PDA

View Full Version : We have lost the Iraq war



lester1/2jr
10-30-2004, 09:12 PM
The point of the Iraq war was to prevent Saddam from giving weapons, aid, whatever to terrorists.

The looting went on for several days. We already know live HIV and Black Fever were taken from the Iraqi version of the CDC. We also know that nuclear material was stripped over a period of months from another site and that the explosives used to explode nuclear material (which is apparently even harder to get than nuclear material itself) was taken from the site that has been in the news recently. Anything Saddam could possibly have done (which I don't believe he wuld have, as any weapon he would give to terrorists could also be used against him) has been done by us.

So it doesn't matter if there were WMD's or ties to terror. Assuming there were, we still lose

Steve
10-31-2004, 12:53 AM
I don't think we lost or won. If we won, what did we gain? And if we failed, what we lose? Besides over a 1000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.
It's at a point now that it just does not matter any more. Gas and Oil costs way too much. Terrorists are still attacking. Attacks in the USA may have prevented so far, but what's next or being planned?

dogchow108
11-01-2004, 02:35 AM
Wow, you guys really just dont get it do you?

Steve
11-01-2004, 03:30 AM
Tell us what we don't get?

mortal
11-01-2004, 03:49 PM
We did win the war and we won it quick. I don't have to try to convince you.
We lost five times as many troops in one battle during the civil war.
Imagine if the liberal media was around back then.
Sadamm is out of power and that is it. You lefty's just can't stand that George Bush is kicking ass.
How come I never hear about what a success afganistan was? Because you guys would hate Bush no matter what he does. All I could say is thank God the loony left isn't running the country.

GO BUSH!!!!!!!

4 more years!

4 more years!

4 more years!

zachsan
11-01-2004, 04:27 PM
a lot of hardcore conservatives are convinced that no matter who gets elected, the looney left is running the country.

i guess that's a good sign that maybe mortal isn't so much of a hardcore conservative. or maybe it's a sign that bush is. hmm...

lester1/2jr
11-01-2004, 07:12 PM
mortal- that would have been a good point about a year and a half ago. But then again., I wouldn't have been saying we lost the war a year and a half ago. BUsh has kicked no ass. Osama is making videos laughing at us. His henchman are growing in number and running us ou of iraq along with it's people who now hate us.

mortal
11-01-2004, 08:00 PM
"BUsh has kicked no ass. Osama is making videos laughing at us. His henchman are growing in number and running us ou of iraq along with it's people who now hate us."

I don't think so. No one kicks us out. We are mounting a MAJOR OFFENSIVE as we speak.

"Osama is making videos laughing at us."

He is trying to look confident and affect the election. Because he is in a cave unable to plan any new attacks.
Not one since that day in the US.

"I wouldn't have been saying we lost the war a year and a half ago."

We didn't lose it we won it. I think that is clear. I think you might be watching too much CNN.

How do you know about the growing henchman? lolo What lefty website told you that.

Do you know the people in Iraq personally? How do you know they hate us? Did you go there and take a survey?

The fighters/terrorists/insurgents are from other countries. Mainly Iran. Don't confuse them with the Iraq people. I hope we give every last one of them a painful slow death.

All I know is if I were a terrorist I would want Kerry in office.

Other leaders laugh at Kerry, Clinton, Carter. They fear Bush.

"I would rather be feared then loved"- Sonny from A Bronx Tale.

Especially in this day and age.

What did Clinton do about terrorism? Nothing. Zero. Nill.

lester1/2jr
11-01-2004, 08:06 PM
yes there have been tons of surveys saying that the iraqis no longerview us as liberators but as occupiers. Have YOU don a survey of the nationalities of the insurgency??? What kind of cave does bin laden live in that he can't plan anything from it?? Is it a plan retardent cave?? You think they fear bush?? so how come there are attacks on our soldiers every single day many of them succesfull? and yes, al queda is growing, like the palestinian conflict the iraq situation is being used as a recruiting tool. The war has stregthened al queda in numbers and more litereally in all the ungaurded **** they lootd and are using against us. Even goddamn MTV had a bunch of iraqis on the other day talking about how they can't leave their houses for fear of being shot. Somewher near 100,000 have been killed and probably more whne you and Bush do you MAJOR OFFENSIVE as we speak.

mortal
11-01-2004, 08:33 PM
"What kind of cave does bin laden live in that he can't plan anything from it?? Is it a plan retardent cave??"

I'll say it again. Nothing has happened since september 11th on US soil. You can't dispute it.

He can plan all he wants. Bush is stopping him from putting his plan into action by keeping him running.


What was there recruiting tool before Bush got in office?

I can't wait for Bush to win the election. Then we can move on to our total world domintation!

Killem all!

lester1/2jr
11-01-2004, 08:42 PM
their recruiting tool before Bush was elected was largely the long inresolved conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people. There hasn't been and terrorist attacks? ther eisn't SUPPOSED to be any terrorist attacks! (/11 wouldn't have happened either if Bush had listened to his advisors. Is Bush out checking the cargo that goes on our planes? is he and his dumb daughters guarding the borders? NO ONE IS. mexicans come into the country by the truckload and weed comes in by similar amounts from canada and other places.

As far as BIn Laden, al queda has done dozens of terrorist acts in the last 4 years. Has Bin Laden had any input? I'd guess as much as he ever did, plus him making videos and letting everyone know he hasn't been caught is prescnece enough. There are little kids in formerly US friendly countries like Indonesia walking around in Osama shirts. World domination? if you "world" is Poland and Israel maybe

zachsan
11-01-2004, 08:43 PM
i find it troubling that neither candidate is even suggesting that we send more troops, when i think it should be obvious that that's what we need. i mean really, we have the world's strongest military. we have the skill, technology and numbers to secure a place like iraq, if we have the balls to commit what it takes to do that. but even the candidate who is basically campaigning on having balls, doesn't.

kerry's big alternative plan is just bush's plan framed in words that make it sound appealing to lefties, but bush's plan (and therefore kerry's plan) is just a whole lot o' nuthin.

bush talks about being resolute and determined and a natural born leader and all that bull****, but he's too stubborn to admit that he misjudged and that we need to send more troops (not to mention, too afraid to provoke the wrath of swing voters before the election approaches, whatever rhetoric he feeds us about "doing what has to be done regardless of public opinion"). and kerry is too busy pandering to god-knows-who to do anything about anything.

and then there's the fact that we want to respect iraq's newfound (and premature) sovereignty, which means that whether or not we send more troops there is basically gonna be up to them. we can send money but our hands are tied as far as the troops that really need to be there. so sorry iraq, you're screwed. hopefully you can pull yourselves out of this mess and pull down our gas prices while you're at it. welcome to the free world.

zachsan
11-01-2004, 09:01 PM
so what do we do when it comes to iraq? vote for bush, hoping that he has a secret plan to commit more troops that he won't unveil until after election day, and also hoping that he doesn't get all gung-ho again and overextend our troops to some other part of the world? or screw it and vote for kerry, because there's less of a chance of him screwing something else up in some other part of the world?

i'm not really this bitter in person, honest.

lester1/2jr
11-01-2004, 09:03 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors

maybe this will help make up your mind. who knows

zachsan
11-01-2004, 09:30 PM
well for all my bilateral cynicism i've pretty much made up my mind already, i'm voting for kerry. what it basically comes down to for me is this: bush wants me to think that i know what i'm getting when i vote for him, but i don't. i know about his record with tax cuts and iraq. what i don't know is what the natural extension of that will be with another 4 years in office. did he start what he set out to start, and now he just wants to see it through? if that were the case, and i knew that, i would be inclined to vote for him. but for all i know, bush is sitting behind his desk in the oval office cooking up even more, uh, exciting things for the next 4 years, and that is not a pleasant thought in my mind.

kerry, on the other hand, is so terrified of our opinions (of everyone's opinions, for that matter) that his 4 years in office will basically be 4 years of damage control. which is a very comforting thought to me. i say, give him those 4 years and then boo him off the stage, hopefully next term's crop of candidates will be more inspiring.

anyway, none of this matters, because bush is going to lose. the washington redskins lost their last home game before the election, and every time that's happened in the past 18 presidential elections (that's since 1932), the incumbent president has lost the race. so voting at this point is just a formality, really. ;)

oh, and i live in pennsylvania, so my vote probably is going to mean a lot more than yours. suckers!

mortal
11-01-2004, 09:50 PM
As you listed in you're numbers 100,000 died in iraq. We lost 1,100.

