to Balkanize and there will be a guerilla war against the US troops after Saddam falls. The occupation will in no way resemble the Gulf War or the Taliban War.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Like the no-win situation in Afghan-land??? :D :D :D

Be happy Wayne,...once again people who's shoes you are not fit to shine will preserve this nation in spite of you....so that you will have the unbridled right to spit in their faces.

Gotta love democracy eh??

-z

BTW, had the US generals been allowed to attack N. Vietnam unfettered by political BS the Vietnam war would have been over in a week. They will be unfettered in Iraq....don't blink Wayne...it's gonna happen real fast and nasty.
Yes, just like the no-win situation in Afghanistan in the 1980's for the USSR!

As for your second paragraph with its ad hominem, just like the wishful thinking in your last paragraph, you don't know what the $%$ you're talking about. The idiots in charge are driving this country into the ground, but you can continue to play violin, Nero.

I'm getting sick of your insults, so f*ck off, Ric.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by panduh
Bin Laden clearly hates Hussein. He calls him an infidel and a socialist. He is rallying the Iraqi muslim folk to defy a U.S. invasion. There is no obvious connection between Saddam and Osama, except a common enemy.
Excellent post, Panduh, but it won't make the slightest impression on the true believers in this forum who will continue to swallow every line of bullsh*t propaganda the Bush administration dumps for their consumption.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The problem, Jedi, isn't the size of the bombs. We bombed Vietnam up and down many times. The problem is political inside the country being attacked. In Vietnam, most of the people we were supposed to be fighting for were fighting against us.

When the USSR lost in Afghanistan, it was because the government they were supporting (their puppet like our puppet in South Vietnam) had no legitimacy and they faced a large-scale guerilla war from within Afghanistan.

In Iraq, the country is likely to Balkanize and there will be a guerilla war against the US troops after Saddam falls. The occupation will in no way resemble the Gulf War or the Taliban War.

I think that splitting Iraq up so that the kurds in the north can have their own state would be a great idea. Turkey has an interest in that because then Turkey can expel the hundreds of thousands of displaced that ran to Turkey after Persian Gulf War I.

I am a pretty good judge of Turkish politics. I have been to the Turkish embassy in Washington (the new one) and spoken with them about these issues. Turkey still haven't recovered from their nasty earthquake that they had and they still have problems that have trickled over from the 1st Persian Gulf War. I think they feel that the UN failed them because it left them holding the bag with all the displaced kurds after Gulf War I which only exacerabated problems and caused a Turkish invasion of northern Iraq years later.

This is just my opinion, but I think the west missed a great opportunity to solidify Turkish loyalty in the last 5 years. Now they have an Islamic head of state who is sympathetic to all Islamic causes, like the rest are. Also, with yesterday's blocking by Germany and France of military assistance through NATO to Turkey, that just reinforces the bad memories of persian Gulf War I when Turkey was left holding the bag.

Turkey is always checking the pulse of American politics because they like us. Seriously, there is something about us Americans and America that they like. We should capitalize on that and stand with them while we recondition Germany and France to the ideals that they are supposed to stand for. Germany and France are always salvageable democratically, while Turkey is the gateway to our interests in the middle east and will be a critical partner in the conflicts in this century that are brewing.

Turkey has a highly effective, highly motivated and well educated military force that could run through Iraq unhindered. I do not see how Iraq could become another Vietnam because all the Iraqis want to do is get rid of Saddam. Iraq is not a country separated by the west like Vietnam was because of French colonialism. Iraq is a Satrap system, a caste system, and if you can free the Iraqi people from that Satrap system without killing too many of them they will jump onboard with the United States when it is all over.

The same with Iran. You may not believe this, but three out of ten people in Iran are Christians. Iran is fixing to blow soon. I can feel it. Iran is the most politically unstable Islamic country in the world. Their young are restless. As soon as we are done with Iraq, I think that some improvements in revolutionary activity in Iran might be a very healty thing for them lol.

This is a huge chance in history that we face. The folks resisting it see it. They see that it could change the face of the entire middle east for the better. It could create democracies across the middle east, something that would never have been thought possible just ten years ago and a disarmed Iraq is a huge step to disarming the entire region, a very enticing and irresistable objective.

That is why communists oppose it, because commies aren't for peace. Commies are for "social justice" as long as that "justice" doesn't include the individual. The individual will not understand commie justice and that is why they must be sent to gulgs and reeducation camps. Never trust commies, Wayne. Never. Commies can't be trusted because they do not possess humanity.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The same with Iran. You may not believe this, but three out of ten people in Iran are Christians. Iran is fixing to blow soon. I can feel it. Iran is the most politically unstable Islamic country in the world. Their young are restless. As soon as we are done with Iraq, I think that some improvements in revolutionary activity in Iran might be a very healty thing for them lol.

This is a huge chance in history that we face. The folks resisting it see it. They see that it could change the face of the entire middle east for the better. It could create democracies across the middle east, something that would never have been thought possible just ten years ago and a disarmed Iraq is a huge step to disarming the entire region, a very enticing and irresistable objective.

That is why communists oppose it, because commies aren't for peace. Commies are for "social justice" as long as that "justice" doesn't include the individual. The individual will not understand commie justice and that is why they must be sent to gulgs and reeducation camps. Never trust commies, Wayne. Never. Commies can't be trusted because they do not possess humanity.

JK Jedi, why do you destroy your own posts by inventing 'facts' all the time? Where did you learn that 30% of the people in Iran are Christians? The truth is probably less than 3%? :confused:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Jedi, why do you destroy your own posts by inventing 'facts' all the time? Where did you learn that 30% of the people in Iran are Christians? The truth is probably less than 3%? :confused:

Ah, but they are not my facts. Just some new intel I learned recently. You see, I want to make Iran into a democracy. That is why I keep my eye on them.

JK

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Ah, but they are not my facts. Just some new intel I learned recently. You see, I want to make Iran into a democracy. That is why I keep my eye on them.

JK Great, I wish you all the best!

Do you mind telling us where that 'intel' came from? I checked some reliable sources, and the CIA factbook tells us this:

Shi'a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 10%, Zoroastrian, Jewish, Christian, and Baha'i 1% Hmm, less than 1% for three different religions including Christianity.

Evidence for your 'intel', please? Or are you back into making up the 'facts' as you go? :p

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I think that splitting Iraq up so that the kurds in the north can have their own state would be a great idea. Turkey has an interest in that because then Turkey can expel the hundreds of thousands of displaced that ran to Turkey after Persian Gulf War I.

Well, I am glad to hear that Turkey is sympathetic to a Kurdish state because that is contrary to what I've always read about them.

I don't trust Commies, Jedi. I also don't think we can export democracy to the Middle East, though I know that it is a pipe dream of Washington neo-cons. Democracy will take root in the Middle East eventually from within. Take Iran, for example. There are many in Iran, especially among young adults, who want democracy, but they don't want the United States to impose it on them.

Thank you for your post and your usual good manners.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, what we learned from Vietnam is that reactionary, war mongering conservatives don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground and can't recognize a no-win situation even after half a century to acquaint themselves with the facts. What do you mean no win situation? America gave up. Americans did not have clear answers as to why young boys were coming home in body bags. We did not lose!

North Vietnam lost every battle. Their attrition was greater than their ability to replace people. The war was absolutely winnable.

Of course America did everything wrong. We slowly escalated our aggression letting the Vietcong adapt. We did not fight by centuries old tried and true rules. This of course led to the Powell doctrine.

No, don't let anyone tell you that it was a no-win situation. They are either lying or ignorant of the facts.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Hmm, less than 1% for three different religions including Christianity.

Evidence for your 'intel', please? Or are you back into making up the 'facts' as you go? :p
Jedi may be looking at old statistics. Many of the Iranian immigrants in Los Angeles are Christian. They fled when the Ayatollah took over. Still, 30% seems high for any period in Persian history. (The country was named Persia till the early 1950's.)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, don't let anyone tell you that it was a no-win situation. They are either lying or ignorant of the facts.
We already had this conversation, RandFan. The facts are that it was a no-win situation. The majority of South Vietnamese wanted to unite under the North Vietnamese regime and the US cancelled the referendum, remember?

Edited to add: You also have forgotten my point that the people we were most often fighting were the Viet Cong--South Vietnamese guerillas. So, yeah, we could have won the war if that meant wiping out the populations of both North AND South Vietnam. Some "victory."

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Jedi may be looking at old statistics. Many of the Iranian immigrants in Los Angeles are Christian. They fled when the Ayatollah took over. Still, 30% seems high for any period in Persian history. (The country was named Persia till the early 1950's.) Normally I would think you could be right, but he just claimed this:

Just some new intel I learned recently He tends to pretend that he has some inside information, so let's trust he'll post some sources. :confused:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

We already had this conversation, RandFan. The facts are that it was a no-win situation. The majority of South Vietnamese wanted to unite under the North Vietnamese regime and the US cancelled the referendum, remember? The north simply could continue to sustain the losses. That is a demonstrable fact. I accept that there may have been a statistical majority that wanted to unite. That did not make the war a no win situation. That fact was relevant as to our being there in the first place and whether elections should have been held. Did you think that I had somehow decided that the Vietnam war was wrong? Hindsight is 20/20. Knowing what we know now I wish we hadn't gone to war. But a significant portion of the population wanted to be free. You can argue whether a majority of the population can get together and decide to take what does not belong to them (communism). A statistical majority does not make something right. We were scared about the spread of communism and we wanted to exert some control in that part of the world. Plus we wanted to test out new military equipment and a dozen other reasons. We can argue the morality of the war. But there is no question that the war was absolutely winable.

Again, we won every single battle. The kill ratio was historic. We had more young men to die than did they. The war was absolutely winnable.

[Wayne Grabert]

Oh, this very short and sweet op-ed (http://slate.msn.com/id/2078437/) is beautiful!
Sixteen months ago, Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth. Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result.
Okay, Colin Powell, as much of a dufous that he is, may not be an idiot. What he is is a lying scum bag with no integrity.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
But a significant portion of the population wanted to be free. You can argue whether a majority of the population can get together and decide to take what does not belong to them (communism). A statistical majority does not make something right. We were scared about the spread of communism and we wanted to exert some control in that part of the world. Plus we wanted to test out new military equipment and a dozen other reasons. We can argue the morality of the war. But there is no question that the war was absolutely winable.

Again, we won every single battle. The kill ratio was historic. We had more young men to die than did they. The war was absolutely winnable.
People should be free to make their own mistakes and determine their course. It's not our place to decide for them.

So we made North and South Vietnames civilians guinea pigs to test out new military equipment? I guess that also holds true for the people of Iraq who be there when we test out the new bomb that is bigger than the infamous "daisy cutter." And we have the gall to become indignant when al Qaida kills a couple thousand of our citizens? (Several hundred of the victims of 9/11 were foreign nationals.) Thank you for giving me a "proud to be American" moment.

And where do you get the idea that we won every battle in Vietnam? It isn't true.

Edited to add: Do some research on the Tet Offensive.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Thank you for your post and your usual good manners.

Hey, you deserve good manners.

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hey, you deserve good manners.

JK
So do you, JK. Even when we disagree, you delight me with your sense of humor. You're a good man! :)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
People should be free to make their own mistakes and determine their course. It's not our place to decide for them.


I disagree, Wayne. When people who were sponsored by a terrorist nation-state fly aircraft into our skyscrapers it is no longer a situation where they chart their own destiny. We become the captain of their ship.

When a murderer is caught and sent to prison, are they the captains of their own ship anymore?

I am convinced that if we do not deal with Iraq now, the costs to this country via that appeasement will be incredibly high.

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

I disagree, Wayne. When people who were sponsored by a terrorist nation-state fly aircraft into our skyscrapers it is no longer a situation where they chart their own destiny. We become the captain of their ship.

An act of war against us is a different matter. We were right to declare war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. We were right to declare war on Nazi Germany after it declared war against us. We were right to go to war against the Taliban after 9/11. However, the Iraqi situation is different. North Korea is arguably the bigger threat, yet the Bushies say that situation can be handled diplomatically--and it can, though the Bush administration refuses to do so. (It's too caught up in its aggression against Iraq.) We could also resolve the Iraqi situation without war, but the Bushies are hellbent to go to war for ulterior motives.

We had a choice between two roads. One road would have meant resolving the Iraq situation without war and lifting the sanctions against it in return. That could have been followed by removing our troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We could have chosen to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressured Israel to give up its settlements in exchange for Palesting giving up its "right to return" to Israel and gaining its own state. That road would have led to the loss of support for al Qaida and greater respect for the United States.

Instead, the Bushies are chosing the other road, the one that leads to the loss of international goodwill, the breakup of our alliances, to $400-billion deficits (just wait; you'll see), to the erosion of our civil liberties, to economic disaster and imperial overreach and a decline in wealth, power and influence. That's the way I see it. It's not what I want for this country and it breaks my heart to see a bunch of inept amateurs and greedy bastards ruining what could have been and what they were given to protect.

[Bjorn]

He tends to pretend that he has some inside information, so let's trust he'll post some sources. No, he just made it up. Again. :(

Well, no need to follow up, just put it in the same box as the others (remember to change to bigger box). :p

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
People should be free to make their own mistakes and determine their course. It's not our place to decide for them. If a majority of Germans decided to eliminate all of the Jews living in their territory is that ok? Hey, people should be free to make their own mistakes right?

There was much more to it than that Wayne. Who decides for the land and business owners and the people who don't want to lose their freedom without ever having an opportunity to get it back? What about those purged who do not accept communism? I'm sorry but I don't find it as cut and dry as that. There was a real fear of communism and real people were going to be slaughtered and their possessions and land and businesses forcibly taken from them. Is that right?

So we made North and South Vietnamese civilians guinea pigs to test out new military equipment? Intellectual honesty on my part. Wars are usually fought over multiple reasons.

I guess that also holds true for the people of Iraq who be there when we test out the new bomb that is bigger than the infamous "daisy cutter." Yes but we will stop the human experiments and the mass starvation that is taking place right now. There are trade offs.

And we have the gall to become indignant when al Qaida kills a couple thousand of our citizens? (Several hundred of the victims of 9/11 were foreign nationals.) Thank you for giving me a "proud to be American" moment. War is hell, but it is not without justification and like I said trade offs. There is great potential for helping those people.

And don't give me that "proud to be an American" crap. Where were your sentiments when business men, land owners, those that waited for death at the hands of the communists and people who wanted to be free asked for our help.

"Hey, not our problem. You should be free to make your own mistakes." Yeah, that makes me proud to be an American, someone reaches out for help and you turn the other way.

And where do you get the idea that we won every battle in Vietnam? Every book and every documentary that I have seen said so.

It isn't true. Do you have any evidence that it is not true.

Edited to add: Do some research on the Tet Offensive. Wayne, the Tet offensive was a turning point in the war. While we won the battle we lost the will of the people to fight.

We did NOT militarily lose the Tet Offensive.

Tet offensive: (http://www.marxist.com/1968/vietnam.html)

Although not meeting its major objectives the Tet offensive did have a lasting effect on the course of the war. It was a turning point. According to US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, 'Henceforth, no matter how effective our action, the prevalent strategy could no longer achieve its objectives within a period or within force levels politically acceptable to the American people.'

One of the major objectives had been to drive a wedge between the Americans and the South Vietnamese. The embassy attack was aimed at showing up the vulnerability of the American forces. The Vietcong had hoped that their liberation of towns and cities would lead to an uprising against the Americans, they believed that the South's weary soldiers, dislocated peasantry, fractious youth and widely discontented layers of South Vietnamese society were ready to join the struggle. However this only occurred on a sporadic basis.

