WMDs - Words of Mass Deception

[13788]

Javierdude22: Hm...Gig....your usually a well balanced poster, but instead of some people seemingly being blinded by Bush-hatred, with you it seems the guy is the best thing that the US ever encountered.

I dont wanna sound bossy, but lets make a deal....from now on were just gonna be empirical about our -facts- ...lets be honest...Mindseye has provided several webistes linked to credible news media, and even though i would like to see this documentation linkin Saddam and Osama, cause id like to see so many Iraqi civilian deaths and American soldiers death justified, i dont see it. And frankly, i also read in the newspaper that the link was basically made up.

Look, sometimes the means may justify an end....but lets face it, the end is unknown here. Even the pro war advocates seem to be in discussion about that. The only thing we come up with is that Saddam was a dictator....well obviously people!! But like Mindseye said, what about Myanmar (Birma), Congo or Libya....what about the 48 hours Bush gave Charles Taylor of Liberia??!!...id seriously lik an answer for that from any Bush fans cause that -warning- was three weeks ago, o and....wait...Mr. taylor is still out there!!...last week alone 200 people died there, the entire civil war there killed tens of thousands of people....the same or more then Saddam killed....wouldnt that make Charles Taylor the next dictator to go after, after Osama Pecker?

No...cause Liberia, a nation full of ex-slaves from the US, has crap to offer. A nation hardly anyone can find on the map thats made out of AIDS infected, starving, fleeing, in shacks living, hungry litlle black people with an economy the size of Calexico. Tell me people, if dictatorship was the main reason to go after Saddam why not Liberia first? It would sure as hell have been an easier job, and it would have needed those by the UN requested 2000 men, instead of the 200,000 now in the Gulf. And lets not forget my fellow Dutchmen, and Spaniards that are present now. But no, Bush is from Texas, so he likes to think big, in big numbers, 2000 is not worth getting out of bed for.

Othr questios i have for ya: The Taliban: not present!?!?!...HA!...ever heard of ISAF?? Its a Dutch German peacekeeping corps in Afghanistan (the Dutch seem to be the bitches of the US) that has to dodge incoming rockets on a weekly basis. I dont know where you live, but in my hometown, thats not everyday life. Gig, it seems that the minute a topic lost the interest of the media, you think it is taken care of, well no. The Taliban is still fighting against the US soldiers, and every other Western nation present there. Osama hasnt been caught, and presuming he is dead would be the most dangerous thing ever.

On another note, i heard a qoute on qoute -joke- the other day, which is not so mucha  joke, but more a sarcastic remark, and it int all that witty, just very true. Why hasnt the US dealt with North Korea yet?....cause they might actually talk back, Saying the US is taking care of one dictator at a time is in my opinion a sad excuse for the human lives, on both sides, lost in the Iraqi war. N-Korea has been killing its own people ever since the Korean war, but because China has its eagle eye on the US, North Korea has basically nothing to offer but mountains and decaying bodies, and of course nuclear weaponry, it is left aside.

Terrorism....a word so misused it now sickens me. We laugh t reports from the US here nowadays. A Russian boater getting pulled out of the water, an attempt at recordbreaking broken, cause the US patrol thought the row boat was aterrorist vehicle. How sad can you get?

And basically, every time a gun is being shot anywhere, or a loud bang is being heard....Fox will be the first to report that the explosion was not a terrorist act...it was merely a childs balloon exploding...

But i guess another 35 seconds of news has been covered...

 

[Pecker]

OK. You've converted me. Let's just be humanitarians while all those poor, misunderstood terrorists and despots around the world take us down...

One skyscraper at a time.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: ok guys, first of all, i apologize if i seem arrogant or rude. The Internet can change perceptions, especially in regards to someone who is "attacking" your political belief. Either way, don't take anything too seriously, and for Christ's sake, lighten up.