Looks to me like we won that war. lol

Who would you rather have in the white house if you were a terrorist?

I look forward to your left wing liberal responses.

lester1/2jr
Not to sound like a punk. I know I'm no Harvard grad but, your grammar sucks. Do you know you are supposed to capitalize the first word of a new sentence? If so how lazy could you be not to?

lester1/2jr
11-01-2004, 09:56 PM
most of those 100,000 are regular people. Women and children, not terrorists. 1,100 is a lot. Why don't you go to baghadad if it's so great and everyone is so free. How about fallujah? Of course I would want Bush as the presdient if I was a terrorist because he's a total moron who couldn't find Osama in a white House game of hide and seek. granted it's a huge house.

"If so how lazy could you be not to?"

yeah exactly grammar master

mortal
11-01-2004, 10:41 PM
Ok you win I'll vote for Kerry.

Who would have thunk it.

mortal
11-01-2004, 10:42 PM
How do you know most are women and children? No puppy dogs or fuzzy bunny rabbits?

lester1/2jr
11-01-2004, 11:05 PM
A new independent, peer-reviewed study has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the U.S invasion last year.
The study entitled "Mortality Before And After The 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cluster Sample Survey" appears in Britain's foremost medical journal "The Lancet" and was conducted by researchers at Columbia University, Johns Hopkins and Al-Mustansiriya in Baghdad.

The estimated number of deaths of 100,000 is considerably higher than previous estimates. The study found the rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by U.S. air strikes on towns and cities. Most of the victims were women and children.

dogchow108
11-02-2004, 02:59 AM
Lester-

i couldn't help but find a few things in your posts that were kind of funny (to say it nicely).

First of all, Al Quaeda barely EVER talked of Israel before 9/11, much less before Bush was elected. One of the biggest victories the Muslim world has had in brainwashing Westerners is that they have convinced them they thet are fighting a fight that they are not really fighting. The only reason Israel is so unique in the west vs Islamofanatic war is that we have been the first to tell them to take their bull**** and shove it up their ****s. The other major success the Muslim world has had in this brings me to my second point about your posts.

If I were a terrorist, i would give up half my heaven-virgins to see Kerry elected. Considering what happened in Spain right before their elections, i would imagine you are either insincere or undereducated about how terrorism operates when you tell me that terrorists would rather see Bush elected. When the terrorists do things that are illegal, the next step is to make the things legal by taking advantage of a very liberal (which i am proud of but am disgusted at how it is being used) set of international laws. Having the US elect a President who seeks to become a puppet of the UN will be another step in accomplishing just such a goal.

Really, i'll get back to the point i was getting at in my last post, because it really seems that you guys actually DONT get it. We are not going to get attacked by fundamentalists. It is not a question of whether we can avoid living under international Sharia law. When people in the western world do something that Muslim world dosent like, we get it up the ass from them. True, we retaliate (most brutally as we should yet, in the case of Iraq, I think perhaps unwisely) but the difference between us and them is that we do not pretend to be living by their laws. We ALREADY HAVE LOST.

The "Palestinian" cause and the general onslaught of the Arab world against Israel is one of the best examples of this, where a people with the clear goal of destroying Israel and replacing it with another Islamo-Fascist and totalitarian state dont use THEIR legal system to get what they want, they use OURS. They, along with the Arab/muslim world at large, are unmatchedly the most disgusting abusers of human rights to ever exist. their manipulation of children, killing of civillians (our and theirs), methods of brainwashing, attempts AND successes in ethnic cleansing throughout their history and also recently, the list goes on. THESE people hind behind curtains of "human rights" and "peace". We kill terrorists, they get a resolution passed in the UN condemning the action. They blow up dosens of kids in a discoteque, not a goddamn thing happens. Think about the fact that since its inception, the UN has voted FOR a jewish cause barely a hair over thrice. Yet, out of a body of nearly 200 countries, Israel has been stabbed with an overwhelming 30% of all UN resolutions. And they aint pretty ones, ladies and gentlemen. China? Syria? Saudi Arabia? ANYONE? Lybia is the head of the Human Rights Committee. I dont know whether to laugh or to cry.

And that's just a SPECK of the UN and Israel.

More close to home for you Americans, the illegal and out-of-duristiction ruling of the IC"J" which declares Israel's anti-terror barrier illegal also has a clause in it which strongly suggests that the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is illegal.
Still on America, have you guys ever heard of CAIR? the Council on American Islamic Relations, a "civil rights" group which has openly declared its will to see the constitution of America replaced with the Quran.

We are not in trouble, guys, we are already ****ED. Whether its our fault or not, we are in trouble because we already live at the mercy of Islamic terrorist killers. With all due to respect to the vast majority of the muslim world, who do not actively aid the killing, it is simply a fact that we are all ****ed. It is just a matter of whether we make it out of it. And just for the record, the OVERWHELMING majority of muslims i talk to hate Israel and feel about the same about American government.

It is no co-incidence that much of the UN, a body of nations dedicated to upholding the values of human rights, liberty, and justice, nas become overrun by dictatorships. What the hell are Syria (and Syrian-controlled Lebanon), Saudi Arabia, Lybia, China, and a horde of the Human-Rights violators Elite doing making decisions in such a place? Again, it is no co-incidence, guys.

This is what i mean, in a VERY short, and oversimplified version of my views. I understand where a lot of you guys are coming from- i am a Liberal. I am Pro-Choice, i am against prayer in school, i dont want my money going to religious schools of any kind. I dont want to jail doctors who assist suicide, i want stem-cell research to continue. I want people to be seen and treated as equals, without apartheid-style segregation and hateful incitement. I want tolerance and Peace. I am non-theistic.

The fact is that things have turned ugly. people have hijacked the causes of equality and human rights and are now using it to aid its worse offenders. I am a liberal and a leftist, and it is EXACTLY FOR THAT REASON that i am bro-Bush and pro-Israel. though to be honest i think that neither candidate is a very good one. You think we have intruded some kind of enlightened, exotic culture? If you guys think the American government is corrupt and Orwellian, you wont know what the hell hit you once you start living under Sharia Law.

Oh, and Mortal, you're a nutjob.

doc
11-02-2004, 06:14 AM
Beware what you read in medical journals, lol.

I think it really doesn't matter who is president. Or, what Bush did or didn't do. Going to war in Iraq is irrelevant, as is who wins the presidency later today. The issue is a far greater one, one which has been simmering for many, many years. And now, it's starting to boil.

It wasn't noticeable during the Clinton years, because he did everything to shove it under the carpet, even to the point of decimating our intelligence agencies and avoiding the issues. But, the issues weren't going away, they were building up.

It's components of Islam against the rest of the world. The extremists are making themselves known now. The problem is, it's easy for the non-extremists to become extremists. It's going to get worse. I can see it here in Thailand, in the heavily populated Muslim south. I can see it here in Phuket occasionally, with a difference.

The Muslim businessmen who have businesses, and work, and hope, have no problem with Americans.

The ones who have nothing, do.


As I've said before, conflict basically boils down to the "haves and the have nots".