The analogy with Dienbienphu was preposterous - the US was in a far stronger position than the French were in '54. In 'Operation Niagra' the Americans had unleashed their B52 bombers ariel firepower - the greatest in military history. The Vietcong suffered huge losses, as many as 10,000 dead, while only 500 US marines were killed. The North Vietnamese gained NO ground and lost 10,000 men. How do you count that as a win?

Well...

Tet was the final nail in the coffin for the administration of Lyndon Johnson. In 1963, when he came to power in the wake of the assasination John Kennedy, his approval rating was over 80%. But by 1967 it was down to 40%. 'But then came Tet - and his ratings plummeted - as if Vietnam were a burning fuse that had suddenly ignited an explosion of dissent.' (Stanley Karnow)

Please tell Wayne of a single battle that we lost?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
If a majority of Germans decided to eliminate all of the Jews living in their territory is that ok? Hey, people should be free to make their own mistakes right? Yes, people should have the right to SELF-DETERMINATION. That means chosing their form of government. Your argument about the Jews in Germany is a non sequitur.

Originally posted by RandFan
There was much more to it than that Wayne. Who decides for the land and business owners and the people who don't want to lose their freedom without ever having an opportunity to get it back? What about those purged who do not accept communism? I'm sorry but I don't find it as cut and dry as that. There was a real fear of communism and real people were going to be slaughtered and their possessions and land and businesses forcibly taken from them. Is that right? I never said we couldn't take in refugees, just like we did with the Cubans and like what we eventually did with the Vietnamese. Is it right to kill off the people who don't agree with our idea of what is best for them?

Originally posted by RandFan
And don't give me that "proud to be an American" crap. Where were your sentiments when business men, land owners, those that waited for death at the hands of the communists and people who wanted to be free asked for our help. You mean like under Stalin? Under Mao? I wasn't born. In Vietnam? Depending on the time period, I either wasn't born or was a child.

Originally posted by RandFan
Wayne, the Tet offensive was a turning point in the war. While we won the battle we lost the will of the people to fight.

We did NOT militarily lose the Tet Offensive.
The North Vietnamese gained NO ground and lost 10,000 men. How do you count that as a win?

Well...

Please tell Wayne of a single battle that we lost? So who wins or loses depends on the number killed, not on the overall effect? I disagree. The Tet Offensive was a victory for the North Vietnamese. By your own admission it was a turning point. For whom? The North. What people lost the will to fight? The South and the US. Who won the WAR? The North. But declare victory if you want. Saddam declared victory in 1991.

And Colin Powell is still a scum bag with no integrity.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by circuitslave
"Colin Powell is an idiot!"

The irony lies in the fact that the U.S. government is fighting for your right to make these statements.

:rolleyes:


Really? Against whom? Who in the US is opposing free speech?

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by rikzilla
We are on the brink of a historic victory and giant pay-back for 9/11!!

I wonder why Iraq has to pay for something Bin Laden did.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Like the no-win situation in Afghan-land??? :D :D :D


Exactly! Afghanistan is far from beeing peaceful, the Taliban are far from beeing defeated.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

There is some wishful thinking on this thread, but it isn't from me. You want some wishful thinking from me? How's this? I wish Kodiak would wise up soon rather than later.

You wearing ruby slippers??

No?...

that's too bad...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
In Iraq, the country is likely to Balkanize and there will be a guerilla war against the US troops after Saddam falls. The occupation will in no way resemble the Gulf War or the Taliban War.

There are those predictions again... :rolleyes:

Evidence please.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
As for your second paragraph with its ad hominem, just like the wishful thinking in your last paragraph, you don't know what the $%$ you're talking about.

Hmmm...

"Ad Hominem's"...

"Wishful thinking"...

Using your criteria, it looks like you don't know what the $%$ you're talking about either, Wayne!...

[Kodiak]

Percentage of Christians in Iraq (http://www.meforum.org/article/17)

From the web article:

"Iraq: Background.

In the absence of official statistics since the coming to power of the Ba‘th party in 1960, reliable figures regarding the number of Christians in Iraq are hard to come by. However, best estimates place the number of Christians in Iraq today at over 600,000, representing 3 percent of the Iraqi population of 20 million."

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


We had a choice between two roads. One road would have meant resolving the Iraq situation without war and lifting the sanctions against it in return. That could have been followed by removing our troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We could have chosen to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressured Israel to give up its settlements in exchange for Palesting giving up its "right to return" to Israel and gaining its own state. That road would have led to the loss of support for al Qaida and greater respect for the United States.

Instead, the Bushies are chosing the other road, the one that leads to the loss of international goodwill, the breakup of our alliances, to $400-billion deficits (just wait; you'll see), to the erosion of our civil liberties, to economic disaster and imperial overreach and a decline in wealth, power and influence. That's the way I see it. It's not what I want for this country and it breaks my heart to see a bunch of inept amateurs and greedy bastards ruining what could have been and what they were given to protect.


I've just calculated what the odds are that almost identical language will have been used by the 2004 presidential winner when that campaign is over...

50/50

[Charles Livingston]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


We had a choice between two roads. One road would have meant resolving the Iraq situation without war and lifting the sanctions against it in return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would you resolve the Iraq situation without war AND with removing the sanctions? Just what exactly is going to motivate Saddam to cooperate? I am not sure that removing the sanctions would motivate Saddam to cooperate more. think about the N. Korea situation. Saddam has almost never cooperated with us. I understand that you might argue that removing the sanctions themselves will motivate him, but I am not so sure. Every compromise we have made so far has only convinced him that he can get away with more. So now we are going to go talk to him to get him to cooperate and also remove the sanctions? He then has no reason to do anything but say o.k sure and then keep building whatever he wants in secret. No matter how much he appears to cooperate, clearly he has the ability to deceive us. I agree however that it would be nice if we could find an alternative to the sanctions that surely burden the people of Iraq more than Saddam.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That could have been followed by removing our troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although this is generally related to the iraq situation, it is not really related to the specific topic about whether we should go to war or not, so I am not sure how this relates specifically to your 'other' alternative. However, again, I agree that our extended/permanent military presence in SA is troubling Isnt that really what Osamas original beef was?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We could have chosen to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressured Israel to give up its settlements in exchange for Palesting giving up its "right to return" to Israel and gaining its own state. That road would have led to the loss of support for al Qaida and greater respect for the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see my response above. not really specifically related to what we are discussing. However, again, I agree that we should have gotten out of any role in this conflict other than a nuetral one a long time ago. I am not sure I know enough to agree or disagree with your specific suggestions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, the Bushies are chosing the other road, the one that leads to the loss of international goodwill, the breakup of our alliances, to $400-billion deficits (just wait; you'll see), to the erosion of our civil liberties, to economic disaster and imperial overreach and a decline in wealth, power and influence. That's the way I see it. It's not what I want for this country and it breaks my heart to see a bunch of inept amateurs and greedy bastards ruining what could have been and what they were given to protect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that much of what you said directly above is bad if it happens, but you seem to be making a lot of predictions in this thread and not backing them up. Is it fair then to fault others in this thread for doing the same. (I apoligize if you dont believe you have done this, I didnt go back and re-read the thread, but this seems to be my general impression.)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Yes, people should have the right to SELF-DETERMINATION. That means choosing their form of government. Your argument about the Jews in Germany is a non sequitur. What does self-determination have to do with Stalin's purges or Mao's atrocities? How can a majority take away the SELF-DETERMINATION of the minority? Sorry but your "self-determination" is an oxymoron.

The Jews in Germany is a perfect analogy because it shows how a majority can take away civil right, property, land and lives of a minority. This is precisely what happened in every instance of communism.

I never said we couldn't take in refugees, just like we did with the Cubans and like what we eventually did with the Vietnamese. Is it right to kill off the people who don't agree with our idea of what is best for them? Oh that's nice. You loose everything, land, property, freedom and if you are lucky enough to survive we will let you live in America. Of course you have to get here. We don't exactly send tickets.

You mean like under Stalin? Under Mao? I wasn't born. In Vietnam? Depending on the time period, I either wasn't born or was a child. Read the post again. I said "sentiment". In other words, the sentiments of people like you would have done nothing for the people of Vietnam.

So who wins or loses depends on the number killed, not on the overall effect? I disagree. The Tet Offensive was a victory for the North Vietnamese. By your own admission it was a turning point. For whom? The North. What people lost the will to fight? The South and the US. Who won the WAR? The North. But declare victory if you want. Saddam declared victory in 1991. Wayne, I will state it again. We never lost a battle in Vietnam. That is a fact. You have probably heard "you can win the battle but loose the war". This is what happened. We WON the battle. There simply is no dispute about that. We lost the war because we gave up. The Tet offensive was only successful in that it demoralized American citizens.

Saddam lost on the battlefield. We never lost on the battlefield. So if you want to get technical...

Can you name a single instance where the United States militarily lost on the battlefield in Vietnam?

And Colin Powell is still a scum bag with no integrity. Why the ad-hominem? I had thought much better than that of you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

We had a choice between two roads. One road would have meant resolving the Iraq situation without war and lifting the sanctions against it in return. That could have been followed by removing our troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We could have chosen to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressured Israel to give up its settlements in exchange for Palesting giving up its "right to return" to Israel and gaining its own state. That road would have led to the loss of support for al Qaida and greater respect for the United States. What are you talking about. The US in cooperation with the UN has been trying to resolve the situation for 12 years.

Saddam will not stop. He has lied time and time again. He was caught with huge stock piles of biological agents when he said he did not have them. We have proof that he is spying on the inspectors and moves materials before the inspectors can get them.

What road Wayne?

[Kodiak]

One Explanation for why the US lost the Vietnam War (http://www.vietquoc.com/whylost.htm)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RandFan
What do you mean no win situation? America gave up. Americans did not have clear answers as to why young boys were coming home in body bags. We did not lose!



Perhaps you could explain how "giving up" is different than "losing". America did lose. Get over it.

Originally posted by Bluegill
I agree that al Qaeda wants us to attack Iraq; anything that would inflame Muslim distrust, dislike, or hatred of the U.S. and the West in general suits their purposes.

Then that means you should not attack Iraq!!

If you attack Iraq it means the terrorists have won!

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thanz
Then that means you should not attack Iraq!!

If you attack Iraq it means the terrorists have won!


What kind of logic is that?!



Wait!...

France, Germany, and Russia do not want us to attack Iraq.

Your logic:
Then that must mean we should attack Iraq!!

If you do not attack Iraq it means the Western Europeans have won!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Kodiak


There are those predictions again... :rolleyes:

Evidence please.
Go look in the periodic table. :rolleyes: Or maybe you should just educate yourself on Iraq and the Middle East. It's like someone hearing Alan Greenspan talk about how if the government continues to have gigantic deficits, it will suck up funds for business investment and push up interest rates and slow down the economy and someone asking, "evidence please." Somethings logically follow if you are educated well enough with the subject and its history. I don't have the time to educate you on this topic from square one and I doubt your ability to learn.

How about asking for evidence of an al Qaida-Iraq link? How about asking yourself why--if the Bush administration's cause is just--it is so necessary for them to lie continuously? They are so desparate to sell that lie that they are making the incredible claim that the latest bin Laden tape proves an Hussein-al Qaida link. That's how stupid they are or think everyone else is. Alas, some people are that stupid. I hope that you are not one of them.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Hmmm...

"Ad Hominem's"...

"Wishful thinking"...

Using your criteria, it looks like you don't know what the $%$ you're talking about either, Wayne!...
Why don't you look up the definition of ad hominem and acquaint yourself with it before trying to use it? If someone says, "the moon is made of green cheese," and I say, "you don't know what you're talking about." that is not an ad hominem.

I don't know what I'm talking about? Evidence please.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
How would you resolve the Iraq situation without war AND with removing the sanctions?
Charles, you are new so I won't hold it against you that you are asking me questions that I've already answered on other threads in this forum.

Bear in mind that the UN inspection teams estimated that 90-95% of Iraq's banned weapons were destroyed by December 1998. Biological weapons, like all organisms, have a limited shelf life, so unless there is evidence that Iraq created more, what they had would no longer be useful. So the only matters are chemical weapons and whether they have resumed their nuclear program. So you do what is supposed to be happening now. You put inspection teams back in the country. It is okay to threaten repercussions if Iraq does not cooperate (the loss of the deal to remove sanctions being one, limited military response perhaps being another), but it isn't really important to make sure that each and every chemical weapon is ferreted out. They have too limited a range to threaten the US. Israel has too many nukes as well as American weaponry to be threatened. I find the CIA analysis that Iraq is very unlikely to use its "WMD" unless attacked very plausible.

The other issues I raised deal with the War on Terror--what the Iraqi war is supposed to address, but which, in reality, it will only exaccerbate--and the future of the United States, something the president is supposed to care about. They are things we should be doing on principle in the first place, and that would take all the financial wind out of al Qaida's sails in the second. They are things I've thought we should be doing long before I ever heard the names Usama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden, al Qaida or al Qaeda (take your pick of spellings).

Edited to add: Making sure each and every chemical weapon has been destroyed is an impossible task anyway.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
What does self-determination have to do with Stalin's purges or Mao's atrocities? How can a majority take away the SELF-DETERMINATION of the minority? Sorry but your "self-determination" is an oxymoron.

The Jews in Germany is a perfect analogy because it shows how a majority can take away civil right, property, land and lives of a minority. This is precisely what happened in every instance of communism.[/B]
So you think we should have gone to war with the USSR and the PRC? Interesting.

You don't understand the term "self-determination," even after I defined it for you. It has nothing to do with protecting the choices or property of each and every individual in a state. If that were the case, then we would be in a perpetual state of world war--an idea that has nonetheless gained favor among some conservatives, the same conservatives who don't give a sh*t about the civil rights of citizens in the US or about the lives of people in other countries that they take or the property and livelihood that they destroy in order to "protect them." We really care about the Iraqi people. That's why we've killed over a million of them with our program of sanctions. (And DON"T ask me to repeat what I've already told you about this topic.)

By the way, where is your sentiment in protecting the "self-determination" (as you define it) of the minority of communists and socialists in this country? Should they not have the right to live in the system of their choice? If not, then explain why not! :rolleyes:

Edited to add: Pointing out that Powell is a scumbag without any integrity is a judgment founded on the evidence, not an ad hominem. Calling Jeffrey Dahmer a cannibal is not an ad hominem either.

[Thanz]

Thanz: Then that means you should not attack Iraq!!

If you attack Iraq it means the terrorists have won!


Kodiak: What kind of logic is that?!

Sorry Kodiak, I meant it as a joke. Y'know, like right after the attacks people were saying things about sports events and award shows - "if we don't do X (insert trivial entertainment/sports event), it means the terrorists have won!"

It seemed that the terrorists "winning" was used as an excuse for anything for a while.....

On a more serious note, I don't see any reason for singling out Iraq for attack. Saudi Arabia has just as many (if not more) ties to Al Queda and terrorism. North Korea has confirmed it is in the possession of WMD. Osama is still out there somewhere. Why Iraq? Why now? Aren't there other more direct threats out there? Won't a focus on Iraq make an opening for terrorist attacks from other parts of the globe?

Using 9/11 as an excuse doesn't cut it. I don't think that there has been any serious linkage between Iraq and 9/11. Attacking Iraq and linking it to 9/11 is like attacking Bob because his second cousin twice removed Bill stole your car.