Moving on to what mindseye and jay_too and all you cool young democrats are saying... all I'm going to say is you can sit around and complain and bitch and moan about the war all you want, but when push comes to shove, i believe it is a necessary action. No matter how many neat links, or cool articles i use to prove my point, it will never change your politically slanted opinions... just like the neat links mindseye throws around does nothing to legitimize his opinion to me. And even then, i happen to believe a great deal of the media is political slanted and biased to the left. So, i don't take much of it seriously. Especially articles that claim documents linking Saddam and Osama are lies. News isnt always true, need I bring up the reporter in NY who lied off his teeth. Either way, you all know my opinion so why bother bickering back and forth? I feel that although trying to concentrate on AIDS in Africa, or work on the conflict between Israel and Palestine are noble efforts... there are other more important things to take care of right now, IMO. Because from WHAT I HAVE READ i do think there was a link between Saddam and Osama, and I do think Saddam spent alot of his years funding many terrorist organizations. I know for a fact he had weapons of mass destruction, and that he gassed many innocent people. I know he was a threat, and I know he was smart enough to get rid of his weapons before the USA closed in. I don't like to see the lives of people during Sept 11th go to waste while bleeding hearts turn their back on terrorism to go fight Aids in Africa. And frankly, in my opinion, anything Bush does YOU will criticize. If bush were to work on Israel and Palestine... you would criticize it. If Bush were to concentrate on AIDS in Africa, YOU would criticize. Because it all comes down to the fact that you are too far on the left end of the spectrum, and you shut out all things remotely Republican. How do you learn anything if all you do is talk to people that agree with your opinions? Oh, and by the way, the Israel/Palestine conflict is a thousand year old conflict that no American president will ever be able to end because it is a conflict based on religion. Clinton wasted 8 years trying to get them to compromise, and what happened? They broke out in violence all over again. And the AIDS in Africa? Ha, yet another thing America has very little control over. What are you going to do, force people to use condoms? Either way, let's take care of something we do have control over... the war on terrorism. Just my two cents.

Oh, and although Bush has lied and I have lost some faith in him, I like him because in his presidency whether you hate him or not... he has done something. He did something he believed in, and he acted. I just don't like presidents who sit on their asses for 8 years and don't do anything. Presidents who are busier paying attention to pussy and how popular they are then actually taking any action. Attack me with pseudo intellectual theories making some sort of pathetic effort to legitimize his presidency, and bullshit articles that could have been written by any liberal... but i'm never going to like that man or what he did for this country.

Just my two cents, remember that.

man, it seems like without Pecker around, NO ONE would agree with me.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Oh, and i forgot to mention this... but you all seem to overlook the fact that we haven't been attacked since Sept 11th. You hate Bush too much to give him credit, but it's been peaceful ever since he took action... at least in this country. And where is the Taliban? Disbanded. Why? Need I say because of WHO's leadership? *sigh*

 

[D_Martin van Burden]

Please note and note well that "peaceful" isn't solely in comparison with overt Taliban activity. A country isn't in peace simply because terrorists aren't using our own aircraft to destroy national landmarks.

Yes, I give credit to Bush for getting involved in some international stuff, but I stand firm that his intentions weren't done in wisdom or in mutual support. Earlier, I met someone -- a former co-worker's mother to be exact -- call him quite the "cowboy" with regard to the Iraq thing. Came in there, guns (indirectly) blazing; they weren't his own. Cleared out a ruler, finished up his father's loose ends.

But, in all honesty, I would applaud Bush if he gave me something worthy of it. For example, he spent untold amounts on financing this war. He's given a few people some tax rebates in the mail, and I saw some photo op of him shaking (get this) a few Black peoples' hands. How commendable, I guess, but how many important social programs -- abortion clinics, preventive medicine, contraceptive education, peer mentoring, after school programs, clubs, youth groups -- are cut because they don't fit in with his prescribed agenda. It seems as if something's not directly and unabashedly affiliated with the Church, be it a social organization or some vagrant on the streets, it's not worthy of fiscal investment or legal protection.

As someone told me a long time ago, why on earth is he out fighting battles on other continents when there's enough metaphorical war and distress on our own soil? Sure, Bush might have some balls; I'll give him that, but he has hardly demonstrated himself a leader of his own people. The past few years have distressed me in a way I think politics couldn't have ever hoped to: I think I'm learning the hard way that politics is more than an issue of smiling to the right people and feeding private interests first, rather than represent our people -- all people -- the right way.

 

[13788]

7x6andchg: So here's a question -

Do you think that this President Bush will end up like his father?

Both were involved in a war in the Middle East, and both won that war with a coalition of other countries.

During both of their presidencies (and I'm not saying it was EITHER of their faults) the United States' economy has hit or was on the skids and the electorate has been seen, by and large, as him "not fixing it"...not that (a) there's much the President can do or (b) he hasn't tried to do something...

Do you think that if the Democrats can manage to put up a viable candidate (admittedly, a stretch lately) that George W. Bush will go the way of his father - one term and out? Sometimes the parallels strike me as almost eerie.