We're dealing with a lot of "have nots".... Look at Palestine, the root of a lot of the terrorism problems over the past fifty years (worldwide). (And the French take Arafat in, one of the biggest terrorists in the world). Look at Iraq. Look at southern Thailand. The western regions of China. These people have little. But, they do have their religion, which they devote many hours a day to.

Instead of productive work to better their lives.

doc
11-02-2004, 06:19 AM
I was looking for land here in Phuket on which to build the new school. Was looking at a few acres in a Muslim community, owned by an uncle of a Thai friend of mine, near the beach. Some Muslim on a scooter, whom none of us knew, drove up to us and told my Thai friend, in Thai, not to sell land to the Americans. All the while, he was smiling at me. Of course, I was smiling at him back, not knowing at the time that he basically didn't like me.

All because I was an American. An American, who, ironically, was looking for a place to start an international Shaolin/Muay Thai martial arts training center for people who have little financial resources to train.

Sad. We're moving into a new world.

Steve
11-02-2004, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by dogchow108
Oh, and Mortal, you're a nutjob.
Best line of the whole post.

zachsan
11-02-2004, 02:13 PM
dogchow... that post was all over the place. nobody, not the UN, not anyone, is saying that it's "legal" to blow up a train full of people in spain or a disco in israel. they deal with organizations like the PLO as a representing body for the terrorists who are doing these things. everybody knows organizations like that have links to terrorism; otherwise, there would be no reason to deal with them. the same way the british government deals with representatives of the NRA in ireland. that's not condoning terrorism or making anything "legal", that's just an attempt (a bad one, in my mind, but an attempt) at some resolution of the problem.

doc seems to think that the problem is that some people "have" and some people "have not". only that's been the case for as long as human history, and there's nothing really to do about that. what can be dealt with is the practice of terrorism. for terrorism to work, it takes real networks, real masterminds and real money, and these are things which we can find and shut down. and since terrorism works across borders, we need all kinds of cooperation from our allies to bring it down, which is something i agree on kerry on. i also think that locking down iraq would be a tremendous step, but since neither candidate seems willing to commit to that, i guess it's not gonna happen.

anyway, back to dealing with the PLO and such... i don't think it's ever a bad idea to try for peace. but they're not interested. so, we should keep extending the olive branch with one hand, while we blow up safehouses and chase down terrorists with the other, until they come around and realize that there's actually some incentive for them to be peaceful. so far, there really isn't. but it doesn't serve much of a purpose to throw our hands up in the air and say "we already lost, we're ****ed".

the U.N. needs to be pressured to take a much harder stance on terrorism. neither fully cooperating with its present policies on the one hand, nor just going it alone on the other, are going to solve anything.

doc
11-02-2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by lester1/2jr
A new independent, peer-reviewed study has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of the U.S invasion last year.
The study entitled "Mortality Before And After The 2003 Invasion of Iraq: A Cluster Sample Survey" appears in Britain's foremost medical journal "The Lancet" and was conducted by researchers at Columbia University, Johns Hopkins and Al-Mustansiriya in Baghdad.

The estimated number of deaths of 100,000 is considerably higher than previous estimates. The study found the rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by U.S. air strikes on towns and cities. Most of the victims were women and children.

I find this interesting. How in the hell do you think they came up with these numbers? I mean, really now. Think about it....

zachsan
11-02-2004, 03:57 PM
we could read up about the study and find out. it wouldn't be impossible. at lot of it might depend on the accuracy of records kept by the saddam regime, or the accuracy of our own from-the-outside population estimates of iraq, and so on.

my question is, how did that kind of thing find its way into a medical journal? as far as i know, no one's searching for the Cure To Violence...

dogchow108
11-02-2004, 04:45 PM
dogchow... that post was all over the place. nobody, not the UN, not anyone, is saying that it's "legal" to blow up a train full of people in spain or a disco in israel.

Zach, i didnt say it IS legal, i'm saying that bit by bit they make itillegal for people to retaliate (again, the example of America and their operations in Afghanistan, etc). Also, you would be amazed to what degree the UN is responsible for aiding Hamas and such organizations in the Territories. I really think you just might be unaware of it. Soldiers have been kidnapped by people using UN vehicles (the video footage of which that Nazi Kofi Annan still wont let Israel have), UN vehicles have been used to smuggle weapons, most recently Kassam 2 rockets, to areas where they can be launched at civillian targets. Its very simple, when the UN feels sorry for you, they help you. Also, The PLO has been swinging a significant amuont of influence in determining in the UN what "Resistance" means, who is allowed to do it and how. If my post is all over the place, i am happy for you that you understand that little. It really is much easier on your blood pressure.

they deal with organizations like the PLO as a representing body for the terrorists who are doing these things.

The PLO, much like just about every other active "palestinian" organization, has the stated goal of destroying Israel and replacing it with a Caliphate. The only way for them to be "Liberated" is through armed struggle. Arafat wears a military uniform, and has won a Nobel Peace prize (after which he turned around and order his people to begin an Intifada which lasts to this very day). EVERY emblem of such an organization has in it a map of Israel completely filled in, yet the Israelis are the land-grabbing oppressors.
To even FART in the direction of paying attention to this organization is a corruption. Until something else replaces what's at the tables we have nobody to consider. We tried, believe me. all it got us was more dead people.

everybody knows organizations like that have links to terrorism; otherwise, there would be no reason to deal with them. the same way the british government deals with representatives of the NRA in ireland. that's not condoning terrorism or making anything "legal", that's just an attempt (a bad one, in my mind, but an attempt) at some resolution of the problem.


To negotiate with these nutcases is corruption. It is also appeasement, and is a reason why, as Derschowitz has very correctly put it, Terrorism works. because people think you can talk to them. you give them a finger (no matter which finger it is) and they end up with the whole hand. We are already ****ed when all we have is terrorist organizations to talk to and we actually grace them with meetings so that maybe they will be less Terrorism...ish.

Guys, stop the apologizing and appeasing. Stop letting them play by our rules so that they can replace them with theirs.

mortal
11-02-2004, 04:49 PM
Oh, and Mortal, you're a nutjob.

I take that as a complement. Thank you.

You should see what being a nutjob does for my kungfu training.

daodejing
11-02-2004, 06:57 PM
DC, you're the reason I decided to stop talking about politics unless someone asks me. But I have to say, I totally agree with you. We've lost the war in Iraq.

zachsan
11-02-2004, 08:18 PM
i honestly didn't know about the U.N. outright helping the palestinians, but i would like a little more evidence before i swallow it. have you seen the videos that the U.N. "won't give" to israel, and if not, how do you know they exist? and even if they do, how do we know they weren't stolen U.N. vehicles? i'm not ruling it out, i again would just like to see more before i swallow it.