[subgenius]

Thanz, you might like this:
http://www.markfiore.com/animation/corrections.swf

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Thanz
Saudi Arabia has just as many (if not more) ties to Al Queda and terrorism.
The United States has more confirmed and proven ties to Al Qaida than does Iraq. It was the US who trained and armed bin Laden and crew in Afghanistan in the 80's. There are al Qaida cells in the US. By the Bush administration's illogic, that proves a link between the US Government and al Qaida.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

The United States has more confirmed and proven ties to Al Qaida than does Iraq. It was the US who trained and armed bin Laden and crew in Afghanistan in the 80's. There are al Qaida cells in the US. By the Bush administration's illogic, that proves a link between the US Government and al Qaida.

Wayne ;)

The United States had nothing to do with the institution of Al Qaeda. The United States, confirmed by the CIA, never sponsored any activity with Bin Ladin whatsoever. We helped the Afghanis against the Russians because we wanted a way to sock it to the communists (a nice capitalist objective that I think is a very positive ideal), but after the Afghani war against the Russians was ended we did not support the Afghanis anymore in the ways you describe.

We didn't create the Taliban Afghani state. That occured because of Pakistani clerics in Pakistan who trained and sent personnel into Afghanistan to take over the ocuntry. The United States had nothing to do with it.

So whenever you think of this topic, always remember that we helped the Mujahadden in Afghanistan, not terrorism. But the United States is not psychic either, ;). The US had no way of knowing that the Taliban would emerge and Al Qaeda would emerge. We freed the Afghanis and they threw that freedom away to religious zealotry and tyrannical governmnt. That was not our fault.

But we are correcting it now. You should be pleased. ;)

JK

[subgenius]

The Bush Administration gave the Taliban millions in the months before 9-11 for the ostensible purpose of having them ban opium growing, which they did. Which the opium growers loved because it made their stores of it soar in price.
The Taliban also met on several occasions with various oil companies with whom the Bushes have ties, regarding building an oil pipeline across Afghanistan, which is now going to be built by companies having ties to Bush and Cheney.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
The United States had nothing to do with the institution of Al Qaeda.

My point Jedi, is that it is easier to argue--based on evidence--that the US government is linked to al Qaida than it is to argue--based on evidence--that the Iraqi government is tied to al Qaida. So if you think it is absurd to argue that the US and al Qaida are "in bed" together, think of how much more absurd it is to argue that Iraq and al Qaida are linked.

It angers me how Powell and Ari Fleisher are insulting my intelligence with their baseless and illogical accusations. Think of it: Hussein and bin Laden are operating from exactly opposite goals. Hussein is struggling to avoid war with the US. Bin Laden welcomes that war. And we are supposed to believe these two guys are on the same page and coordinating their efforts? I'd sooner believe that John Edward communicates with the dead. Unfortunately for some of the people on this board, their skepticism ends when it comes to politics. They're suckers for even the most ridiculous propaganda.

[subgenius]

This story was published May 2001 (before 9-11):
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times


Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

Run date on this story 5-26-01:

Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
Run Date: 05/26/01



(WOMENSENEWS)—The Bush administration has given Afghanistan $43 million including $10 million for “other livelihood and food security programs,” a reference to the ruling Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation that dramatically changed the economy of the war-torn nation. The poppy is the source of opium and the crop had provided significant revenues to Afghan farmers. The aid was described as humanitarian.

In addition to being an ally in the U.S. war against drugs, the Taliban also has banned the education of girls and women. It has banned women from professions and from most outside-the-home employment, even with international relief agencies. It has banned women from seeing male doctors and it prevents women from practicing medicine.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

My point Jedi, is that it is easier to argue--based on evidence--that the US government is linked to al Qaida than it is to argue--based on evidence--that the Iraqi government is tied to al Qaida. So if you think it is absurd to argue that the US and al Qaida are "in bed" together, think of how much more absurd it is to argue that Iraq and al Qaida are linked.

It angers me how Powell and Ari Fleisher are insulting my intelligence with their baseless and illogical accusations. Think of it: Hussein and bin Laden are operating from exactly opposite goals. Hussein is struggling to avoid war with the US. Bin Laden welcomes that war. And we are supposed to believe these two guys are on the same page and coordinating their efforts? I'd sooner believe that John Edward communicates with the dead. Unfortunately for some of the people on this board, their skepticism ends when it comes to politics. They're suckers for even the most ridiculous propaganda.

Well let me help you change your mind. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraqi intelligence officers confiscated all the personnel information from the Kuwaiti passport agencies and its version of the state department.

What that did was give Iraq and terrorist organizations the identities and personal information on tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of western friendly arab peoples whom they could make passports for and give to terrorists.

Iraq is knee-deep in terrorist sponsorship. The information above is just the tip of the iceberg.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
This story was published May 2001 (before 9-11):
Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times


Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

Run date on this story 5-26-01:

Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
Run Date: 05/26/01



(WOMENSENEWS)—The Bush administration has given Afghanistan $43 million including $10 million for “other livelihood and food security programs,” a reference to the ruling Taliban's ban on poppy cultivation that dramatically changed the economy of the war-torn nation. The poppy is the source of opium and the crop had provided significant revenues to Afghan farmers. The aid was described as humanitarian.

In addition to being an ally in the U.S. war against drugs, the Taliban also has banned the education of girls and women. It has banned women from professions and from most outside-the-home employment, even with international relief agencies. It has banned women from seeing male doctors and it prevents women from practicing medicine.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/561/context/outrage

True, and that fits with America's interests in the war on drugs. You also failed to mention that prior to 9/11 the United States was the largest contributor of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. Ironic, huh.

JK

[hammegk]

Originally posted by subgenius

The irony is that you believe that they're not fighting for the big money interests, and that they're taking away many of your rights as we speak.

Which "rights" have you lost lately, or for that matter, ever? My "rights" don't appear to have diminished.

[subgenius]

Enron, Unocal, Bush, Cheney, Taliban:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12525

[Wayne Grabert]

For those who are still clueless about the differences between the current US military presence in Afghanistan and the former Soviet occupation of that country, I'll let someone else (http://slate.msn.com/id/2078467/) help me make my points.
On Monday Feb. 10, Germany and the Netherlands took over joint command of the 28-nation international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, relieving Turkey, which had been in charge since June 2002. According to Britain's Independent, the German defense minister used the occasion to suggest that NATO should take command of the International Security Assistance Force in six months when the German-Dutch command ends....

(snip)

Currently, ISAF only operates in Kabul and its immediate surroundings, which has allowed former Taliban leaders and renegade warlords to re-establish influence in the regions beyond the capital city. The Guardian reported that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, "one of Afghanistan's most fundamentalist warlords," is now creating an alliance with Taliban and al-Qaida survivors to target U.S. forces, aid agencies, and representatives of the Afghan government.
So the small US presence is part of an international peacekeeping force limited to patrolling Kabul. There is also a small presence scouring the mountains of Eastern Afghanistan with assistance from local militia. Far from being a military occupation of the country, war lords govern Afghanistan outside of Kabul. Also, it is apparently premature to declare victory in Afghanistan as the Taliban is re-establishing itself. (Just wait till we are fully distracted by our occupation in Iraq to see how the "democracy" in Afghanistan evaporates completely.) Clear yet????

Edited to add this quote that reinforces my last points:
An alarming piece in Monday's Daily Telegraph by Ahmed Rashid presented a region in which the old tensions of the "great game" are resurfacing and threatening Afghanistan's stability: "Despite pledges of help for [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai, Russia is arming one warlord and Iran another. India and Pakistan are continuing their long rivalry and secretly backing different claimants to power, while the central Asian republics are backing their ethnic allies." The neighboring states are frantically vying for influence because they believe the United States will reduce its commitment to Afghanistan if it goes to war in Iraq. Rashid's conclusion was depressing but sound: "Hopes of an end to interference lie in a stronger central government and greater western pressure to stop the neighbours from interfering. The latter appears less likely with the world's attention focused on Iraq."

[subgenius]

Here's a scary UPI story about:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- A book recently published in France makes two remarkable claims: The Bush administration was negotiating an oil pipeline with the Taliban until last summer; and the late John O'Neill, the nemesis of Osama bin Laden, had resigned from the FBI's war against terrorism protesting that the administration's oil policy was obstructing his investigation.
......
John O'Neill's credentials:
In his three decades with the FBI, O'Neill was a near legend in the counter-terrorism field.

He put together the team that captured Ramzi Yousef in Pakistan on charges of participating in the 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center. According to The New Yorker magazine, he constructed the theory, eventually accepted by investigators, that TWA 800 was brought down off Long Island in 1996 by the ignition of leaking fuel, not a terrorist attack.

Also in 1996, he helped lead the FBI investigation into the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. service members were killed.

In 1997, he headed the national security division in the FBI's massive New York Field Office. From that post, he organized the huge international investigation into the bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998. The bombings killed 12 Americans, more than 200 Africans and injured thousands more.

The investigation of the East Africa bombings led to the indictment in New York of bin Laden and 16 of his associates.

O'Neill was also heavily involved in trying to head off suspected terrorist attacks in the United States during the millennium celebrations of Jan. 1, 2000.

Throughout it all, O'Neill kept bin Laden in his sights as link after link connected al Qaida to the atrocities.
.......

Here's the sadly ironic part:

O'Neill was in his office on the 34th floor of the World Trade Center's north tower when the hijacked American Airlines flight crashed into the floors above him. Like thousands of others, he made it out safely. Like hundreds of others, he ran back into the complex to help with the evacuation.

His body was recovered from the rubble 11 days later.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=26022002-055134-3212r

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Go look in the periodic table. :rolleyes: Or maybe you should just educate yourself on Iraq and the Middle East. It's like someone hearing Alan Greenspan talk about how if the government continues to have gigantic deficits, it will suck up funds for business investment and push up interest rates and slow down the economy and someone asking, "evidence please." Somethings logically follow if you are educated well enough with the subject and its history. I don't have the time to educate you on this topic from square one and I doubt your ability to learn.

How about asking for evidence of an al Qaida-Iraq link? How about asking yourself why--if the Bush administration's cause is just--it is so necessary for them to lie continuously? They are so desparate to sell that lie that they are making the incredible claim that the latest bin Laden tape proves an Hussein-al Qaida link. That's how stupid they are or think everyone else is. Alas, some people are that stupid. I hope that you are not one of them.

Excellent, though unresponsive, reply...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Why don't you look up the definition of ad hominem and acquaint yourself with it before trying to use it? If someone says, "the moon is made of green cheese," and I say, "you don't know what you're talking about." that is not an ad hominem.

I don't know what I'm talking about? Evidence please.

Description of Ad Hominem: Abusive Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)


Ad Hominem's you, Wayne, presented in just this thread...


1. "Colin Powell is an idiot!"

2. "Colin Powell and the bozoes in the Bush administration continue to..."

3. "Colin Gump is exploiting that to..."

4. " That's what happens when you allow a chimp to be president."

5. "The idiots in charge are driving this country into the ground..."

6. "I'm getting sick of your insults, so f*ck off, Ric."

7. "Okay, Colin Powell, as much of a dufous that he is, may not be an idiot. What he is is a lying scum bag with no integrity."

8. "...it breaks my heart to see a bunch of inept amateurs and greedy bastards ruining what could have been..."

9. "And Colin Powell is still a scum bag with no integrity."

(edited to add a tenth one I didn't catch right away...)

10. "Or maybe you should just educate yourself on Iraq and the Middle East."

Now that we got that cleared up, care to offer any evidence to back up your claims? (The ones that aren't Ad Hominems, that is...)

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Well let me help you change your mind. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraqi intelligence officers confiscated all the personnel information from the Kuwaiti passport agencies and its version of the state department.

What that did was give Iraq and terrorist organizations the identities and personal information on tens of thousands, potentially hundreds of thousands of western friendly arab peoples whom they could make passports for and give to terrorists.

Iraq is knee-deep in terrorist sponsorship. The information above is just the tip of the iceberg.

JK
Sorry, Jedi, but this is more propaganda. The claim that Iraqi intellegence supplied al Qaida with phoney passports in 1993 is highly speculative. If there were any substance to it, the Bush administration would have been loudly publicising it for the last two years.

I can drive a few miles to Sepulveda Boulevard and get phoney documents. I don't need to Iraqis to supply them. We already know that some of the terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 had phoney driver licences supplied to them by individuals working for the Departments of Motor Vehicles in a couple of the United States. Does that prove that the US government or its intelligence agencies sponsor terrorism? No, it doesn't. However, the Reagan administration's sponsorship of death squads in Central America and the Bush Administration's assistance to the Taliban could make that case.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Yes, just like the no-win situation in Afghanistan in the 1980's for the USSR!

As for your second paragraph with its ad hominem, just like the wishful thinking in your last paragraph, you don't know what the $%$ you're talking about. The idiots in charge are driving this country into the ground, but you can continue to play violin, Nero.

I'm getting sick of your insults, so f*ck off, Ric.

Thomas Paine speaks to you Wayne:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.

The American Crisis 1780-83

I doubt Wayne would even qualify as a "sunshine patriot". You should be a little less touchy Wayne,...when you start a thread with ad-homs, you should be ready to get some back.

-zilla

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Description of Ad Hominem: Abusive Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html)

Ad Hominem's you, Wayne, presented in just this thread...

Now that we got that cleared up, care to offer any evidence to back up your claims? (The ones that aren't Ad Hominems, that is...)

From your own link:
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
To explain what should be obvious to you, but isn't, an ad hominem isn't name calling; it's substituting name calling for argument. I have characterized Powell and others in his camp based on the fallacies and dishonesty of their arguments. I have provided arguments against their positions and that explain the basis of my characterizations of them. I don't say Powell shouldn't be believed because he is a scum bag; I say Powell is a scum bag because....

So get a clue before you try using big words.

Edited to add: I just looked through this thread and there is not one place where YOU make ANY argument, you lazy hypocrite!

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Thomas Paine speaks to you Wayne:

It does not refer to me at all. I'm defending the principles that Paine fought for. You are mindlessly supporting misguided and immoral government policy. You'd have made a good and loyal and "patriotic" Nazi. I would have opposed Hitler. There's a difference between being patriotic and idiotic.

As for not being fit to shine someone's shoes, you are not fit to lick the dirt off my shoes. So go get drunk again and f*ck yourself.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Wayne Grabert

You'd have made a good and loyal and "patriotic" Nazi.Dude, I agree with many of your positions, but this was going too far. It's simply not a good idea to trivialize nazism by comparing people like Rik to nazis. You may disagree with him, but let's face it -- no matter how great a disagreement, he doesn't merit that sort of attack. There are a few loons and fools here, but I can't think of any that would merit such vitriol -- not even JK, although he is skirting close.

P.S. yeah, ignoramuses mistaking an insult of argumentum ad hominem is one of my pet peeves. they don't understand that Ad Hominem is only when you say something like "You suck ass, and therefore you are wrong" -- neither "You suck ass" nor "You suck ass, and you are wrong because XYZ" constitute argumenta ad homines.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

It does not refer to me at all. I'm defending the principles that Paine fought for. You are mindlessly supporting misguided and immoral government policy. You'd have made a good and loyal and "patriotic" Nazi. I would have opposed Hitler. There's a difference between being patriotic and idiotic.

As for not being fit to shine someone's shoes, you are not fit to lick the dirt off my shoes. So go get drunk again and f*ck yourself.