[Ben Stein's voice] Anyone? Anyone? [/Ben Stein's voice]

7x6&C

 

[jay_too]

gigantikok..

i am gonna appreciate the new, politically correct persona that is promised.

in a discussion, it may not be proper to always demand proof or sources from opposing views and never present information to support your stand. i have never seen substantive evidence of the al queda - iraq connection. please share; you might be surprised and find some of us say, "oh, i see."

the news from afghanistan that i read indicate that the taliban may not be in control in kabul, but they remain a force in outlying regions (particularly the pashtun areas). to me the iraq war caused us to divert our attention from the war on terror and specifically ensuring that the taliban and el queda are removed as threats in afghanistan and pakistan. in my opinion, to do this requires that we bring economic and political stability to a shattered nation and destroy the power of the warlords. from what i have read, the taliban came to power because they broke the power of the warlords and thus, won popular acceptance. these warlords (our allies during the war) must be replaced (where the end justifies the mean) if the kabul government is to succeed. from reports i have read in the national newpapers, little progress has been made in "pacifying" afghanistan or rebuilding a shattered economy and infastructure. here...there is and has been a definite al queda link.

jay

 

[Pecker]

[quote author=DeeBlackthorne link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=40#44 date=07/24/03 at 20:27:19]But, in all honesty, I would applaud Bush if he gave me something worthy of it.  For example, he spent untold amounts on financing this war.  He's given a few people some tax rebates in the mail, and I saw some photo op of him shaking (get this) a few Black peoples' hands.  How commendable, I guess, but how many important social programs -- abortion clinics, preventive medicine, contraceptive education, peer mentoring, after school programs, clubs, youth groups -- are cut

As someone told me a long time ago, why on earth is he out fighting battles on other continents when there's enough metaphorical war and distress on our own soil?  Sure, Bush might have some balls; I'll give him that, but he has hardly demonstrated himself a leader of his own people.[/quote]

The old "What's in it for me?" line. Al Gore would be proud.

We can't fight terrorism because we have hungry people (most of whom, by the way, are illegal immigrants,) AIDS, much-needed abortion clinics to build, after school basketball programs for the kids (God forbid the parents should take the responsibility for raising them), condoms to distribute to 3rd graders, remedial reading programs for college students, and free medical care for everybody.

We can't continue to explore our destiny in space because we need the money to protect the endangered, 12-dotted polywog discovered in a mud puddle in Cupcake, Nebraska.

Come one, come all! Everybody wins! A prize every time! Gimme, gimme, gimme.

- o -

Let's get our priorities straight and stop letting our political representatives lead us around by our noses, telling us what to think and what to say.

If we could just get them to stop attaching their pet, pork-barrel projects on virtually every bill that goes through congress, we could save $Billions that could be used for things we really need to do to make this the best country in the world in which to live.

Wait a minute -- isn't it already?

 

[13788]

throb919: [quote author=7by6etC link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=40#45 date=07/25/03 at 05:27:38]Do you think that this President Bush will end up like his father?[/quote]
Paul--I think a few critical differences this time around (Bush II) include: the virulence many Americans feel toward the Democratic party because of (and it hurts my dyed-in-the-wool "yellow-dog" Democratic bleeding heart to say this) President Clinton (just look at the posts in this thread); the rally-'round-the-President feeling many (maybe even most) Americans feel toward President Bush for his leadership in this post-September 11th world; and the (I don't understand this one) feeling (or resignation) that the economy doesn't really matter so much...

I'm not sure there's a Democrat who can unseat Bush. Bush-backers are pretty rabid about the man; I think people "believe" in him more than they did his father--and are willing to forgive (or not even see) his short-comings. Wrap that up in patriotism (or the prevailing feeling that you're unpatriotic if you disagree with him), and it's looking pretty good for George W. Bush.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=40#42 date=07/24/03 at 19:15:00]ok guys, first of all, i apologize if i seem arrogant or rude.  The Internet can change perceptions, especially in regards to someone who is "attacking" your political belief.  Either way, don't take anything too seriously, and for Christ's sake, lighten up.

Moving on to what mindseye and jay_too and all you cool young democrats are saying...

No matter how many neat links, or cool articles i use to prove my point, it will never change your politically slanted opinions... just like the neat links mindseye throws around does nothing to legitimize his opinion to me.  

And even then, i happen to believe a great deal of the media is political slanted and biased to the left.  So, i don't take much of it seriously.  Especially articles that claim documents linking Saddam and Osama are lies.  

News isnt always true, need I bring up the reporter in NY who lied off his teeth.  

I know for a fact he had weapons of mass destruction, and that he gassed many innocent people.  I know he was a threat, and I know he was smart enough to get rid of his weapons before the USA closed in.  

And frankly, in my opinion, anything Bush does YOU will criticize.  If bush were to work on Israel and Palestine... you would criticize it.  If Bush were to concentrate on AIDS in Africa, YOU would criticize.  Because it all comes down to the fact that you are too far on the left end of the spectrum, and you shut out all things remotely Republican.  

How do you learn anything if all you do is talk to people that agree with your opinions?  

Oh, and although Bush has lied and I have lost some faith in him, I like him because in his presidency whether you hate him or not... he has done something.  He did something he believed in, and he acted.  I just don't like presidents who sit on their asses for 8 years and don't do anything.  