Originally posted by dogchow108
To negotiate with these nutcases is corruption. It is also appeasement, and is a reason why, as Derschowitz has very correctly put it, Terrorism works. because people think you can talk to them. you give them a finger (no matter which finger it is) and they end up with the whole hand. We are already ****ed when all we have is terrorist organizations to talk to and we actually grace them with meetings so that maybe they will be less Terrorism...ish.
it's not corruption just to negotiate with them. my problem is that we're negotiating how this violence is just going to spontaneously stop by rewarding them with a palestinian state, when we should be negotiating nothing but their surrender. i absolutely agree with you that both the U.N. and the U.S. need to change their position on this drastically. and you're dead on about the true goal of the PLO, but again, if their stated goal was just to dance in the fields and smoke pot there wouldn't be much to negotiate about.

anyway, i'm saying i agree with you for the most part, but my point is this: the U.N. needs to change the way it deals with terrorism. but the interest of the U.S. will be best served by trying to change the U.N. from the inside out, rather than breaking off and alienating its allies entirely, because, for our own safety, our greatest asset will be the intelligence and assistance they provide. it's in extreme cases of hostility between nations (please see: the middle east) that terrorism is allowed to thrive. we're of course nowhere near that with the rest of the world, but even the smallest nugget of foreign intel could be the preventative factor to another 9/11-like attack.

if we were fighting a conventional war, bush's go-it-alone approach might make sense, but this is not a conventional problem, and we need cooperation. the same way the 9/11 commission suggested we need an overhaul of our own intelligence, we need an overhaul of the way we obtain intelligence from other countries, and a big part of that will be suspending our own (or israel's) immediate interests from time to time. that's just how it works. i'm not thrilled about such an idea by any stretch, but the situation calls for some pragmatism.

dogchow108
11-03-2004, 03:26 AM
Michael Rubin. 2002. "The U.N.'s Refugees". The Wall Street Journal:

Unfortunately, UNRWA is not alone in reinforcing the U.N.'s reputation as an organization incapable of fighting terror. On May 24, 2000, Israel unilaterally pulled back from southern Lebanon, a withdrawal the U.N. certified to be complete. Terror did not end, though. On Oct. 7, 2000, Hezbollah guerrillas crossed the border and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers (including one Israeli Arab), all of whom they subsequently killed. Observers from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon videotaped the scene of the kidnapping, including the getaway cars, and some guerrillas.
Inexplicably, they then hid the videotape. Questioned by Israeli officials, Terje Roed-Larsen, the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, chided Israel for "questioning the good faith of senior United Nations officials." When after eight months the U.N. finally admitted to possessing the tape, officials balked at showing it to the Israeli government since that might "undermine U.N. neutrality." That U.N. observers protected and defended guerrillas who crossed a U.N.-certified border, using cars with U.N. license plates while under the cover of U.N. flags, was apparently of no consequence to UNIFIL. Pronouncements aside, U.N. moral equivalency in practice dictates that terrorists are equal to states. Fighting terror compromises U.N. neutrality.


Article can be viewed at http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=105001943

And by the way, its a very interesting article. It also talks about the UN and Terrorism in Iraq. In fact, about the UN in general:

http://www.mideasttruth.com/UNdanger.pps The part i posted above can be found in this presentation in the part about "The UN and Israel"

Here's an article about smuggling Qassam rockets

Beyond the Facts

http://www.MidEastTruth.com


Israel wants UNRWA probed


By Amir Mizroch and Ofer Barsadeh
The Jerusalem Post
October 2, 2004


Surveillance video shows Palestinians in Gaza loading
what looks like a Kassam rocket into a vehicle marked "UN"
Photo: IDF


Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Gillerman, has called on UN Secretary General Koffi Anan to fire Peter Hansen, the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) following the publication of video footage showing Palestinian terrorists storing what appears to be a Kassam rocket inside a UN-marked vehicle in the northern Gaza Strip.

"We view this incident very seriously, and I intend on Monday to turn to the UN Secretary General with a very strong complaint. I will ask him to come to the necessary conclusions regarding UNRWA, to check the incident and establish a serious committee of inquiry that will get to the bottom of this thing. It is unacceptable that the UN, which is supposed to further the goals of peace, will turn into a shelter for murderers," Gillerman said.

Gillerman also called Hansen "anti-Israeli," Israel Radio reported.

UN officials said Saturday they are investigating the claim by the Israeli military that Palestinian terrorists transported a rocket in a vehicle with UN markings, but accused Israel of having made false allegations in the past.

On Friday, the IDF released video footage taken from an unmanned aircraft, or drone, flying over the Jebalya refugee camp. The blurred black-and-white video showed three men walking toward the U.N. vehicle, including one who carried an elongated object. The army said the object was a rocket.

Peter Hansen, the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), said Saturday that "we are doing our best to see what the basis for the allegations is," and that UN ambulance drivers were being questioned. The UNRWA is an agency which assists Palestinian refugees in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on Saturday, Hansen said he was on his way to Jerusalem hopefully to be able to see higher resolution footage of the incident. He added that he has instigated an investigation of all ambulance drivers and orderlies. "This won't be the first time false allegations have been made against us. Everyone who has seen the footage has told me the object looks more like a folded-up stretcher than anything else. Especially since it was being carried with one hand. A Kassam rocket would be too heavy for a man to carry with one hand.

"Unless we are talking about Goliath, (he) could hardly carry a Kassam rocket as a light object in one hand," Hansen told The Associated Press.

According to the IDF website, the Kassam rocket is about 2 meters long and weighs on average 5.5 KG (about 12 pounds).

"This is not the first time that we have allegations that turn out to be false or rather (are) based on very, very insufficient evidence," he said.

Israel has accused terrorists of using U.N. vehicles and offices to launch attacks. Israel has also accused UNRWA officials of turning a blind eye to terrorist activities in their vicinity, and of bias against Israel.

Israel uses drones to monitor activities in the crowded Gaza refugee camps. The footage provides soldiers and pilots real-time pictures of what is happening on the ground.

Friday's footage was released while the army launched a wide scale operation in the Jebalya refugee camp and nearby towns in an attempt to halt Palestinian rocket attacks on towns in Israel. Those rocket attacks killed two Israeli preschoolers Wednesday.

To watch the IDF's footage of the incident, click here: http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/7/34147.wmv






seriously, you think im just making this up? its okay tho, its good you ask for a source.


Really, as to what to do with the UN- Leave it and start a new international body, with an exclusive membership- criteria for membership can at least begin with an active election process. And a fundamental requirement for it's continued existance is compliance with international law FOR ALL ITS MEMBERS NOT JUST THE SMALLEST AND MOST JEWISH.


Dao- Obviously, i havent stopped you from posting on political threads.

Asger
11-03-2004, 09:57 AM
War is a loser's game. No one wins. People are killed by those who kill them.

zachsan
11-03-2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by dogchow108
seriously, you think im just making this up? its okay tho, its good you ask for a source.
lol, no i didn't think you were making it up, but someone doesn't need to look very far to find some pretty crazy ideas. this is pretty convincing, though.


Really, as to what to do with the UN- Leave it and start a new international body, with an exclusive membership- criteria for membership can at least begin with an active election process. And a fundamental requirement for it's continued existance is compliance with international law FOR ALL ITS MEMBERS NOT JUST THE SMALLEST AND MOST JEWISH.
what countries would be in this international body? U.N. or no U.N., we are going to need the intelligence and cooperation of russia, france, germany and the like. the U.N. is a tool for its member countries to pressure its other member countries into helping each other out. it's not like kofi annan is calling the shots for the world. it takes the stances it takes because those are the stances its member countries take. it wouldn't accomplish anything but to scare the world ****less for us to try to create a new body. we just need to take advantage of the tools that are already in place.


Originally posted by Asger
War is a loser's game. No one wins. People are killed by those who kill them.
lessee. if nobody won the war of independence, it would be the same difference if the U.S. was still owned by the british empire. if nobody won world war II, it would be the same difference if the world was under control of hitler the nazi party right now. people die but in the end someone wins. the consequences of war extend far beyond the scope of the deaths directly caused by the war, which is why it's worth risking those lives sometimes.

mortal
11-03-2004, 04:43 PM
4 More years baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All you lefty's can eat my shorts!

dogchow108
11-03-2004, 04:47 PM
what countries would be in this international body? Again, countries with active, real elections. The UN has failed in the worst imaginable way by letting the worst violators of human rights today use a guise of human rights-advocacy in order to fight against human rights.

Create a new body of nations, exclusive to nations that treat people like people. Dictatorships like Cuba, Lybia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, on and on and on... should have no say in an international body devoted to the opposite of what dictatorship and religious totalitarianism is. More importantly, since no country is perfect, PUNISH AND HOLD ACCOUNTABLE THE VIOLATORS OF THESE STANDARDS, STARTING WITH THE WORST VIOLATORS NOT THE MOST MILD.