My...we sure are testy today now aren't we??? Calm down man,...I'm sure you've got a few more good months left before JK's truth commission gets cranked up. :D

You really shouldn't take all this so seriously Wayne....what do you wanna do? Live forever??? HAHAHAHAH :D :D

-Your friend,
Rick

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Sorry, Jedi, but this is more propaganda. The claim that Iraqi intellegence supplied al Qaida with phoney passports in 1993 is highly speculative. If there were any substance to it, the Bush administration would have been loudly publicising it for the last two years.

I can drive a few miles to Sepulveda Boulevard and get phoney documents. I don't need to Iraqis to supply them. We already know that some of the terrorists who hijacked planes on 9/11 had phoney driver licences supplied to them by individuals working for the Departments of Motor Vehicles in a couple of the United States. Does that prove that the US government or its intelligence agencies sponsor terrorism? No, it doesn't. However, the Reagan administration's sponsorship of death squads in Central America and the Bush Administration's assistance to the Taliban could make that case.

No, it is not propaganda. The fact that you can go down to see some thug somewhere and get fake documents inside America has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

The United States and Europe have strict guidelines about who comes into our countries. Most of those restrictions are filtered through databases that severely restrict people from certain nation-states from traveling to the United States.

Could a Saudi travel to the United States easier, than lets say an Iranian? Or a Yemeni? Or an Iraqi?

You bet.

So imagine all the Saudis that would hop on planes and go to Kuwait, a cool place to vacation. Now, if you get access to those passport documents that the Kuwaitis had voluminous amounts of material on (including Americans and Europeans), now you can take an Iranian terrorist cell, an Iraqi terrorist cell and a Yemini terrorist cell and give them Saudi or American or European idenities, put them on a plane and they waltz into America.

That is much different than say you as an American trying to get fake papers to go to Iran. Why would you do that?

JK

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Wayne Grabert

Dude, I agree with many of your positions, but this was going too far. It's simply not a good idea to trivialize nazism by comparing people like Rik to nazis. You may disagree with him, but let's face it -- no matter how great a disagreement, he doesn't merit that sort of attack. There are a few loons and fools here, but I can't think of any that would merit such vitriol -- not even JK, although he is skirting close.

P.S. yeah, ignoramuses mistaking an insult of argumentum ad hominem is one of my pet peeves. they don't understand that Ad Hominem is only when you say something like "You suck ass, and therefore you are wrong" -- neither "You suck ass" nor "You suck ass, and you are wrong because XYZ" constitute argumenta ad homines.

Thanks Vic,

I got drunk and posted the other night....so Wayne's real, real pissed off at me. I do try, and have tried to look at this crisis with all due seriousness. But hey, life's too short....and doesn't look like the world's getting any safer. IMHO the time for talk and debate is just about over. Time to take a decision and get on with it. That's all. Wayne took his...and I mine.

The gulf widens.

-zilla

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Calm down man,...I'm sure you've got a few more good months left before JK's truth commission gets cranked up.

LOL

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla


My...we sure are testy today now aren't we??? Calm down man,...I'm sure you've got a few more good months left before JK's truth commission gets cranked up. :D

You really shouldn't take all this so seriously Wayne....what do you wanna do? Live forever??? HAHAHAHAH :D :D

-Your friend,
Rick
Rik, I'd be quite happy to start on fresh footing with you. You give up the insults and I'll do the same.

I have things to do and so I will be away from this board for the next several hours, and perhaps till tomorrow night. I'll leave my side of the argument in the meantime to be argued by the capable Victor, should he care to engage you. I'm also getting weary of debating this subject, especially since the war will start within weeks. Powell and Bush have basically said so. However, I wanted to give you and others some idea of what to expect and why, as I've argued my points over the last several months, and also to point out the duplicity and odiousness of those who are starting that war.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Wayne Grabert

Dude, I agree with many of your positions, but this was going too far.
I used an extreme example because it most easily makes my point about the difference between dissent and disloyalty, and between uncritical obedience and adherence to moral principles.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

That is much different than say you as an American trying to get fake papers to go to Iran. Why would you do that?

JK
For the caviar! ;)

P.S. I know why you would do it and who would give you the fake papers. Hint: You'd pick them up in Langley, VA. :cool:

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Rik sneaks in a Dan Daily quote and no one notices!!!

[crackmonkey]

Getting off-point for a sec... Wayne, why encourage JK's delusions?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Getting off-point for a sec... Wayne, why encourage JK's delusions?

Lighten up Crack-Monkey boy. I don't work in Langley--never been there. I don't know anyone from Virginia, actually.

JK

[crackmonkey]

Okay, my bad. Sorry.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Getting off-point for a sec... Wayne, why encourage JK's delusions?
Sorry, but I never thought of his musings as delusions. I've said before and I'll say it again: this board would not be nearly as much fun or as interesting without JK. I care about the guy and I sincerely want him to be happy. I know he has some out-of-the-mainstream ideas, but I don't consider him psychotic.

[Wayne Grabert]

I just had to return long enough to post a thread in the Literature & Arts section since JK's mention of Iran reminded me of a movie I saw Friday night. Those of you in the LA area may want to check it out.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Sorry, but I never thought of his musings as delusions. I've said before and I'll say it again: this board would not be nearly as much fun or as interesting without JK. I care about the guy and I sincerely want him to be happy. I know he has some out-of-the-mainstream ideas, but I don't consider him psychotic.

I am well read, well educated and warrior trained. That is one hell of a combination. Me being at this forum has increased the popularity of it at least 15,000%.

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I am well read, well educated
Well read? What do you read? The backs of cereal boxes?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Well read? What do you read? The backs of cereal boxes?

I am pleased that you asked. You may not believe this, but I have a love affair for words and the English language.

Words to me are like math problems to a Ph.D in math.

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I am pleased that you asked. You may not believe this, but I have a love affair for words and the English language.

Words to me are like math problems to a Ph.D in math.
Then why did you spell atheism "athiesm" for a long time? And why do you constantly refuse to tell us your sources for your various claims?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Thanz
Perhaps you could explain how "giving up" is different than "losing". America did lose. Get over it. This is not my point and there is nothing to get over.

We won every single battle.

The American people did not have the stomach for war. Yes we lost for all intents and purposes but we did not lose as a result of any military losses.

THAT IS MY POINT.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
So you think we should have gone to war with the USSR and the PRC? Interesting. If a governing body from Russia or China had asked us to intervene prior to the over throw of their governments, perhaps.

You don't understand the term "self-determination," even after I defined it for you. It has nothing to do with protecting the choices or property of each and every individual in a state. I never said it did.

I believe it to be imoral for a majority to strip the civil rights of the minority. Is there something about that concept that you don't get?

By the way, where is your sentiment in protecting the "self-determination" (as you define it) of the minority of communists and socialists in this country? Should they not have the right to live in the system of their choice? [B]If not, then explain why not! :rolleyes: Dumb argument Wayne. How can the desires of the few to give up civil rights fo all outweigh the rights of the majority?

Edited to add: Pointing out that Powell is a scumbag without any integrity is a judgment founded on the evidence, not an ad hominem. Calling Jeffrey Dahmer a cannibal is not an ad hominem either. You really don't see a difference?

Come on Wayne, when one human eats another it is a demonstrabe fact that that man is a canibal.

Your views about Colin Powell are personal and subjective. He is quite frankly one of the finest men in the United States. That you don't like him is irrelevant.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Rik sneaks in a Dan Daily quote and no one notices!!!

shhhhhhhhhhhhh! :D

'sides, I thought it was a "Conan The Barbarian" quote! ;)

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am well read, well educated and warrior trained. That is one hell of a combination. Me being at this forum has increased the popularity of it at least 15,000%.

JK

:rolleyes: ....and modest....don't forget that :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Sorry, but I never thought of his musings as delusions. I've said before and I'll say it again: this board would not be nearly as much fun or as interesting without JK. I care about the guy and I sincerely want him to be happy. I know he has some out-of-the-mainstream ideas, but I don't consider him psychotic.

but just imagine if there were two JKs down in one of those missile silos at once. one person can't turn the key, but two can.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


but just imagine if there were two JKs down in one of those missile silos at once. one person can't turn the key, but two can.

Better two of him than two of you.

At least some Aussies appear to have a pair of balls; what happened to you?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am well read, well educated and warrior trained. That is one hell of a combination. Me being at this forum has increased the popularity of it at least 15,000%.

JK

Surely not in the same way as the "dog faced boy" or "Bearded Lady"???

Heaven forfend!!!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


but just imagine if there were two JKs down in one of those missile silos at once. one person can't turn the key, but two can.

AUP,

Ask Hal about that....his first real job in the AF was as a missile control officer ...before he started channelling Hamilton that is.

-z

[a_unique_person]

Thanz:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then that means you should not attack Iraq!!

If you attack Iraq it means the terrorists have won!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Kodiak:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What kind of logic is that?!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sorry Kodiak, I meant it as a joke. Y'know, like right after the attacks people were saying things about sports events and award shows - "if we don't do X (insert trivial entertainment/sports event), it means the terrorists have won!"

It seemed that the terrorists "winning" was used as an excuse for anything for a while.....



actually, there is more logic to this than might realise. As the recently released tape from Bin Laden shows, he is perfectly happy that the US is attacking Iraq, and now wants to exploit the attack to get more Muslims over to his line of thinking.

A terrorist attack is often used, not as a means of achieving a direct military objective, but to provoke a reaction. As far as Bin Laden is concerned, everything is going to plan.

[crackmonkey]

Everything is going to plan what?

[Wayne Grabert]

I'm back during a brief break.

Originally posted by RandFan
Your views about Colin Powell are personal and subjective. He is quite frankly one of the finest men in the United States. That you don't like him is irrelevant.
It is an objective fact that Colin Powell lies. (http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0302powell_body.html) Most of what he had to say before the UN was debunked the day before by Hans Blix. The ridiculous argument that the latest bin Laden audiotape "proves" a link between Saddam and Usama is just another in a long line of lies from the scumbag you call "one of the finest men in the United States." Yeah, and Jeffrey Dahmer was just hungry.

I had some respect for Powell before he became Secretary of State. Now I see him as nothing but another unprincipled politician. I strongly suspect the only reason he ever got to be Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is that he is such a giant, shameless suck-ass. He has his tongue so far up Duh-bya's bunghole that he could tell you what Duh-bya had for dinner last night.

I first lost a great deal of respect for Colon Sucker Powell during his disgraceful "peace mission" to Israel last year. He couldn't be bothered to visit Arafat or the West Bank, but while the bulldozers were rolling he took time out for a courtesy visit to Israel's forces stationed at the Lebanese border! Sporting his biggest, ear-to-ear, sycophant smile, he clicked his heels and saluted the first IDF soldiers he saw, then lavished praise on them and their comrades mowing down Palestinians in the West Bank for their "defense of democracy." Suck-ass!

The guy has been getting undeserved credit in the media that imagine him as the "dove" and "rational one" among the Bush administration. I read that line of B.S. enough that I began to think there might be something to it, that he wasn't AS BIG an amateur as the rest of the gang of idiots, that he might have some moderating influence, but I never saw the evidence for that wishful thinking on the part of all the pundits. They were just giving him a free ride because they figured, well, he's a black guy who rose to such prominence in Republican administrations, he must have something going for him. Yeah, he could stick his tongue deeper into any orifice that mattered. That's the only thing that makes sense to me, and I've been wondering about it a long time.

Norman Schwarzkopf, the general who actually won the Gulf War, is at odds with Colon, Rummy, Dick, Condi and Duh-bya over war with Iraq, diplomatically saying he has "reservations" against starting that war. So do many other prominent retired generals, such as Anthony Zenni and Brent Scowcroft. However, Colon has sold out.

How do you justify calling him "one of the finest men in the United States"? He's a liar, and not about trivial things.

Edited to add: More proof that Powell is a liar. (http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2210085) The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein -- it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government.

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the statement said. Yet I am supposed to believe Colon's (sic) droppings of sh*t that Saddam and Usama are in league together? :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Everything is going to plan what?

plan lets all have a big, bloody war.

[Richard G]

It is an objective fact that Colin Powell lies. Most of what he had to say before the UN was debunked the day before by Hans Blix.

Do you sincerely believe what Mr. Blix knows, and can say, compares to the what Powell knows via the inteligence aparatus of the USA?

Mr. Blix himself was enlightened, and in fact changed his entire demeanor after hearing [and seeing] Powells inteligence briefing.

What was presented before the U.N. was only a very small sample of inteligence that the CIA has accumulated. I'm very sorry that we will not admit you, and the entire world to our top secret briefings. By your attitude, you would most likely sell us out to the top bidder.

I too must add that Mr. Powell is one of the finest men to serve the USA.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Richard G

Do you sincerely believe what Mr. Blix knows, and can say, compares to the what Powell knows via the inteligence aparatus of the USA?
Colon (sic) Powell is a proven liar. I don't believe anything he says. The Bush administration has no credibility. It has wanted war with Iraq for ulterior motvies and has been trying to find a pretext.

Originally posted by Richard G
What was presented before the U.N. was only a very small sample of inteligence that the CIA has accumulated. I'm very sorry that we will not admit you, and the entire world to our top secret briefings. By your attitude, you would most likely sell us out to the top bidder.
So, first of all, Dick, you are claiming that you are a member of the CIA and are privy to all its top secret briefings. I don't believe you.

Secondly, by your attitude I can conclude that you are just another small minded, dull witted, conservative a**hole! "Look, someone is disagreeing with our Republican president. He must be unpatriotic and a subversive--a communist!" It's sh*theads like you the country can do without. Hey, John Ashcroft wants YOU! So drop your pants and bend over.

Originally posted by Richard G
I too must add that Mr. Powell is one of the finest men to serve the USA. Based on what????????? Have you sucked his dick? Is that what you're basing it on? Listen, dimwit, declaring something to be true doesn't make it so. I've stated my reasons why Colon is a scumbag. No one--no one!--has yet to give ONE reason why he is such a "fine man." Are you saying that meaning you'd like to sleep with him? I think so.

"You'd sell us out to the highest bidder." What a stupid jerk you are. You can't refute anything I say, so you attack me personally. Well, I can dish it out too, you sh*teating prick!

[Jedi Knight]

Wayne, I take it that you are against the pending war in Iraq. I have never seen you get so upset before in a thread. The only time people get upset like that is when their core beliefs are violated.

Why do you think the United States should not invade Iraq?

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Wayne, I take it that you are against the pending war in Iraq. I have never seen you get so upset before in a thread. The only time people get upset like that is when their core beliefs are violated.

Why do you think the United States should not invade Iraq?

JK
You're right, my perceptive friend. As you know, I am tolerant of opposing opinions, but my tolerance of personal attacks has dropped to zero, especially when people accuse me of such things as "being a sunshine patriot" or wishing disaster on the country and success for al Qaida or being willing to sell out the country to the highest bidder, etc. How would you feel if someone accused you of being a communist or another Jonathan Pollard?

Why do I think the US should not invade Iraq? Well, I've been arguing those reasons here for the last several months. In brief, we shouldn't because it isn't necessary and it will only increase our problems. It'll be a huge drain on our treasury, it will compromise our ability to respond to real threats, it will not only divert us from stabilizing Afghanistan and fighting terrorism, it'll strengthen al Qaida and make us more vulnerable to terrorism. It also will put the world on notice that the US is an aggressive tyrant bent on world hegemony rather than being a promoter of peace and respect for international law. Other nations will see us as an untrustworthy bully and will be less likely to cooperate with us and will instead work against our interests.