Oh, and **** the PLO.

By the way, congratulations to America for voting in a president who is good for America, and not Eurabia.

Speaking of Eurabia...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/international/europe/03dutch.html

zachsan
11-03-2004, 05:36 PM
i'm sorry my friend, but the fact that a country has an active, real election does not make it sympathetic to our cause, or to israel's. again, my point is that we need the cooperation of "eurabia", as you put it, to save our own asses. to alienate them is to demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict we're in.

anyway, we'll see what happens.

dogchow108
11-03-2004, 05:43 PM
Elections are the most outright sign of democracy a country can hope to at least start off with. Obviously, there is much more needed than simply to say democracy-only, but its a start. with the Europeans, to some degree, we can talk to and eventually i think all this **** will pass. but with many current members of the UN, i really dont think theres anything we can really have a serious engagement with until they change (or are overthrown).

They dont have to be sympathetic to "our cause", but they should at least be at the same level as far as certain political standards. I'm not saying bar Europe---i'm saying Bar dictatorships and totalitarian governments. If we need co-operation of certain countries to save our asses, fine. no problem. what we dont need is to corrupt outselves further by appeasing tyrants. you dont try to negotiate with terrorists, you hunt them down and kill them. Same with corrupt, fascist empires like Saudi-Arabia.

zachsan
11-03-2004, 05:59 PM
appeasing tyrants and appeasing countries (and bodies like the U.N.) who appease tyrants are two very different things. one is very clearly wrong and cowardly. one is a fact of life in the world of intelligence, and in today's world, necessary for survival.

dogchow108
11-04-2004, 03:31 AM
What im basically saying is, the countries in this world who are free countries should start to behave like them, and start to treat other free countries as such. In the chambers of the UN, dictatorships have decided for long enough what the fate of free people in this world will be.

zachsan
11-04-2004, 04:00 PM
think they could maybe use a few more troops over there?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/04/iraq.weapons.ap/index.html

lester1/2jr
11-04-2004, 08:18 PM
Of course Israel is light years ahead of it's neighbors in terms of human rights, that doesn't mean it is immune from criticism. You can support Israel and not support Likud. In fact, most israelis don't support them. Also, say your pro-bush yet you call Saudi arabia a corrupt terrorist regime which it definately is. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from there and the trillions they've made from oil goes through mosques to terrorrists. and yet they are an ally of the US and Bush in particular. Saddam Husseins checks to terrorists probably accounted for a fraction of the terrorists money. The saudis account for far far more. BUt saudi arabia is "friendly". Saddam Hussein was "a menace".

dogchow108
11-05-2004, 12:00 AM
Thats a good point, lester. And i agree with you that the US is in bed with the Saudis. Thats just my point tho. the US needs to get these guys' dicks out of its ass (and thus their clutches off its balls) and start living by its own standards as well. Again, though some communication is necessary for possible future compromize, that is far from saying that the corrupt relationships today are fine, and like i said a million times, these countries should not have a say in major decisions that affect the free world. (and just as a note, saddams "little" money did something more than important than compensate, it motivated).

As far as Israel, of course i know its far from perfect, and where we Israelis have flawed, we should be held accountable. What i dont like is not holding in account countries like Lybia (and in fact rewarding them by letting them head the human rights committee) and at the same time having the ICJ exhaust itself with an obsession over Israel's "treatment" of poor vicimized terrorists. Criticism of Israel is necessary, not just fair. what is unfair is blasting it the way the UN and affiliates does, unproportionately, unfairly, and intentionally, while telling the wolves that they are the lambs. Israel has handled a unique situation far better than i think any other country has or could. we could be doing a LOT, LOT worse but we dont. our reward? we're pretty much a pariah state and are talked about as the "prime violators of human rights in the world". gimme a break.

Also, you can not like the likud (i personally dont but given the "hawk" sharon is supposed to be you cant say he sint being flexible), but notice how many parties have already gone through just ONE palestinian "leader". All of them either had to change the way they do things or were asassinated for succeeding(if you count OSLO as a "success"). this is not because there's no solution, its very simply because you cant negotiate with someone who wants you killed and replaced. Again, my argument that we can no longer allow them to use our rules in order to replace our rules with theirs. PERIOD. and the UN is guilty, guilty, guilty and MORE GUILTY of that.

doc
11-05-2004, 04:56 PM
Thanks to Uwe for this:

Ethnic violence hits China region

Martial law has been imposed in parts of the Chinese province of Henan (Shaolin is in Henan province: doc) after ethnic clashes in which at least seven people were killed.
More than 40 people were also injured in the violence, and 18 were arrested, China's Xinhua news agency reported.

The clashes were between members of China's majority Han community and the Muslim Hui ethnic group.

Residents are quoted as saying that houses were set alight, and people were fighting using farm tools.

Xinhua did not say that the clash was between Hui and the Han people. China's ruling Communist Party, which keeps strict control over the media, plays down any reports of ethnic tensions, out of fear of social disorder.

Neither is it clear exactly what triggered the violence.

But it appears to be the worst incident between the Hui and Han people in several years.


'So afraid'

According to Xinhua, the violence started on 27 October when Mr Lu, from Nanren village, began a fight with Mr Liu, from nearby Nanwei village.

The fight was allegedly about a traffic accident, which according to a separate report in the New York Times involved a Hui taxi driver running over a 6-year-old Han girl.

After the fight, several Nanren villagers rushed to Mr Liu's home and assaulted him and his family, Xinhua said.

Then residents of both villages assembled and resumed the battle.

"One villager was beaten to death on the spot and two died in the hospital one day later," Xinhua said.

The news agency did not say how the other deaths occurred.

According to witness statements, several houses were burned down during the violence, and a brick factory was destroyed, as the rival groups fought each other with sticks.

"People were so afraid," one witness told Reuters. "No-one dared to go to work or go outside. Even the transport has been stopped."

Villagers contacted by the BBC said hundreds of riot police had been drafted into the area and a news blackout imposed.

Correspondents say clashes between the Han, who make up the vast majority of China's population, and the 8.5m-strong Hui minority are not common.

But tensions may have been exacerbated by China's economic success, which has seen a growing gap between rich and poor. (emphasis mine:doc)

And there has been a general increase in unrest in rural areas fuelled by dissatisfaction over poverty and corruption, correspondents say.

FYI:

HUI MINORITY
Mainly descendants of 13th century C Asian immigrants
8.5m-strong, third largest of China's 55 minorities
Widely dispersed across China, look and speak like majority Han
Islam central to identity

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/3970611.stm

dogchow108
11-05-2004, 05:22 PM
desperately....holding back....comments....

doc
11-06-2004, 05:47 AM
Don't hold back.

The "differences" between China's Muslim's and the Han population are quite prevalent, though it is rare that it receives news attention. (It's usually "dealt with" and blocked from publication). Terrorist activities do occur in China; the inhabitants of XinJiang provinces sometimes cause problems as far as Beijing.

lester1/2jr
11-06-2004, 06:28 PM
dogchow- I agree about the UN. The Sudanese people or the Libyan people are not represented by their leaders. The corrupt regimes from those countries are represented for sure, but not the people they claim to represent. So really "Libya" is a member of the UN but Libya is not.

Most ongoing conflicts involve muslims. I posted an article here once one about mongolia and one about xinjian, and the muslims hate the chinese. spit on the ground when they walk past. Where they there first? I'm afraid I don't know. Doc, do you know what happened with those guys packed into the buses???

dogchow108
11-06-2004, 09:37 PM
Lester, i remember that article. it was actually a pretty good one.

check out this site:

www.thereligionofpeace.com

lester1/2jr
11-06-2004, 09:46 PM
I saw a debate between General Wesley Clarke and Bernie Kerick, who was the head of the NYPD and trained police in Baghada too. These two should have been our candidates instead of these ridiculous family legacy rich guys. I mean, if terrorism is supposedly our number one concern.

dogchow108
11-07-2004, 05:38 PM
Porbably. i think there has been a pretty high concensus that we could have had MUCH beter candidates for both parties.

zachsan
11-08-2004, 04:27 PM
well we definitely could have used better candidates, but while terrorism is a big concern, there's a lot more to leading a country than just dealing with terrorism, and i get the impression those guys don't run because they don't want to deal with that bull****. and i can't blame them.

i think a big problem here is what the left has come to represent in the international community. traditional liberal ideals like promoting racial and sexual equality, trying hard not to blow things up, and basically using government as a tool to help everyone out directly, that's all great to a point. but lately it seems like the left has just degenerated into being the devil's advocate for any and all causes in the world, even, to a point, islamic fundamentalism. israel is the Rich Military Government, the suicidal maniacs with bombs are the Resistance. so the extreme left defaults to the Resistance, and that sentiment trickles down even to smart people. that just doesn't make any sense to me.

dogchow108
11-09-2004, 12:40 AM
zachsan, i have been trying to say that since 2000, and you just said it PERFECT

LeiYunFat
11-09-2004, 02:16 AM
Indeed. I don't know, man, the left ain't what it used to be. I think there are way too many far-left representatives for the Democratic party. I feel that if I were to vote democratic, I would be voting for a few steps close to Socialism. Which is why the far-leftists should split from the more moderate mass of the Democratic party to form or strengthen the Democratic-Socialist Party, or what have you.

dogchow108
11-09-2004, 02:58 AM
Well, whats happening in the left is pretty much like what is happening in the UN.

People dont realize, theres a very thin line between the fer, fer left of one country and the tryannically right wing of another one. I'll say it again- Bush had my support not because i am a right wing conservative, but because i am a liberal.

Its funny though, how things have changed-- now the left wing is the politically corect, oversensitive side. I remember before all this **** started and all i did was god-bash, the right-wingers always seemed the ones wetting their panties about what people say and do.

LeiYunFat
11-09-2004, 06:14 AM
There should be another thread on political correctness.

Basically if you're going to go out of your way to be politically correct, it undermines the reason behind political correctness.


"blah blah blah blah, African-American, blah blah, blah, blah, Black."

"OH!!! OH GOD!!!! I'm sorry! I meant African American! *shtting themselves*"

SOmetimes you listen to some people and they have developed the perfect method of avoiding that horribly embarassing experience. They say, Afro-American=Black. So when they talk about Africans, they sometimes slip and say "African-Americans"...

Eh it's funnier when you see it in person.

zachsan
11-09-2004, 03:33 PM
tell me about it. i once saw an article, i forget where, about the "growing quality of life of african-americans around the world".

dogchow108
11-09-2004, 04:05 PM
Lol!

I always found that kind of funy too...i lived in South Africa for 7 years, and my grandmother is from Morocco--- if i became a citizen, would i be an African American?

Or maybe an Africisraeli American....

Beginner's Mind
11-10-2004, 02:14 PM
Interesting discussion...

But it seems to me everyone's under the misapprehension that major decisions are made for political reasons.

They're not! It's all about money and oil.

You want to know why the US government (and the UN) panders to tyrannical leaders from the middle East, despite atrocious human rights abuses? Because they control the oil. Why did we invade Iraq, despite Saddam being one of the enemies of Al Quaeda (as he is virtually Sectarian, and they're fundamentalist Muslims) - nothing to do with the oil wells at all? Which could conveniently be piped through the recently conquered Afghanistan?

The top Al Quaeda members are known to be hiding in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Why doesn't the US invade those countries? Could it be related to the fact that the leading familes of Saudi Arabia have financed the Bush family for several decades?

The leaders of the Western countries don't care about the people they're meant to represent, they just want to make their fortunes, and instigate tax breaks for the extremely wealthy, i.e. themselves and their friends and families.

While there are certainly honest politicians with scruples at the roots of most political parties, as soon as they get a taste of power and wealth, they don't care who they scr*w.

It's just that in the West they have to conceal it better.

What American or British citizen has directly benefited from the war in Iraq? There was no way Saddam could have attacked either country. He didn't support Islamic terrorists as he was scared they would attack him. Other countries help Al Quaeda more. Other countries have even worse records of human rights abuses. It didn't make us safer, quite the opposite. So who benefited?

mortal
11-10-2004, 05:02 PM
"They're not! It's all about money and oil."

I guess that is why oil is more expensive then ever.
I guess that is also why the Iraq's are using the profits from it to build up their own country.
That statement is typical left wing propaganda bomb throwing. Just the type of thing that will secure a republican white house for the next decade.

"You want to know why the US government (and the UN) panders to tyrannical leaders from the middle East, despite atrocious human rights abuses?"

Half the guys in the UN are dictators and skumbags. We don't pander to any of them. That is what Kerry and the other no back bone dems want to do.

"Why did we invade Iraq, despite Saddam being one of the enemies of Al Quaeda (as he is virtually Sectarian, and they're fundamentalist Muslims) - nothing to do with the oil wells at all?

This is the same naive attitude displayed by the dems that lost them the election. How could you think they have no connection? All of these middle east arabs are connected in their hatred of the super succesfull USA.

"Which could conveniently be piped through the recently conquered Afghanistan?"

Conquered? Try liberated! What color is the sky in your world?
Piped through to where? Dubyas basement?

"The leaders of the Western countries don't care about the people they're meant to represent, they just want to make their fortunes, and instigate tax breaks for the extremely wealthy, i.e. themselves and their friends and families."

You contradict yourself in that statement. If they don't care about anything but their own fortunes. Why would they give tax breaks to other wealthy fams?
Not only that but the rich pay a huge percent of the taxes in this country. Why should they be penalized for being succesful? These rich people you speak of with such resentment are the ones providing the jobs for the lower class in this country. Are you saying that everyone who is rich knows each other and schemes together as one. Democracy is about fighting to get ahead. Are you suggesting the rich should share their money with all of the have nots. Sounds like socialism to me.

"He didn't support Islamic terrorists as he was scared they would attack him."

Another contradiction. Why would they attack him if he supported them? Doesn't make sense.

"Other countries help Al Quaeda more. Other countries have even worse records of human rights abuses. It didn't make us safer, quite the opposite. So who benefited?"

Don't worry we will get to them. And hopefully they will have tons of oil.lolo
We benefited because we were NEVER attacked on our soil again since 9/11.
CAn you imagine the crap liberals would be talking if we were.

The bottom line is WE are the most succesful country in the world.
We did not need any more richs from selling some poor countrys oil.
We are already wealthy as can be. I could understand if we were in a depression and you thought we attacked for oil. At least the it would make sense. But were not. People are lining up to get into this great country.

zachsan
11-10-2004, 05:22 PM
mortal's obviously one of those neo-hippies. anyway...


Originally posted by Beginner's Mind
Interesting discussion...

But it seems to me everyone's under the misapprehension that major decisions are made for political reasons.

They're not! It's all about money and oil.
i read the rest of your post after that, but i didn't need to. money is a unit of power. politics is about the balance of power. they aren't now and have never been separate.

LeiYunFat
11-11-2004, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by zachsan

i read the rest of your post after that, but i didn't need to.


Gold. True as well.

dogchow108
11-11-2004, 06:36 AM
Who benefitted? from what?


Like i said, we arent in this war to prevent ourselves from getting into this, we are in it to get out of it. and really about saudi arabia or another country being a better target, thats true. i have never deined that. but theres actually plenty of ways that Iraq was also a good target.

lester1/2jr
11-11-2004, 09:48 PM
I just wonder if you don't have a unconscious bias towards an action in Iraq. If I were a full on anti-semite I might even say that Wolfowitz sold Rumsfeld and co. the concept of a cheap quick war simply to get revenge on Saddam. a mafia style hit if you will.