Here's something ironic, if you consider why NATO was formed. I see the possibility that the US will break away from NATO and Europe will form a defense alliance that includes Russia!

Edited to add: Jedi, have you seen this magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/) yet? You might like it. I have heard about it, but haven't picked up an issue yet.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You're right, my perceptive friend. As you know, I am tolerant of opposing opinions, but my tolerance of personal attacks has dropped to zero, especially when people accuse me of such things as "being a sunshine patriot" or wishing disaster on the country and success for al Qaida or being willing to sell out the country to the highest bidder, etc. How would you feel if someone accused you of being a communist or another Jonathan Pollard?

I understand where you are coming and what you are feeling about it. I traveled the world for the United States carrying a rifle, went to war, etc and I have a JREF kid crew who daily call me a fraud and a liar about it. You have to keep in mind the environment that you have discussions in. You get logical, intelligent people who will debate you and then you get rabble mixed in with that and you just have to not let that bad things people say about your opinions bother you.

You and I disagree on some issues but I like you Wayne and I don't think that you need to get upset.

Why do I think the US should not invade Iraq? Well, I've been arguing those reasons here for the last several months. In brief, we shouldn't because it isn't necessary and it will only increase our problems. It'll be a huge drain on our treasury, it will compromise our ability to respond to real threats, it will not only divert us from stabilizing Afghanistan and fighting terrorism, it'll strengthen al Qaida and make us more vulnerable to terrorism. It also will put the world on notice that the US is an aggressive tyrant bent on world hegemony rather than being a promoter of peace and respect for international law. Other nations will see us as an untrustworthy bully and will be less likely to cooperate with us and will instead work against our interests.

It has been my global experience and I have traveled a lot (over 24 foreign countries) that countries are going to overtly try to work against our interests anyway. Most of what is happening in the world that weighs against the United States is because we are the lone superpower. If France was the lone superpower, it would be them that would be under overt attack by every other nation that sought to cling to some semblance of power that they had in the Cold War. When the Cold War ended, many nation-states lost power while the Unitd States and some other countries gained power.

Also, the effect of our way of life does more to impact enemies against us than the physical territory of the United States too. When rock and roll music, Hollywood movies, KFC, McDonalds and other westernized ideas penetrate foreign countries there is a alot of jealously and rage at the change to those cultures internally. There is a real resistance to technological and cultural change in countries and many of them resist (Iran and others) and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. There is no reason for those countries to attack our innocent civilians over that, but they will because they are afraid. Their leaders are afraid of the idea of freedom in their populations that accompany our exportation of manufactured goods that impact foreign culture.

To me, it is all about retaining power--the resistance to us and what we stand for--because the foreign governments know that tyrannies, monarchies and dictatorships are antiquated and none of them want to give up power. It is all about the power.

Moving beyond that, let me give you an example of US force projection and why to me there really isn't a valid level of protest against Iraqi invasion by the US that is credible. Keep in mind that my opinion has nothing to do with you personally.

Now, for a good example of what I am talking about, we have to look at some key facts. The first fact is that the United States doesn't and never has gone to war overnight. It takes democracies time to go to war. Democracies are never efficient at going to war. We responded well against the Taliban because in crisis a democracy will take immediate action, but with Iraq it has been a grueling, slow process. People attack President's Bush's dad for not taking out Saddam in the first gulf war--that was not our mission. Our mission was to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Since Saddam created a host of problems after that war it turned into a situation where it became a revised history to attack President Bush's dad. That is the way the game is played on the global stage.

The same can be said for Noriega in Panama. The United States gave Noriega a whole bunch of time to relinquish power--and it didn't happen. The reasons are irrevelant for this discussion, but if you look at that invasion, first there was diplomacy, then as hostilities against US nationals in Panama increased the US implemented Operation NIMROD Dancer, which was a scout mission that was hoped would not lead to war. Noriega stuck around and instability ensued and then the troops from Operation NIMROD Dancer were replaced with the trigger pullers for Operation Just Cause. Noriega had plenty of time (well over a year) to resign. He knew of the force structure changes in Panama prior to the invasion, changes that the US made in August 1989, a full five months before the invasion started. He did not go away. That is how democracies work. There was no rush to judgement and clear warnings.

Now with Saddam, he has been under UN resolutions since the end of the 1st gulf war, 1991. That is over 12 years. His military forces have shot at coalition aircraft daily since they started their waypoint routes over Iraq. He has ignored the ban on weapons of mass destruction, assisted terrorist groups, committed gross human rights violations against his own people, assisted terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran to infiltrate into Syria so they could supply militant groups that attack Israel--it goes on and on.

Now bear in mind that when you include the judgement and information of our intelligence services into this equation, the President of the United States is acting on things I believe that are much, much more dangerous than the information that is acquired through open-source channels. All the information that I have comes from open-source and I remain envious to those who know the real deal.

Now, what happens if Saddam goes away? Well, the most important outcome is that the Iraqi people are freed from a terror government, a human rights issue that we can fix immediately. Then there are strategic issues like the disarmament of Iraq which would radically change the face of the entire middle east.

Population pressures inside Turkey could be relieved and Iraq could be divided into stable states with UN protection. Also the overflows from our actions in Iraq could cause Iran to democratize, sealing change there. But is it a gamble? You bet. Every war is a gamble. But you know what 9/11 proved? 9/11 proved that the United States can't sit back anymore. We can't. Hard decisions are being made and with Iraq isolated and restructured, we will be making peace with more people there than making enemies. I simply cannot agree with anyone that says by freeing people they will hate you. In my military experiences, people cheered in the streets when we freed them. There is this attitude in the leftist media that we are going to be "hated" for freeing people. The communists may think that because it is not under the auspices of their version of social justice, but when people are free they do not think about killing you. They think of how to spend the time they have in their freedom--spend time in their days.

If we do not attack Iraq, Bin Ladin would attack us anyway. Iraq has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda agenda. Radical Islamists want to remake the world global Islam. Again, Iraqi action will only benefit us.

There is always a reluctance to go to war. European reluctance, in my opinion, has more to do with keeping the status quo in the middle east than any other political agenda. Also, European states want to see the liquidation of the state of Irsael which they consider to be unnatural. Believe it. That is what they are thinking about.

Our national security cannot afford to be governed by the status quo anylonger.

Here's something ironic, if you consider why NATO was formed. I see the possibility that the US will break away from NATO and Europe will form a defense alliance that includes Russia!

It could happen and I warned of this years ago. That political upheaval is the result of the US being the lone superpower and the European states shifting from traditional free societies to neo-socialist states. Also, countries like France have $billions invested in Iran and other areas in the region and do not want that stability in fuel resources disrupted. They are willing to overlook human rights and true social justice (capitalist freedom) just to keep the fuel flowing.

Take a look at how they dealt with Southern Europe. They sealed their borders during the war in the former Yugoslavia instead of allowing women and children the opportunity to escape the ravages of war. I always question European loyalty to human rights because I can look at history, and yet Europe will claim an invisible moral highground against the United States when it wants to use human rights politics against our foreign policy decisions...

Edited to add: Jedi, have you seen this magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/) yet? You might like it. I have heard about it, but haven't picked up an issue yet.

Yes, that is Pat Buchanan's new magazine.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Wayne, lol, they just started a "Has Jedi served in the military" thread.

They love to piss down your back and tell you it is raining.

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Thank you for sharing your views. I will think them over.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Wayne, lol, they just started a "Has Jedi served in the military" thread.

They love to piss down your back and tell you it is raining.

JK
I'll go on record, as I've stated on an earlier thread, that I believe that you have served in the military. I'll visit that thread.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
It is an objective fact that Colin Powell lies. Do you mean along the lines of "it depends on what the meainig of 'is' is" or "can you define the word alone" or "I never had sexual relations with that women"?

You better start adding to your list of scumbags.

How do you justify calling him "one of the finest men in the United States"? He's a liar, and not about trivial things. ********! Anyone who takes a course of action counter to your desires is going to be scrutinized in a different light.

Saddam and Usama have a common enemy. There is no question in my mind at all that if it would suit Usama's purposes he would take delivery of a device from Saddam. I consider that a link.

Sure, it's not the link YOU want. Its probably not quite the link Powell intimated but it is a link. And I agree its not trivial but I think Powell is right on. This is a real serious problem and we better open our eyes and do something about (something more than pretend that the inspectors will disarm a lying megolamaniac) it or it WILL bite us in the ass.

Colin Powell's record stands. His service stands. He isn't your spokesperson. Too damn bad. He is a great man and a great leader. Your upset and I understand but I don't think it justifies your calling him a scumbag. Something tells me you are not going to stop so thats fine.

[Victor Danilchenko]

RandFan

The American people did not have the stomach for war. Yes we lost for all intents and purposes but we did not lose as a result of any military losses.Wars are fought by societies, not militaries. A loss for lack of resources, for example, is just as much a loss as a loss for paucity of tactical planning.

Vietnam was the case of proverbial "win the battle, lose the war" syndrome. Yes, America did lose that war, despite winning every single battle. It was just as much of a loss, as it would have been had US armies gotten driven into the sea.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
You're right, my perceptive friend. As you know, I am tolerant of opposing opinions, but my tolerance of personal attacks has dropped to zero, ...

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Colin Powell is an idiot!

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
And Colin Powell is still a scum bag with no integrity.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
RandFan

Wars are fought by societies, not militaries. A loss for lack of resources, for example, is just as much a loss as a loss for paucity of tactical planning.

Vietnam was the case of proverbial "win the battle, lose the war" syndrome. Yes, America did lose that war, despite winning every single battle. It was just as much of a loss, as it would have been had US armies gotten driven into the sea. Yes, thanks Victor. I have made that point. I agree. However and again, we are talking about whether the war was winnable. Considering the kill ratio and the attrition of humans in Vietnam that are capable of fighting then it is a demonstrable fact that the war was winnable and that it was not lost due to anything militarily.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RandFan

Saddam and Usama have a common enemy. There is no question in my mind at all that if it would suit Usama's purposes he would take delivery of a device from Saddam. I consider that a link.



Enough of a link to go to war? I must disagree. North Korea has shown a willingness to supply just about anyone with weapons. Why isn't the US pushing for war against NK?

No real link has been shown between Osama and Saddam or between Iraq and 9/11.

Either there is no real justification for the war, or Bush et al are hiding something HUGE under their hats that, if known, would justify the war. I see no evidence for this - they have not shared evidence with their allies in a way similar to what they did for 9/11 and Osama.

THere is no good answer to the questions why Iraq? and why now? that has been put forth.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
So get a clue before you try using big words.

Edited to add: I just looked through this thread and there is not one place where YOU make ANY argument, you lazy hypocrite!

Thou art the clueless one...

You have indeed substituted name calling for evidence! Many of the Ad Hominem statements of yours that I listed were simple, stand-alone statements of fact made by you. They serve no purpose other than as a substitute for evidence.

Also from my link:

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
It is an objective fact that Colin Powell lies.

From my Ad Hominem: Abusive link:

"For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion."

The possibility that Colin Powell lied in the past, or might lie again in the future, does not mean he is currently lying...

[Victor Danilchenko]

RandFan

However and again, we are talking about whether the war was winnable.And whether the war was winnable is just as dependent on social factors as on military ones. "Unwinnability" may come in the guise of poor training, lack of resources, lack of willingness to fight, etc. -- but any of these may render a war unwinnable. Saying that a war would be winnable except for the social factors is not very different from saying that a war would be winnable except for lack of ammunition...

Considering the kill ratio and the attrition of humans in Vietnam that are capable of fighting then it is a demonstrable fact that the war was winnable and that it was not lost due to anything militarily [emphasis mine -V].Right. But as I said and you agreed, social factors are just as important as military ones. Saying that it would have been winnable based on military factors alone is not saying anything useful, because military factors never apply outside societal context. That, I think, was Wayne's point -- that Vietnam couldn't be won, regardless of whether the culpable factor was military inability or society's unwillingness.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Thou art the clueless one...

You have indeed substituted name calling for evidence! Many of the Ad Hominem statements of yours that I listed were simple, stand-alone statements of fact made by you. They serve no purpose other than as a substitute for evidence.
No, they are extracts removed from my ARGUMENTS! Why don't you try making an argument sometime?

Originally posted by Kodiak

Also from my link:

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.
My claim was that Colin Powell is an idiot, and by extension, is poorly serving the public interest. I have given support for my claim. Go back to Philosophy 101.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Kodiak


From my Ad Hominem: Abusive link:

"For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion."

The possibility that Colin Powell lied in the past, or might lie again in the future, does not mean he is currently lying...
My whole point is that he is CURRENTLY lying!!!!!!!!! Are you going to continue to embarass yourself by exposing your lack of comprehension?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

No, they are extracts removed from my ARGUMENTS! Why don't you try making an argument sometime?

My claim was that Colin Powell is an idiot, and by extension, is poorly serving the public interest. I have given support for my claim. Go back to Philosophy 101.

Can anyone say "anger management"???

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you mean along the lines of "it depends on what the meainig of 'is' is" or "can you define the word alone" or "I never had sexual relations with that women"?

You better start adding to your list of scumbags.
Where do I make the claim that Powell is the world's only scumbag or only liar? :confused: References to Clinton are completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by RandFan
********! Anyone who takes a course of action counter to your desires is going to be scrutinized in a different light.
Since you know so much about me, please tell me what I had for breakfast this morning. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by RandFan
Saddam and Usama have a common enemy. There is no question in my mind at all that if it would suit Usama's purposes he would take delivery of a device from Saddam. I consider that a link.
In your first statement, you admit that were it not for the aggression of the United States, Saddam and Usama would have nothing in common. This is true. The two hate each other. Usama is trying to position himself with the Iraqi people to be Saddam's alternative.

The last two sentences of the quote from you above are ludicrous. If Bill Gates offered you a billion dollars, I have no doubt that you'd take it. I consider that a link. That no more proves that you are about to be a billionaire than you prove that Saddam would ever give Usama a device, aside perhaps from a box that would explode when Usama opened it.

Look, if either Saddam or Usama want a nuclear weapon, they can buy one from Kim Jong Il same as anybody else.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Right. But as I said and you agreed, social factors are just as important as military ones. Saying that it would have been winnable based on military factors alone is not saying anything useful, because military factors never apply outside societal context. That, I think, was Wayne's point -- that Vietnam couldn't be won, regardless of whether the culpable factor was military inability or society's unwillingness.
Ho said to the US, "you may kill more of us, but we will outlast you."

The main reason the war was a no-win situation is that most of the people we were supposed to be fighting for were fighting against us. I don't know why it is so difficult for some people to comprehend how that is a no-win situation. Maybe the solution would have been to let the rest of South Vietnam go and try to turn Saigon into a city-state like Kabul.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Ho said to the US, "you may kill more of us, but we will outlast you."

The main reason the war was a no-win situation is that most of the people we were supposed to be fighting for were fighting against us. I don't know why it is so difficult for some people to comprehend how that is a no-win situation. Maybe the solution would have been to let the rest of South Vietnam go and try to turn Saigon into a city-state like Kabul.

The only reason that Vietnam did last is that the United States didn't carpet bomb key infrastructure in North Vietnam. Had we done that, Vietnam would have collapsed like an ice-cream sundae in the Mojave.

JK

[Q-Source]

It is a little bit early, don't you think?
Do you ever sleep?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source
It is a little bit early, don't you think?
Do you ever sleep?

Of course I sleep ;). I am human, after all.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The only reason that Vietnam did last is that the United States didn't carpet bomb key infrastructure in North Vietnam. Had we done that, Vietnam would have collapsed like an ice-cream sundae in the Mojave.

JK

they carpet bombed anything that could have been a minor piece of infrastructure. they dropped more bombs than were dropped in WWII.

had they actually bombed the whole of vietnam, it would have been a case of 'we had to destroy the country to save it'.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

I agree with JK on this. Meaningful targets were selected out by senior civilians in the Defense and State Department, and by the President. Their reasons were political, but whatever the reason the effect was that the military was unable to bomb those targets that made sense.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
I agree with JK on this. Meaningful targets were selected out by senior civilians in the Defense and State Department, and by the President. Their reasons were political, but whatever the reason the effect was that the military was unable to bomb those targets that made sense.

what is the reason for all those bombs aimed at all those targets? the cold war is long gone, but the bombs remain. the US military currently appears intent on starting WWIII.

Afghanistan was taken as a payback, and there was little opposition as the US had to take something out, and may have even been lucky enough to get bin laden.

the payback is over now. the missiles target so many targets that are not a threat.

north korea is only threatening to fire one or two missiles, which will probably blow up on the launch pad, in retaliation at the new US policy of pre-emptive strikes.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


what is the reason for all those bombs aimed at all those targets? the cold war is long gone, but the bombs remain. the US military currently appears intent on starting WWIII.

Afghanistan was taken as a payback, and there was little opposition as the US had to take something out, and may have even been lucky enough to get bin laden.

the payback is over now. the missiles target so many targets that are not a threat.

north korea is only threatening to fire one or two missiles, which will probably blow up on the launch pad, in retaliation at the new US policy of pre-emptive strikes.

What are you talking about? Are you having an "episode"?

[CapelDodger]

From circuitslave:
If it wasn't for September 11th. I could see your point. But this isn't about oil. It's about those same people who bitched about 911 and the government knowing and warnings and did nothing about it or try to prevent it, aren't going to get the opportunity again.

Thinking back, war against Iraq ("finishing the job" so to speak) was being promoted by a significant segment of the White House from the start of this administration, if not before. The connecting of Iraq and Islamist terrorism was sheer opportunism; the connection was being declared proven within hours of the 911 attacks, before any evidence could possibly have been established (unless people in the White House did know the attacks were coming, which is ridiculous).

The desperate attempts to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda are counter-productive when it comes to persuading doubters into the war party. A persuasive WMD argument can easily be made, but the 'No War Nohow' lobby can concentrate the argument on Powell's ludicrous claims, for instance that this latest tape - calling Saddam an unbeliever and his regime satanist - demonstrates a link between the Iraqi regime and Bin Laden. How can such an intelligent man bear to make a pudding out of himself in public just to try and push a case that he surely knows is invalid?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Now we come to these two new tapes. Interesting they are, to say the least. Let's look at them in light of several conditions.

1. They came to light at the perfect time so far as the US is concerned. Just before the war with Iraq is to begin. They lend themselves to the current US line.

2. They do fit fairly well, though not perfectly, with what the US might expect bin Laden to say. The second tape is apparently even clearer, and speaks of his pending martyrdom.

3. The previous tape that was released from bin Laden was analyzed by a laboratory in Switzerland. The lab said that it couldn't be sure, but it apppeared that the tape was probably a fraud.

4. The US has said it will not submit these tapes to the lab and the lab has said it will not analyze these tapes.

5. The US "miraculously" had a copy of the recent tapes, and their tranlations, even before the Al Jazeera News Service was aware it had them. I hope some of you are noticing a pattern here.

6. The new tapes exhort Al Qaeda and all muslims to fight the infidels and kill them, etc., which is about what you would expect. This is accompanied by what we are told is an unusual increase in terrorist communications traffic. We have raised the threat level to RED. We expect to be attacked, just as we expect to attack Iraq.

My conclusion: These two tapes, plus the last bin Laden tape, were produced by US intelligence sources. If these tapes were made by bin Laden himself, then that means he is a prisoner of the US. But we must know that he cannot surface to deny the tapes, which means that if he's not our prisoner he must be dead, and we know he is. The purpose is not to provide a reason to go to war with Iraq, but to generate communications among Al Qaeda operatives, leading to their capture or death. I believe it is succeeding.

This may well be the finest operation of its kind in decades. And bin Laden may well be our prisoner.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Now we come to these two new tapes...These two tapes, plus the last bin Laden tape, were produced by US intelligence sources. ..The purpose is not to provide a reason to go to war with Iraq, but to generate communications among Al Qaeda operatives, leading to their capture or death. I believe it is succeeding.

Hey BD, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent


Hey BD, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

Then you think the tapes are genuine. Why?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
RandFan And whether the war was winnable is just as dependent on social factors as on military ones. "Unwinnability" may come in the guise of poor training, lack of resources, lack of willingness to fight, etc. -- but any of these may render a war unwinnable. Saying that a war would be winnable except for the social factors is not very different from saying that a war would be winnable except for lack of ammunition... Let's split hairs ok. How about this. The war was absolutely winnable if we had wanted to continue to wage war. Would you agree with that statement?

Right. But as I said and you agreed, social factors are just as important as military ones. Saying that it would have been winnable based on military factors alone is not saying anything useful, That is fine. I can live with that.


...because military factors never apply outside societal context. That, I think, was Wayne's point -- My point stands. If we had wanted to win we would have. We never lost a battle during the war and the attrition rate on the side of the North Vietnamese was simply to great to sustain continued aggression for very long.

There was a lie told during the conflict that America could not win. The word quagmire was bandied about and Americans believed that they could not win.

Cliche warning! "Whether you believe you can or whether you believe you can't you are right"

The prediction that we would lose became a selffulfilling prophecy. Prior to the change in attitudes the war was absolutely winnable. Let's be very clear about that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Where do I make the claim that Powell is the world's only scumbag or only liar? :confused: References to Clinton are completely irrelevant. Go back and read my post. I never said that you maid any such claim. I merly suggested that you are going to have to lengthen your list.

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." - Mohandas Ghandi

Since you know so much about me, please tell me what I had for breakfast this morning. I can only read the evidence. You have given no indication as to your morning eating habits. Your bias recently as to ideology is as plain as the nose on your face. Unfortunate since I had thought so much of you. Perhaps that is not fair. People shouldn't be put on pedestals, but I really did think more of you than this. I understand your frustration and I think you have an argument that Powell's remarks were politically motivated. I understand your disappointment, I really do. I felt it when Magdalene Albright played shill for Clinton when it was obvious he had lied. I was a big fan of hers. Oh well, that was an indiscretion and this is the potential deaths of innocent women and children and very possible long term negative ramifications for America if we do go to war. Your point is not lost on me. The personal attacks are. I know you are better.

Telling JK you have a zero tolerance for personal attacks while you call Powell and idiot and scumbag when he is neither is just disappointing.

The last two sentences of the quote from you above are ludicrous. If Bill Gates offered you a billion dollars, I have no doubt that you'd take it. I consider that a link. That no more proves that you are about to be a billionaire than you prove that Saddam would ever give Usama a device, aside perhaps from a box that would explode when Usama opened it. Since there is no reason for me to meet Bill or for him to give me money then your analogy is wrong. There is a purpose for them to unite and for Saddam to provide Usama with a weapon.

Look, if either Saddam or Usama want a nuclear weapon, they can buy one from Kim Jong Il same as anybody else. Not true, it is not in Kim Jong's best interest to make such a deal. Kim Jong il is nuts but he is functioning and he craves his own survival. He would and does I believe sell arms and even components for WMD but that is not enough to trigger his removal. A nuclear bomb traced backed to him would guarantee his downfall.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Not true, it is not in Kim Jong's best interest to make such a deal. Kim Jong il is nuts but he is functioning and he craves his own survival. He would and does I believe sell arms and even components for WMD but that is not enough to trigger his removal. A nuclear bomb traced backed to him would guarantee his downfall.
This last statement is a beauty! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

For the last few months I have reading in op-eds and hearing from talking heads how Kim Jong Il is more unbalanced and irrational than Saddam Hussein.

For months now I have been arguing that Saddam is warped but he isn't crazy or suicidal and he places his survival above all else. That is why I have argued that he poses no threat to the US or Israel--or any of his neighbors any longer now that the environment has changed and he got his ass kicked after the Kuwaiti invasion. (The US supported his war against Iran.)

I argued that Saddam would not give WMD to terrorists because, besides the mutual contempt between him and al Qaida, any bomb traced back to him would guarantee the world's wrath and retaliation against him (not just the US, but the world) and assure his downfall. Besides, if he were inclined to give WMD to terrorists, why didn't he ever give them to Palestinian terrorists, the only terrorists he likes?

So the evidence (he never gave WMD to terrorists when the had the chance) and the reasonable arguments (he'd be writing his own death warrant) support my argument that Saddam is not the threat the Bush League Administration wants us to believe.

I'm glad we've come to an agreement about this.

Edited to add: I find it interesting that you believe that Kim sells forms of WMD other than nuclear, but that does not justify his removal from power, but pure speculation that Saddam might--at some far-off future time-- do the same is reason (for some) to go to war and involve ourselves in a huge and costly quagmire. What's with such people, RandFan?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
This last statement is a beauty! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

For the last few months I have reading in op-eds and hearing from talking heads how Kim Jong Il is more unbalanced and irrational than Saddam Hussein.

For months now I have been arguing that Saddam is warped but he isn't crazy or suicidal and he places his survival above all else. That is why I have argued that he poses no threat to the US or Israel--or any of his neighbors any longer now that the environment has changed and he got his ass kicked after the Kuwaiti invasion. (The US supported his war against Iran.)

I argued that Saddam would not give WMD to terrorists because, besides the mutual contempt between him and al Qaida, any bomb traced back to him would guarantee the world's wrath and retaliation against him (not just the US, but the world) and assure his downfall. Besides, if he were inclined to give WMD to terrorists, why didn't he ever give them to Palestinian terrorists, the only terrorists he likes?

So the evidence (he never gave WMD to terrorists when the had the chance) and the reasonable arguments (he'd be writing his own death warrant) support my argument that Saddam is not the threat the Bush League Administration wants us to believe.

I'm glad we've come to an agreement about this. It's a fair argument and I have acknowledged it before. I also believe that North Korea is dangenerous and that we don't have the opportunity that we do with Saddam. I also believe that Saddam is much more likely to give components and biological agents to Al Qaeda and I do believe their common enemy does give them a reason to work together.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
It's a fair argument and I have acknowledged it before. I also believe that North Korea is dangenerous and that we don't have the opportunity that we do with Saddam. I also believe that Saddam is much more likely to give components and biological agents to Al Qaeda and I do believe their common enemy does give them a reason to work together.
It appears that as I was editing my last post to add a comment, you were making your last post. I thought I'd point that out in case you wanted to address the "edited to add" part of my last post.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Edited to add: I find it interesting that you believe that Kim sells forms of WMD other than nuclear, but that does not justify his removal from power, but pure speculation that Saddam might--at some far-off future time-- do the same is reason (for some) to go to war and involve ourselves in a huge and costly quagmire. What's with such people, RandFan? Thank you for giving me the chance to respond. North Korea has a nuclear weapon right now. Our options of dealling with NK are limited because of that fact. However, our options are not similariy limited to Iraq. And as I have said a number of times our reasons for this war are more than WOMD. Though WOMD are very important.

How great would it be if we could deal with NK the way we are dealing with Iraq. It's truly unfortunate. However in the end we might need to go to war with North Korea. They are projected to have a weapon capable of reaching the continental United States in just over a decade and Alaska before that. If Kim Jong il's behavior changes drasticaly we might have to yet deal with him militarily.

There will be no "quagmire" in Iraq. According to all of the experts that I have heard, if the Republican Gaurd position themselves in the cities then it will stretch the ground fighting out into months rather than days.

We have learned our lesson from Vietnam. Do what it takes to win the war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


Then you think the tapes are genuine. Why?

Shock, Horror. US releases secret tapes of deliberations on war.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
Thank you for giving me the chance to respond. North Korea has a nuclear weapon right now. Our options of dealling with NK are limited because of that fact. However, our options are not similariy limited to Iraq. And as I have said a number of times our reasons for this war are more than WOMD. Though WOMD are very important.

How great would it be if we could deal with NK the way we are dealing with Iraq. It's truly unfortunate. However in the end we might need to go to war with North Korea. They are projected to have a weapon capable of reaching the continental United States in just over a decade and Alaska before that. If Kim Jong il's behavior changes drasticaly we might have to yet deal with him militarily.

There will be no "quagmire" in Iraq. According to all of the experts that I have heard, if the Republican Gaurd position themselves in the cities then it will stretch the ground fighting out into months rather than days.

We have learned our lesson from Vietnam. Do what it takes to win the war.

So none of this is about the poor, downtrodden Iraqi people. That is all just fluff for the media. It is all about how to look after the US.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
There will be no "quagmire" in Iraq. According to all of the experts that I have heard, if the Republican Gaurd position themselves in the cities then it will stretch the ground fighting out into months rather than days.

We have learned our lesson from Vietnam. Do what it takes to win the war.

I agree with those experts. The quagmire I'm talking about will begin after Saddam's regime falls (civil war among tribes, guerilla war from al Qaida).

If we want to do what it takes to win the war, then we should not invade and occupy Iraq. I'm talking about winning the war on terror.

[Wayne Grabert]

More support for my claim. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0213/p11s01-coop.html)
If the US blindly goes ahead with the threatened attack on Iraq, will that bring bin Laden closer to his goal, or further from it?

My judgment, based on more than 25 years of studying Muslim issues, is that it will bring bin Laden much, much closer.

(snip)

The key piece of evidence on this in Powell's speech was a slide showing a grainy satellite image of a dozen small buildings grouped around a courtyard. "Terrorist poison and explosives factory, Khurmal," the caption read.

"This camp is located in northeastern Iraq," Powell said, alleging that the members of a shadowy terrorist group called the Zarqawi network were using the factory for "teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons."

Scary stuff, yes? The problem is, not much of it seems to be true. Khurmal is not under Hussein's control at all: It lies in the part of northern Iraq controlled by the Kurds and protected by the US-British air umbrella.

Further, villagers in Khurmal hotly deny that their village hosts any terrorists at all. On Feb. 5, they showed Western reporters around Khurmal and told them that the nearest encampment of Islamic extremists was in another village several miles away.

The politics of Iraqi Kurdistan are very complex. But the International Crisis Group (ICG),a research organization in Brussels whose analysts are very familiar with the region, has cast serious doubt on the US claims. Some of these analysts worked on documenting Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish villagers in the 1980s - and they're not "soft" on him at all.

An ICG report released last week - "Radical Islam In Iraqi Kurdistan: The Mouse That Roared?" assumed that when talking about the Zarqawi network, Powell was referring to "Ansar al-Islam," a Kurdish Islamic-extremist group that controls an enclave near - not in - Khurmal. It noted that there is little independent evidence of links between Ansar and Baghdad. Such evidence as has been presented came, it said, from the notably unreliable source of "confessions" obtained from captured Ansar militants, sometimes under duress. ICG judged that it would be very hard for people or military supplies to pass between Baghdad and the Ansar enclave because a secular Kurdish group hostile to both of them controls all the routes between them.