LeiYunFat
11-11-2004, 10:11 PM
Are you?

lester1/2jr
11-11-2004, 10:20 PM
Donald Rumsfeld?

zachsan
11-11-2004, 11:00 PM
mafia style hits, that's the kind of stuff i was expecting when i first heard the term "war on terror". not smart bombs and bunker busters and nation building.

dogchow108
11-11-2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by lester1/2jr
I just wonder if you don't have a unconscious bias towards an action in Iraq. If I were a full on anti-semite I might even say that Wolfowitz sold Rumsfeld and co. the concept of a cheap quick war simply to get revenge on Saddam. a mafia style hit if you will.

are you kidding me? i have a very conscious bias against Iraq, that asshole Hussein rewarded people who blew my countrymen to bits with tens of thousands of dollars each, why wouldn't I be biased against him. and really, does that make me biased as much as simply against? theres a difference.

but that dosent mean i think Iraq was the best decision. in fact, i've said this again and again and again and people seem to forget that. I just think that either way Iraq was on the target if we go after terrorists in general and the governments which actively aid them in the way that most middle-east regimes have. including Saddam Hussein.

lester1/2jr
11-11-2004, 11:29 PM
fact: I got banned from little green footballs for making that same remark.

dogchow108
11-11-2004, 11:31 PM
well, LGB is a strongly conservative site, that can be expected. Hell i've damn near gotten booted off pro-Israel sites myself. Sites with an agenda (good or bad) will always have somewhat of a censorship system.

Beginner's Mind
11-12-2004, 11:12 AM
Ok, fair enough, my last post was too generalised and over simplistic, not well thought out (smoking never does much for my self-expression…)

“All of these middle east arabs are connected in their hatred of the super succesfull USA.”

While it’s true that most Middle Eastern countries are against the US, that’s not enough to unite them. There are all kinds of complicated divisions, and very few other Arab countries had much sympathy for Saddam (even Palestine only did because he helped them). He wasn’t exactly a good Muslim… He also was paranoid about anyone else getting power in his region, so did his best to undermine organisations like Al Quaeda. Terrorists are often treacherous (by default, anyone who can justify killing innocents as they do can hardly be regarding as having great morals), and it is no contradiction that he feared that arming them could be as dangerous for himself as any of their outright enemies – even if he was supposed to be supporting them.

And regarding Afghanistan, my mistake, I should have said the Taliban were conquered, not Afghanistan. But if you look at what Afghanis say, there aren’t many who would use the term ‘liberated’ themselves. The Taliban were about as bad as it gets, and the scariest image of extreme Islamic militants yet (fortunately most Muslims consider them at least as abhorrent as the rest of us), but it’s a shame we couldn’t leave the country in a better state, especially given it was the scene of so many political struggles between Russia and the US for so many years, so it’s hard to make it appear as purely a liberation when many Taliban leaders were able to escape to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden in particular still hasn’t been brought to justice.

And it’s not a contradiction to say that the rich look after their own, including the small number of other extremely wealthy people. Not that anyone should be punished for being successful, but in the US the gap between the very rich and the very poor is growing all the time, so it was hardly necessary to make the poor pay more and the rich pay less. What do all your taxes go on anyway – you don’t even have a free health care system?

I know politics is about power (and money and oil are just different manifestations of that). It's just, I'm so naive, that I like to think there are moral and ethical aspects to politics too. Like, everyone looks after their own first, fair enough, you, your family, your town, your state, your country. But don't we also want our leaders to improve living conditions for everyone, to make the world safer, etc? I know this sounds like really naive hippy b*ll****, but it would be nice to think that people felt some kind of brotherhood with the people from other countries. When you travel, and meet people from other places, many of whom are just the same as the people you know from home, and are friendly and funny, and welcome you, don't you want to think that in some small way we use our priviledged positions in the wealthy west to make their lives if not better, at least no worse?

Anyway, what I’d really like to understand, is what Americans and British people feel they have got from the war on Iraq?

“We benefited because we were NEVER attacked on our soil again since 9/11.”

As Saddam wasn’t involved in the terrorist attacks on America, do you feel that the fact you haven’t been attacked since is due to the show of power against him being a warning to others? Or is that incidental, and is it the way that Osama has been punished that you feel has kept the US safe since then? Do you feel that it's ok to attack Saddam, and not Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? (or for that matter, Zimbabwe, Iran, Korea, etc. etc.)

And do you feel that the way that Americans (and British) are viewed even more negatively now outside of the US is an acceptable price to pay – even if it means Americans are in greater danger of being attacked when they leave their country?

mortal
11-12-2004, 04:30 PM
Us being veiwed negatively is a small price to pay for the prevention of terrorism. You could thank your left wing media for that.

I could care less what France Gemany and Russia think about us. If it means protecting my life when I go to work at my very civilian job.

We are killing hundreds of terrorist animals in fallujah at this very moment. They can't organize attacks on our soil when we are killing them like little filthy roaches in Iraq. Many of the vermin we are killing harbored terrorist feelings before the war. Now they are fighting us in Iraq. Better them fighting our ass kicking marines in Iraq. Rather than blowing up buildings and civilians here in the US. Or more specifically New York.

By nightfall fallujah will be ours and they will be dead.

zachsan
11-12-2004, 04:34 PM
look at the history books. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and that's true even more so for terrorists. they swear by their radical ideals but they have no problem compromising those ideals if it means more guns, bombs or cash. insane, yes, but pragmatic.

use the previous example of the mafia. rival families were constantly looking for ways to betray each other, but if something stood to make them all rich, it would not be unheard of for them to cooperate.


Terrorists are often treacherous (by default, anyone who can justify killing innocents as they do can hardly be regarding as having great morals)

nailed it.

zachsan
11-12-2004, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by mortal
By nightfall fallujah will be ours and they will be dead.
yep, definitely one of those neo-hippies.

mortal
11-12-2004, 05:07 PM
loolo

lester1/2jr
11-14-2004, 06:27 PM
"They can't organize attacks on our soil when we are killing them like little filthy roaches in Iraq. " did they sign an agreement with us that said we'd only fight there?

mortal
11-15-2004, 04:54 PM
They might as well have signed that agreement because that is what they are doing.

Allow me to repeat myself.

There HAS NOT BEEN ANOTHER ATTACK ON US SOIL SINCE 9/11.
That is the bottom line.

Can you deny that we are killing terrorists on a daily basis?

lester1/2jr
11-15-2004, 06:24 PM
"But if bin Laden is much stronger than he was, why haven't there been more attacks on the United States?

"One of the great intellectual failures of the American intelligence community, and especially the counterterrorism community, is to assume if someone hasn't attacked us, it's because he can't or because we've defeated him," says Scheuer. "Bin Laden has consistently shown himself to be immune to outside pressure. When he wants to do something, he does it on his own schedule."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml


mortal- there aren't a finite number of terrorists. It's a phenomenan as well as a bunch of organizations. There was terrorism in russia last month. We've killed tons of terrorists in iraq but te fact that we just had to level fallujah is more a symbl of our failure than a success. Would you consider 9/11 a success because 19 terrorists were killed?

mortal
11-15-2004, 06:39 PM
Yes it was a success for the terrorists. Just like Fallujah is a success for us. It is a victory. How do you know we leveled the city? That isn't what I have heard.

It is all about perspectives. Ours happen to be very different.