"The only thing that is indisputable," the report concludes, "is that the [Ansar] group could not survive without the support of powerful factions in neighbouring Iran, its sole lifeline to the outside world."

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Now we come to these two new tapes...These two tapes, plus the last bin Laden tape, were produced by US intelligence sources. ..The purpose is not to provide a reason to go to war with Iraq, but to generate communications among Al Qaeda operatives, leading to their capture or death. I believe it is succeeding.
Originally posted by Frank Newgent
Hey BD, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
Then you think the tapes are genuine. Why?

One week from next Saturday, you will be called for at 11:10 am and taken to the Timothy...Sanitarium, 84 East 61st Street. We want you there for a checkup.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent
One week from next Saturday, you will be called for at 11:10 am and taken to the Timothy...Sanitarium, 84 East 61st Street. We want you there for a checkup.

If Bin Ladin is alive, I think I may have figured out where he is.

Oh yeah, BTW, don't lock up Colonel Brooklyn. He is a good guy. ;)

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If Bin Ladin is alive, I think I may have figured out where he is.

There's a $25-million bounty on his head. I hope you're right!

Long ago I figured he was hiding in San Diego. (Keep your eyes open, Bjorn.) Why San Diego? Because nobody looks for anyone in San Diego! Think of it: if you get a tip that someone is headed in the direction of San Diego, you assume he's headed for Mexico. So you try to catch him at the border. When you never do, you assume he somehow got past you where you weren't looking, so you begin scouring Mexico.

That's why they never caught Pancho Villa. While the Federales were going up and down Mexico hunting him, he was kicked back on Mission beach guzzling a bucket of Coronas and scarfing down a mess of fish tacos!

Bjorn, look for a tall, swarthy surfer dude with big sunglasses and an Arab accent.

Edited to add this additional clue: Go by mosques on Fridays and see who gets in the expensive vehicle amongst the taxi cabs.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

There's a $25-million bounty on his head. I hope you're right!

Long ago I figured he was hiding in San Diego. (Keep your eyes open, Bjorn.) Why San Diego? Because nobody looks for anyone in San Diego! Think of it: if you get a tip that someone is headed in the direction of San Diego, you assume he's headed for Mexico. So you try to catch him at the border. When you never do, you assume he somehow got past you where you weren't looking, so you begin scouring Mexico.

That's why they never caught Pancho Villa. While the Federales were going up and down Mexico hunting him, he was kicked back on Mission beach guzzling a bucket of Coronas and scarfing down a mess of fish tacos!

Bjorn, look for a tall, swarthy surfer dude with big sunglasses and an Arab accent.

Edited to add this additional clue: Go by mosques on Fridays and see who gets in the expensive vehicle amongst the taxi cabs.

I think he is in South America somewhere. Maybe Venezuela or Brazil. Bin Ladin at this point would have two objectives.

1) Staying alive
2) Attacking the United States

Now, he wouldn't hang around Afghanistan. That isn't like him to do that with the Taliban gone and the US in control of the country. He wouldn't hang out in the no-mans land of Pakistan either because there are too many tribes out there that he wouldn't have influence over and the Pakistani intelligence folks would be after him.

He could go to Iran, but the Iranians wouldn't want him within 100,000,000 miles of their country because they do not want to be the next target of US laser-guided bombs.

He couldn't go to Egypt because the Mossad would get him. Saddam wouldn't take him in because Saddam is too arrogant and Bin Ladin hates him for being a socialist. Saddam even had some of Bin Ladin's troops that were in Iraq shot.

Africa is too far out of the equation--only Bin Ladin's troops would go there for a lengthy period of time. It is out of his element in Africa.

No, my guess would be South America. He would try to come to this part of the global hemisphere because he could get access to modern banking networks (something that would be difficult in Africa) and he could get arms and other support. Plus he could hide out and even collect his soldiers there. You know as well as I do that there are a lot of folks down there that aren't too happy with the US right now. And Bin Ladin knows how porous our southern borders are. He could move an army through Mexico and they would be eating at McDonalds in Texas or Arizona and no one would question it or think twice about it.

If he is alive, that would be my guess. I don't think he would have the guts to go to Europe or anywhere east of Europe. No, I bet if he is alive he is in South America.

JK

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
That isn't like him to do that with the Taliban gone and the US in control of the country.
From what I've been reading lately, that may be a stretch. :D

What about Kashmir?

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

...don't lock up Colonel Brooklyn. He is a good guy.

Who's that? I thought you were Johnny Iselin's boy.

[Bjorn]

Wayne
Long ago I figured he was hiding in San Diego. (Keep your eyes open, Bjorn.) I will not tire from looking for him, even if I have to spend forever on the beaches .... :p

I think it is a possibility he is now posing as a girl - but my watchful eyes will still catch him! :cool:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

I agree with those experts. The quagmire I'm talking about will begin after Saddam's regime falls (civil war among tribes, guerilla war from al Qaida).

If we want to do what it takes to win the war, then we should not invade and occupy Iraq. I'm talking about winning the war on terror. I respectfully disagree.

[CapelDodger]

From Randfan:
We have learned our lesson from Vietnam. Do what it takes to win the war.

A lesson from Vietnam is to be sure you know what winning the war means. Nations fight wars for political reasons, and the objective is a political one. A mistake that was made in the Kuwait War was to define the objective militarily - expel Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. Had it been defined as "guarantee the security of the Kuwait people and territory in the medium to long term" or some such then the removal of the Baathists, or at least Saddam, would have been a necessary part. As it was, the regime that robbed Kuwait of its security was simply pushed back across the border where it remained the threat it had been before the invasion (short of a lot of equipment and warm bodies, admittedly). Now the unfinished business is making for a messy world.

(If the objective of a war is to make the Moon into a bagel, that war is unwinnable. The stated objective of the Vietnam War was to protect the legitimate government of South Vietnam which a) wasn't a country, and b) didn't have a legitimate government, despite the French and US attempts to create one. So the Vietnam War was winnable in much the same way as the Moon is a potential bagel.)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
A lesson from Vietnam is to be sure you know what winning the war means. Nations fight wars for political reasons, and the objective is a political one. A mistake that was made in the Kuwait War was to define the objective militarily - expel Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. Had it been defined as "guarantee the security of the Kuwait people and territory in the medium to long term" or some such then the removal of the Baathists, or at least Saddam, would have been a necessary part. As it was, the regime that robbed Kuwait of its security was simply pushed back across the border where it remained the threat it had been before the invasion (short of a lot of equipment and warm bodies, admittedly). Now the unfinished business is making for a messy world.

(If the objective of a war is to make the Moon into a bagel, that war is unwinnable. The stated objective of the Vietnam War was to protect the legitimate government of South Vietnam which a) wasn't a country, and b) didn't have a legitimate government, despite the French and US attempts to create one. So the Vietnam War was winnable in much the same way as the Moon is a potential bagel.) Thanks CapelDodger,

Great post,

The objective to "protect" the government was flawed without regard to the legitimacy of the government though to be sure legitimacy is a valid point. I think our "success" in Korea led us to belive that wars could be fought to a point of check mate and thus achieve the goal of protection. It's easy to understand how we made the same mistake in Vietnam since the situation was so similar.

Your post is the clearest example of why the war became a quagmire and a big reason why the American people lost the will to fight.

However, had we not stopped, the North could not have continued to wage a war of attrition. It is simply a mater of math. If the United States was not a democracy then the North would have been forced to stop the aggression at some point. Of course if the United States was not a democracy then the North would have fought a different war. Leading credence to Victor's point that losing is losing and the North "won" the war that they fought based on the strategy that they chose.

[CapelDodger]

Getting bogged down is a possibility here, but ...

From RandFan
However, had we not stopped, the North could not have continued to wage a war of attrition...

It wasn't just 'the North' but Vietnam that the US was at war with. They could obviously have conquered the entire country, just as they did Japan, but that wasn't what the war was supposed to be about. The war of attrition could have continued until the Vietnamese were effectively annihilated, but again annihilation wasn't meant to be the intention. A different country could indeed have gone the conquest/annihilation route (see Chechnya), but for the US to do that would have negated their own stated war aims. So the war that happened was unwinnable - greater resolve on the part of the US wouldn't have achieved the objective.

In Iraq things will be different, but I hope we actually get a statement of war aims when it all goes off - and not simply 'regime change' without any details. The danger, obviously, is that one monster is replaced by a mere uniformed gangster (Iraqi, not American). Maybe it'll turn out better, but I have an Iraqi friend (seriously anti-Baathist) who'll still think Powell's an idiot, however intelligent.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It wasn't just 'the North' but Vietnam that the US was at war with. They could obviously have conquered the entire country, just as they did Japan, but that wasn't what the war was supposed to be about. The war of attrition could have continued until the Vietnamese were effectively annihilated, but again annihilation wasn't meant to be the intention. A different country could indeed have gone the conquest/annihilation route (see Chechnya), but for the US to do that would have negated their own stated war aims. So the war that happened was unwinnable - greater resolve on the part of the US wouldn't have achieved the objective. I respectfully disagree but I do understand your point. I think that there was support in South Vietnam for democracy. There was an army that the US fought alongside. I will conceded that a majority of the populace were leaning towards the communists. But there was only a limited number of people willing and able to die fighting the US and south Vietnam. If we had not waged the war that we had, If we had not slowly escalated the war and if we had clear objectives then we absolutely could have won the war.

In fact if we had continued fighting the way we were fighting when we agreed to a cease fire then I think that there is no question that the North would have been forced to cease aggression at some point. Again it is the math. At some point there simply would not have been enough numbers to sustain continued aggression. The losses on the American side were too small to effect our forces. The losses on the North's side including sympathizers from the South were simply too great.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by cavin
I don't think Mr.Powell is an idiot.
I have not read all of the material on the site The Truth About War (http://www.truthaboutwar.org/home.shtml) that a friend told me about today, but it has some interesting information, such as details surrounding the faked satellite photos used in 1990 to convince the Saudis and the American public that Saddam was massing troops on the Saudi border for an invasion. (See the Claims sidebar on the left side of the Web page for where to click.)

One of the things they point out is that in a 1995 television interview, Colin Powell defended the decision not to overthrow Hussein during the Gulf War saying that it would have been a quagmire. So, as I stated earlier in this thread, "idiot" may not be the best term for Powell (though it is quick and eye-catching in a subject line), but "lying scumbag" would be. What changed since 1991 that regime change in Iraq now would not be a "quagmire"?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
One of the things they point out is that in a 1995 television interview, Colin Powell defended the decision not to overthrow Hussein during the Gulf War saying that it would have been a quagmire. So, as I stated earlier in this thread, "idiot" may not be the best term for Powell (though it is quick and eye-catching in a subject line), but "lying scumbag" would be. What changed since 1991 that regime change in Iraq now would not be a "quagmire"? Conclusion, Colin Powell is not allowed to change his mind and Wayne's contempt for personal attacks is selective.

...so you attack me personally So what if he does? Didn't you start the thread with a personal attack?

but my tolerance of personal attacks has dropped to zero, especially when people accuse me of such things as "being a sunshine patriot" or wishing disaster on the country and success for al Qaida or being willing to sell out the country to the highest bidder, etc. How would you feel if someone accused you of being a communist or another Jonathan Pollard? How would you feel if someone called you a scumbag?

You sir protest too much. I would suggest that if you do not want personal attacks then you don't make them.

And I would suggest that you never change your mind, you will be labeled a lying scumbag.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Conclusion, Colin Powell is not allowed to change his mind and Wayne's contempt for personal attacks is selective.
Why did he change his mind? I asked what had changed. Apparently the only thing that did was Powell's opinion and I have no reason to suspect it was for any honorable reason. He's a two-faced politician. Why would it be a quagmire while defending the decision of daddy Bush, but not a quagmire when defending the policy of boy Bush?

Originally posted by RandFan
How would you feel if someone called you a scumbag?
So when someone calls a politician a scumbag and provides reasons for the characterization, you take it personally? I believe so.

I have wondered why people on this Board who call themselves skeptics can be so non-skeptical when it comes to politics. Maybe its because they voted for a candidate or a party and then turn that vote into part of their ego. "He can't be wrong because I voted for him." I'm not saying that is true of you. You can be the judge of whether it applies at all to you, but I suspect it is true of some of the people on this board.

However, I'll point this out about you, RandFan, so that you can explain it to me. You say you disliked Clinton, but defended him against (what I would call) unfair and strictly partisan attacks. When I criticize the partisan attacks on Clinton, but praise criticism of his foreign policy, you have a problem with that. You see it as some sort of inconsistency on my part. Am I required to defend Clinton unconditionally? Why are you not required to do the same? I really have not been able to figure out (and can't even remember how you articulated it) why you tried to criticize me for praising Chalmers Johnson's criticism of Clinton's foreign policy. (And Johnson did not focus on Clinton. He criticized US foreign policy that fit a pattern establish during the Cold War, but more attention was placed on Clinton than other presidents because his presidency occurred after the Cold War.) Your criticism was along the lines of my being selective about praising criticism with which I agreed.
:confused:

Edited to add:
Originally posted by RandFan
So what if he does? Didn't you start the thread with a personal attack?
You asked those questions after quoting my words "...so you attack me personally." What you didn't quote was the beginning of my statement. The full sentence of mine was, "You can't refute anything I say, so you attack me personally." What is wrong with my statement? I provide arguments to back my characterization of Powell and I refute what Powell had to say.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Why did he change his mind? I asked what had changed. Apparently the only thing that did was Powell's opinion and I have no reason to suspect it was for any honorable reason. Cool, have you applied for the [/B][/QUOTE]One Million Paranormal Challenge (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)? Your abilities easily fit the bill.

He's a two-faced politician. Why would it be a quagmire while defending the decision of daddy Bush, but not a quagmire when defending the policy of boy Bush? You surmise one possibility, are there others or are you presenting a false dilemma.

So when someone calls a politician a scumbag and provides reasons for the characterization, you take it personally? I believe so. Personal attacks are personal attacks. You can't dress it up piss and sell it as perfume.

I have wondered why people on this Board who call themselves skeptics can be so non-skeptical when it comes to politics. Maybe its because they voted for a candidate or a party and then turn that vote into part of their ego. "He can't be wrong because I voted for him." I'm not saying that is true of you. You can be the judge of whether it applies at all to you, but I suspect it is true of some of the people on this board. I don't see you as skeptical at all. I see you as angry that things are not turning out the way you want them to. It is irrational to suppose that only those who question the administration are skeptical. I question the protestors and the administration. Why do you suppose skepticism only applies to dissenters?

However, I'll point this out about you, RandFan, so that you can explain it to me. You say you disliked Clinton, but defended him against (what I would call) unfair and strictly partisan attacks.

When I criticize the partisan attacks on Clinton, but praise criticism of his foreign policy, you have a problem with that. [/b] I had a problem when people dismissed clinton out of hand. I had a problem when people attacked Clinton in a partisan way. I had a problem with an investigation into sex. I had a problem with continuing to investigate an allegation that was clearly going no where from the start.

I think Clinton has a credibility problem. I mock him when I say "it depends on the definition of alone" or it depends on what the word "is" is.

I would not call Clinton a scumbag. I would not complain about personal attacks in a thread where I was making a personal attack.

You see it as some sort of inconsistency on my part. Am I required to defend Clinton unconditionally? You follow your own conscience. I have no problem with your questioning of Colon Powell. I have said as much with in the last page. I find it hypocritical to complain about personal attacks while calling someone "scumbag".