It is hard for me to comprehend the liberal perspective. You guys look at a black wall and say its white. Every victory George Bush has is a failure in your eyes. In the liberal veiwpoint our horrible foreign policiy justifies september 11th. We can't make everyone happy all of the time but we could make them fear us. That is all these animals who are fighting us understand.

lester1/2jr
11-15-2004, 06:43 PM
retard butter

mortal
11-15-2004, 06:45 PM
What does that mean? Did you just have a brain fart?

zachsan
11-15-2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by lester1/2jr
there aren't a finite number of terrorists.
i am a stickler for details, and so i am going to point out, there are a finite number of terrorists. that number either is or has the potential to be growing, due to a common sentiment in certain parts of the world, but to be literal that number will always be finite. if we had a magical ray gun that could seek out all the terrorists in the world and kill them at once, and we used it once a month or so, our problem would be solved.

it would be irresponsible for me not to point out the potential implications of this imaginary weapon.


Originally posted by mortal
In the liberal veiwpoint our horrible foreign policiy justifies september 11th. We can't make everyone happy all of the time but we could make them fear us. That is all these animals who are fighting us understand.
so do we have good foreign policy for making them fear us, or horrible foreign policy because we have to do that? or it was horrible before the bush years, and is now great?


Originally posted by mortal
What does that mean? Did you just have a brain fart?
god i hate that expression.

lester1/2jr
11-15-2004, 06:59 PM
if ther were a finite number we would only have to use the ray once

zachsan
11-15-2004, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by lester1/2jr
if ther were a finite number we would only have to use the ray once
ah! but you're failing to consider those individuals that are not yet terrorists but become terrorists. the ray gun would theoretically not be effective on these individuals, unless it was a clairvoyant ray gun, which could kill everyone who would ever be a terrorist. if there is a constantly expanding group, that group is finite but growing, not infinite. any number of people has to by definition be finite, because there are a finite number of people in the world and there will only ever be a finite number of people in the universe.

don't even bring up terrorists from alternate dimensions. they are very bad at bomb making and not a real threat.

this is all very important to keep in mind if we are ever going to make the CTKRG (clairvoyant terrorist killing ray gun) a reality.

mortal
11-15-2004, 08:43 PM
Since we don't have that weopon. Should we sit and do nothing.

Or negotiate with them. Please Mr. Terrorist don't attack our country anymore. We love you.

Oh wait Jimmy Carter did that and they laughed in his face and said America was weak.

Then they elected Reagan and poof! The hostages were released.
They knew better then to mess with a macho cowboy.

lester1/2jr
11-15-2004, 09:38 PM
mortal- this isn't a video game or a tv show. If bin laden gets his hands on the stuff that was looted in baghdad there's no telling how many he could kill. Bush's cowboy hat won't protect you.

mortal
11-15-2004, 09:46 PM
Well we agree on something.

I don't understand your analagy. Why would I think life is a video game.

Like Bin laden doesn't have his own explosives.
Like he even needs them. He could use planes or other objects.

We will catch him one day.
Until then he will be in the bowels of a cave like the brave terrorist he is.

lester1/2jr
11-15-2004, 09:53 PM
my point is bush's decisions have real consequuences. or any president. America is the best country in the world and there has to be accountability. It's fine to be willing to wage war on terrorists or dictators. There's prbably a hunded guys who could do that as president. Bush sr (gulf war) and Clinton (kosovo) did it with a hell of a lot more success.

mortal
11-15-2004, 10:11 PM
So what is your point?

What should we do? If you were prez what would you do?

I look forward to your long, well thought out response.

zachsan
11-15-2004, 10:45 PM
well, there are a few things GW could have done, like, plan for what happens after we take care of their military. and, when it became apparent that things wouldn't be so easy, send more troops. lots.

mortal
11-15-2004, 11:17 PM
As I suspected. No real answers.

Only Zachsan? Where are the rest of you? All you liberals do is critisize Bush with none of your own positions

The same people planned Afganistan. We didn't expect the ungrateful people of Iraq to act like that. It's war **** happens. We don't want to overrun them with more troops. They are already calling us occupiers.

LeiYunFat
11-16-2004, 12:27 AM
There is an obvious communication problem between lester and mortal. Both are talking in circles.

dogchow108
11-16-2004, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by lester1/2jr
It's fine to be willing to wage war on terrorists or dictators. There's prbably a hunded guys who could do that as president. Bush sr (gulf war) and Clinton (kosovo) did it with a hell of a lot more success.

I dont know, lester, im gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Clinton NEVER had the situation where a few thousand people died in the US, and was put in the position to make a decision regarding retribution. Bush, well, you see where that "success" went.

Also, where are these hundreds of people waiting in line to fight terrorism and dictatorship? i believe that was an arbitrary statement.

Spain tucked its tail as soon as they were hit at home- pulled their troops and ran for the hills. Since the OSLO accords, i have yet to find a greater reward to terrorism. France and Germany gave up before this even started. Really, tho, why should they care? they know its necessary to fight this threat, but then they also know that since it is necessary, the US will do it for them. That way, they benefit from the war on terror, and yes, MANY PEOPLE HAVE BENEFITTED FROM THIS ONE SINGLE WAR, and they also get to criticize the Bush administration to gain popularity, both at home and abroad. especially in the Arab world. And who wants to get on these guys' good side? the left, of course, with their appeasing asshole candidate, John Kerry- who i guess is one of these hundred presidents you have lined up that would fight terrorism. by doing what? getting deeper in bed with them than Bush is? screw that.

As long as these assholes can sit there in the UN and lick each others' taints in an orgy of pseudo-frendliness, they are fine because the US is getting the ass end of all of it.

If only the best country in the world is willing to stand up to this threat (which it isn't- Israel, the best in the middle-east, is right with it and has been fighting this war before Bush was sucking his mom's tits) that should tell you something about the quality of the other countries, and the integrity of their leadership.


since the begining of all this the whole problem has been just that- everyone wants to talk the talk, but literally just a few people will walk the walk.

LeiYunFat
11-16-2004, 04:26 AM
Dogchow, that post owned ass all oer the place. Needless to say, I agree.

dogchow108
11-16-2004, 04:48 AM
well, i do own a few asses...i didnt realize they got free...

zachsan
11-16-2004, 06:14 PM
mortal, just because i can spend 8 hours a day online while i'm supposed to be working doesn't mean everyone can.

mortal
11-16-2004, 06:32 PM
lolo

But I have a cushy job and much more free time.

lester1/2jr
11-16-2004, 10:06 PM
It's one thing to hate the UN, that's fine. I don't think it's their fault that Bush screwed up Iraq. Chirac was in the army in Algeria, I don't think he was looking to be an occupying moving target twice in his lifetime. My guess is Russia and germany looked at powells presentation at the UN, the one he has totally distanced himself from since, and weren't buying it. As it turns out, they were right. It was absolutely the lowest point in a distinguished career, largely because of the garbage they told him to say. yeah, all the experts and millions and millions of people protesting were wrong. all the generals who told bush he would need more troops were wrong and pointing out hey were right is monday morning quarterbacking. looting was unavoidable. It would have been impossible to put a tank in front of a hospital. The surplus would have vanished under Al Gore too and the deficit would be just as big no matter who was president. Who could possibly have seen we would be short on flu shots??? besides everybody who warned Bush. There's no way in the world any of the bad **** that has happened could have been avoided because Bush is

1) highly intelligent
2) known for considering different viewpoints before coming to a decision
3) has a lifetime of political, business, and military experience from which to draw
4) someone peopl around the world like, admire, and respect

all signs of a GREAT president

goninjago3
11-18-2004, 06:45 PM
is he an exmonk

dogchow108
11-18-2004, 08:46 PM
France and RUSSIA look at the evidence and said it didnt make sense???? the exact opposite is true of Russia. and France, they backed us until the very last minute.

as far as Powell, i agree, and i feel bad that he has left the Bush Administratio, but its probably better for him career wize, not because Bushs policies are necessarily bad, but necessarily because they are unpopular.

as for the last part of the post, you've lost me...