Why are you not required to do the same? I praised Clinton for much of his work. I criticized him when I thought he was wrong. I have criticized Bush and the Attorney General (who at times IS an idiot).

[quote][b] I really have not been able to figure out (and can't even remember how you articulated it) why you tried to criticize me for praising Chalmers Johnson's criticism of Clinton's foreign policy. (And Johnson did not focus on Clinton. He criticized US foreign policy that fit a pattern establish during the Cold War, but more attention was placed on Clinton than other presidents because his presidency occurred after the Cold War.) Your criticism was along the lines of my being selective about praising criticism with which I agreed. I don't remember. You will have to dig it up. I am consistent in my respect for those who criticize and even those who mock when it is appropriate.

My biggest problem is when you cry foul at personal remarks while you are making them.

Talk about being confused. Could you explain that one to me.

You asked those questions after quoting my words "...so you attack me personally." What you didn't quote was the beginning of my statement. The full sentence of mine was, "You can't refute anything I say, so you attack me personally." What is wrong with my statement? I provide arguments to back my characterization of Powell and I refute what Powell had to say. You allow for no other options for Powell. You see his actions in a narrow focus. Yet this is a distinguished man who is know for his credibility. I found your attack ill founded especially after you complained about being attacked your self.

And you only responded to one statement about personal attacks. Which I happen to think paints you in a hypocritical light regardless of the sentence or context. Add to that "zero tolerance" and I think you lose it.

Please pay close attention to the following.

You are perfectly justified in questioning Colon Powell's credibility on this issue. As I said before, his actions could easily be interpreted to be political. But there are other options and I am convinced that he has simply changed his mind. You want to call him scumbag then fine. But expect a call of hypocrisy when you do the very thing you complain about.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I agree with those experts. The quagmire I'm talking about will begin after Saddam's regime falls (civil war among tribes, guerilla war from al Qaida). I disagre with those experts. There is no reason that there need to be a quagmire. The US is simply not going to stay just remove Saddam. What will we get after? Who knows but who ever it is will know what to expect if they act like Saddam.

If we want to do what it takes to win the war, then we should not invade and occupy Iraq. I'm talking about winning the war on terror. There is no plan and no desire to occupy Iraq that I know of. Do you have any evidence that our plan is to occupy Iraq. And I mean evidence and not someone's oppinion.

If we want to win the war on terror it is critical that we remove Saddam.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Cool, have you applied for the One Million Paranormal Challenge (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html)? Your abilities easily fit the bill.
This is a non-answer. Besides, if you go back and read my post I say "apparently" and I ask--again--what was it that changed. Powell has a history of flip-flopping on aspects of this issue. Earlier in this thread I called attention to how he flip flopped on his opinion of bin Laden's involvement with helping Iraq by at first saying bin Laden was lying about his interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people, and then less than two years later saying bin Laden was being truthful when he says he is interested in helping the Iraqi people. The only thing that had changed was the policy Powell was trying to justify.

Originally posted by RandFan
Personal attacks are personal attacks. You can't dress it up piss and sell it as perfume.
No, personal attacks in place of argument are ad hominem attacks. Making a claim about Powell and then explaining the claim is making an argument.

Originally posted by RandFan
I don't see you as skeptical at all. I see you as angry that things are not turning out the way you want them to. It is irrational to suppose that only those who question the administration are skeptical. I question the protestors and the administration. Why do you suppose skepticism only applies to dissenters?
Because the weight of the evidence is on their side. I am skeptical enough to question the administration's claim--unsupported by evidence--that there is collusion between Saddam and Usama. I am skeptical enough to ask for--and then I never receive it--evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. I am skeptical enough not to be led by scare tactics by the administration. I believe you will be angry at the way things turn out when Bush gets his way.

The rest of your post was addressed in my response to your "piss and perfume" statement.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
I disagre with those experts.
They were the experts that you cited to make the argument that the war against Saddam would not be a quagmire.

Originally posted by RandFan
There is no plan and no desire to occupy Iraq that I know of. Do you have any evidence that our plan is to occupy Iraq. And I mean evidence and not someone's oppinion.
You have not been following the news. It has been widely reported for the last few months that the administration plans to occupy Iraq in the style of the Marshall Plan used in Germany and Japan after WWII. However, it is worth pointing out that both Germany and Japan had strong nationalist identities, that Germany already had some experience with democracy, and Japan till this day has put its own spin on democracy. It is largely governed by its bureaucracy and the Japanese public don't place much trust or importance on their elected officials.

In contrast to Germany and Japan, Iraq is a state created by the British empire and not a nation. Identification is along tribal lines. This is why many experts think it likley that Iraq after Hussein could break out into civil war.

Originally posted by RandFan
If we want to win the war on terror it is critical that we remove Saddam.
One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, invading and occupying Iraq will make terrorism worse. The Bush administration wanted to remove Saddam before 9/11. 9/11 is being exploited to disingenously gain support for a war against Iraq.

[Wayne Grabert]

Here is an article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030218/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_day_after_2) that was just published today. Read all of it. It takes only a few minutes. The line coming out of the administration lately, and that is mentioned in this article, is that the US will militarily occupy Iraq for only two years. However, also take note of this quote from this short article: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/dowjones/20030218/bs_dowjones/200302181440000865)
Despite these drawbacks, Fleischer said the U.S. will do what is needed to get Iraq back on its feet.


"Make no mistake; the president of the United States has stated that the United States will be committed to the long-term stability of Iraq and that we will stay in Iraq as long as necessary, not one day longer, but as long as necessary, to make certain that the transition in Iraq is a transition to a unified and peaceful Iraq," Fleischer said. So it could turn into two decades, or however long it takes for the US to just throw in the towel.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
This is a non-answer. Besides, if you go back and read my post I say "apparently" and I ask--again--what was it that changed. It's a great answer since you make a conclusion on assumptions.

Powell has a history of flip-flopping on aspects of this issue. Earlier in this thread I called attention to how he flip flopped on his opinion of bin Laden's involvement with helping Iraq by at first saying bin Laden was lying about his interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people, and then less than two years later saying bin Laden was being truthful when he says he is interested in helping the Iraqi people. The only thing that had changed was the policy Powell was trying to justify. Two quotes out of hundreds. And he has moved into a political arena. I'm not trying to justify his actions I simply think that you are being extreme in this instance. I am quite confident I could find the same examples of Carter, Ford, Clinton, any of Clinton's administration and I would not feel the need to call them scumbag.


No, personal attacks in place of argument are ad hominem attacks. Making a claim about Powell and then explaining the claim is making an argument. Sorry, dress it up as you want and believe what you want. It is apparent that you will anyway. Scumbag is not a logical conclusion to any argument about Powell. You could argue that he is inconsistent and that his motives are inconsistent but the label of scumbag is unwarranted from someone who has a "zero" tolerance for personal attacks. I'm sorry Wayne, if I honestly didn't think you were being inconsistent I would say so

Because the weight of the evidence is on their side. Nice smug answer. What about the respect for opposing opinions. The weight is not on their side as far as I'm concerned and I am very, very skeptical of them for the reasons I cited in my thread "my problems with the protesters". I guess you can just declare that the weight of the evidence is on their side and all arguments should cease. Sorry Wayne but I'm not going to do that. I could just as easily declare the weight of the evidence on the side of Bush.

I am skeptical enough to question the administration's claim--unsupported by evidence--that there is collusion between Saddam and Usama. I am skeptical enough to ask for--and then I never receive it--evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. I am skeptical enough not to be led by scare tactics by the administration. I believe you will be angry at the way things turn out when Bush gets his way. I'll be really pissed if the weapons Saddam is working on (let's be honest, he is) are given to Al Qaeda and released in the US.

Personally I'm skeptical enough to question the administration and the proterstors.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'll be really pissed if the weapons Saddam is working on (let's be honest, he is) are given to Al Qaeda and released in the US.

:rolleyes: Yet you dismiss the possibility of Kim Jong Il selling a nuclear device to al Qaida--until Bush tells you it might happen.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
They were the experts that you cited to make the argument that the war against Saddam would not be a quagmire. Misread the quote. Sorry. Still do not think it will turn into a quagmire.

You have not been following the news. It has been widely reported for the last few months that the administration plans to occupy Iraq in the style of the Marshall Plan used in Germany and Japan after WWII. However, it is worth pointing out that both Germany and Japan had strong nationalist identities, that Germany already had some experience with democracy, and Japan till this day has put its own spin on democracy. It is largely governed by its bureaucracy and the Japanese public don't place much trust or importance on their elected officials. You may be right. I did read something about this. I don't know what the final plan is. I hope we don't occupy the country but I will have to find out more. I don't think it is an automatic quagmire.

One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, invading and occupying Iraq will make terrorism worse. The Bush administration wanted to remove Saddam before 9/11. 9/11 is being exploited to disingenuously gain support for a war against Iraq. I couldn't disagree more. Inaction is more the cause of terrorism than anything else. Appeasement is wrong, has always been wrong. Terrorists are waiting to see if we will give up and give in. We must make good our agreement with Saddam and Iraq if we are going to have any credibility this unending "stop that" only emboldens those that whish to do us harm.

We need to stop it. We were wrong for pulling out of Iraq the first time when he did not do as he promised. He is claiming victory today. If those who whish to appease Saddam get there way he will have won. The sanctions were almost pulled the last time we went through this. We must stop this man and stop playing games.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

:rolleyes: Yet you dismiss the possibility of Kim Jong Il selling a nuclear device to al Qaida--until Bush tells you it might happen. Fair point. I do think that there is a greater likely hood that Saddam will give a weapon to Al Qaeda that Kim Jong Il will. Kim Jong Il does not have the revenge in mind that Saddam does and there is not a natural link. I don't think Kim Jong Il sees America the way Saddam does.

However both Kim Jong Il and Saddam crave survival as I have noted before. And I will concede that my strong views about Saddam probably influence my decision but I am no ass kisser of Bush. I have been willing to criticize him and I have been willing to stand up for those who want to speak out. Your characterization of me is unfair.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Your characterization of me is unfair.
Withdrawn and I apologize.

[sadluxation]

A collection of Colin Powell's Useful Facts relating to the Proposed Actions in the Gulf Region of the World.

A: Seven proofs of links between Saddam and al-Qa'eda

1) On an audiotape, Osama bin Laden calls Iraq a "stinking cesspit of socialist debauchery". This criticism is much less hostile than the sort of thing he says about America, thus proving that al-Qa'eda has warm feelings towards Saddam Hussein.

2) Our surveillance has picked up chatter from al-Qa'eda operatives talking about organising a "rendezvous". "Rendezvous" is a French word, and France has constantly obstructed American attempts to impose regime change in Iraq. So again, we see a clear connection between al-Qa'eda and Iraq.

3) Our spy planes have photographed Saddam's deputy prime minister being driven in a motorcade of Mercedes cars. Mercedes is a German automobile, and Germany is in league with France to destroy America, like al-Qa'eda. Therefore, etc.

4) The number plate on one of these cars was A03A0 1A, which, in the rear mirror of the car in front, spells al-Qa'eda.

5) The motorcade was moving in an easterly direction through Baghdad. If you move in an easterly direction through France, you get to Germany.

6) Saddam is another Hitler. Germany had a Hitler. Again, a direct link with al-Qa'eda.

7) Al-Qa'eda operatives have recently been arrested in London. The Prime Minister of London, Tony Blair, then visited France for a meeting with Jacques Chirac. Chirac then visited Bonn to celebrate 40 years of his alliance with Gerhard Schröder of Germany. Schröder had a meeting with Putin of Russia, who then received Hans Blix, who went to Baghdad. Again, proof of a direct link.

B: Five fascinating facts about Iraq

1) Iraq is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho, occupying an area the equivalent of 500,000 American aircraft carriers.

2) Iraq has 36 miles of coastline. That's the equivalent of 300,000 Apache attack helicopters stretching 36 miles.

3) Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, a land mass which, if turned into flour, would be enough to feed bread to the children of Iraq for 100 years. But Saddam refuses to do this and instead spends his money on presidential palaces, which, if converted to milk, would be enough to fill all the oil wells of the Middle East for a fortnight. That's why we have to stop him getting to the wells before he does this.

4) Iraq contains 22,000 square miles of irrigated land. That's the equivalent of 300 million bottles of anthrax laid end to end. So where are they?

5) Iraqis consume 27.3 billion kWh of electricity every year, enough to power one Star-Wars style anti-missile system. So where is it, and who's it pointing at?

C: The United Nations constitution explained once and for all

1) The UN has a 15-member Security Council, of which France, Britain, China, Russia and America are permanent members, with veto rights.

2) The UN Charter allows for the permanent members to use their veto to overrule any majority decision of the council with which they disagree.

3) This is not applicable in cases where France, China or Russia use their veto in unreasonable cases, "unreasonable" being defined as a veto against any recent council majority decisions supported by Britain or America.

4) In these cases, the charter will probably allow America or Britain to veto that veto, thus upholding the earlier unvetoed will of the council, unless the council arrives at a majority decision contrary to the wishes of America or Britain, in which case all the permanent members of the council ought to be obliged to veto it, or to veto any attempt to veto the veto.

Colin Powell is currently US Secretary of State. Following publication of the above information, he recently told his wife that he's thinking of going on the Stop the War rally in London ;)

[CapelDodger]

It seems to me bizarre to suggest that Saddam will distribute chemical or biological weapons to anybody. They are the one thing that distinguishes him from any other thuggish dictator, so he's hardly likely to expand the club membership. And the idea that he would provide them to his enemies in the Islamist movement is more than far-fetched.

The best evidence that Colin Powell is an idiot is his continuing effort to link Iraq with Al Qaeda. The case for war could be far better made by sticking to a credible, consistent line - for instance, that Saddam has chemical weapons and will use them (again) in the region and inconveniencing everybody. As I recall, Powell originally took that line after 9/11, expressing his scepticism about the Iraq-Islamist link pounced on by Rumsfeld et al. He should have stuck to that line, but then he was getting squeezed out of the influential in-crowd until he changed his tune. Sad, really.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
You may be right. I did read something about this. I don't know what the final plan is. I hope we don't occupy the country but I will have to find out more. I don't think it is an automatic quagmire.

The article I linked above takes only about three minutes to read and presents more than one view of what may occur after Saddam is overthrown. Since it presents competing views, I thought it would be helpful to you. I hope you've had the chance to read it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It seems to me bizarre to suggest that Saddam will distribute chemical or biological weapons to anybody. They are the one thing that distinguishes him from any other thuggish dictator, so he's hardly likely to expand the club membership. And the idea that he would provide them to his enemies in the Islamist movement is more than far-fetched. It happens ALL the time. The argument sounds good until you look at history. And yes, America is the biggest boob of them all for giving weapons to it's enemies. No, the old saw "the ememy of my enemy is my friend" gives reason for nations to look at short term gains as opposed to long term ones.

The best evidence that Colin Powell is an idiot is his continuing effort to link Iraq with Al Qaeda. The case for war could be far better made by sticking to a credible, consistent line - for instance, that Saddam has chemical weapons and will use them (again) in the region and inconveniencing everybody. As I recall, Powell originally took that line after 9/11, expressing his scepticism about the Iraq-Islamist link pounced on by Rumsfeld et al. He should have stuck to that line, but then he was getting squeezed out of the influential in-crowd until he changed his tune. Sad, really. Are you really going to make the argument that Colin Powell is an idiot? Have you read all of this thread? There are a number of things that could be argued about Colin Powell but that he is an idiot is not one of them.