Attack me with pseudo intellectual theories making some sort of pathetic effort to legitimize his presidency, and bullshit articles that could have been written by any liberal... but i'm never going to like that man or what he did for this country.

man, it seems like without Pecker around, NO ONE would agree with me.[/quote]

Nobody agrees with you, because the facts are very obvious, but to a very select group of people. But thats fine...everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

What i would like to recommend to you though, is to not go on about how the internet causes misinterpretation, and then just as happy go on at the same tone. But, it might be the internet...

About the links, you can belittle them, but they at least present facts. O and wait...let me fill you in on research methodology: when you go to college and you have to do research, it may be wise to actually use supportive material supporting your statments. On LPSG you can obviously do without, but you wont pass college like that. O and saying that you know FOR A FACT that there are WMDs in Iraq also will not, i repeat NOT, get you an A on your research paper. It might need some source referral (just a guess...)...cause if you know for a fact that Iraq had WMDs...then please go book a White House tour and see George cause he might like that info...he seems to be under fire because of a lack of that info...but wait, that was only BBC World and CNN reporting that, so im having doubts about the validity of the newscontent.  ???

About blindly disregarding any good Bush does...that my young friend is a loud of crap. I think the bill he is trying to pass, promising 15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa, is VERY GOOD, Hooray for Bush. His routemap attempts are also very good, and im also very optimistic about them, another point for Bush. But besides that, i havent seen him do any other good things, name them please Pecker and Gig, please do, cause i would like to regain my faith in the American President. The Taliban is still out there, that argument has been refuted by the many fights still goin on between them and the Americans, Dutch and Germans present. Afghanistans rebuild has been zoomed in to only include Kabul, and even there the attacks go on...or so reported CNN though...but maybe Liz Smith would be a better source ?

You and Pecker claim that we will throw away anything produced by the Republican side but upto now, the only ones to have disregarded information because of the authors political affiliation is you. Something written by any liberal, young Democrats etc.

I feel legitimized to claim you are just a very stubborn Republican who only watches Fox, and will blatantly believe anything the Republicans do, and will cheer any decision made by the Republicans...simply cause well...its Republican. But wait...you could care less about any pathetic attempts and bullshit legitimizations...so that is enough argument to refute my previously made statement. Again...something to remember for college...

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=40#43 date=07/24/03 at 19:19:48]Oh, and i forgot to mention this... but you all seem to overlook the fact that we haven't been attacked since Sept 11th.  You hate Bush too much to give him credit, but it's been peaceful ever since he took action... at least in this country.  And where is the Taliban?  Disbanded.  Why?  Need I say because of WHO's leadership?  *sigh*[/quote]

And Gig...America also hasnt been attacked beFORE 9/11...dont pass the Iraqi war off as a succesfull terrorist disablement.
And i think you, outright ignoring what ive said about how Afghanistan is today, is the sorriest chauvinistic remark made upto now. As ive said, the Dutch AND Germans are on a weekly basis dodging rockets. A dutchman has died because of it, and several wounded. How social are you to blatantly show disregard for any human lives lost in other countries, like my own. Many people in Holland know someone stationed in Afghanistan, mothers are scared shitless for their sons and daughters lives, so dont gimme crap about the Taliban.

Pecker, your posts are a mixture of sarcasm and Republicanism. Upto now i havent seen any remarks holding water, or hitting homebase...i would like to follow Gigs advice up to talk more to pro-war advocates, but you guys make it hard.

 

[13788]

gigantikok: Because, Javier, to you we are just a bunch of ignorant hardcore Republicans that won't listen to anyone else's opinion.

For one thing, I'd like you to inform you that you don't know the least bit about me. I happen to hold many different political opinions, many leaning to the left as well as right. I just happen to be pro-war, and (for the most part) pro-Bush. Doesn't mean I only applaud Republican political ideas because they are political. You have become very arrogant in making assumptions about people. I'm not going to argue with you anymore because frankly I grow tired of it. Anyone who doesn't argree with you, as you have said in your last post, is basically ignorant and doesn't know the facts. Could you have ever wondered if maybe your "facts" could be skewwed... or wrong? What makes you so sure you are smarter than me? What makes you so sure that because I don't bow down and applaud for for your political brilliance that i am politically ignorant? I don't argue my beliefs to the fullest with you because frankly, i dont care. Nothing i say, no links i give you, no "facts" that sound true i throw at you will change your mind. You are good at arguing, you are good at taking someone's post and turning it upside down to make it seem like you are one uping them... when in fact you are presenting nothing. Especially the post where you retort my theory about American peace after 9/11. I wasnt talking about Dutch, i wasn't talking about Germans, i was talking about AMERICANS. And as an American, my country is safer. That is something i credit to Bush. I don't care how many little facts you bring up about one guy somewhere dieing because of a rocket, all i care about is my family and I are safe in my country under my president's leadership. Oh, and anyother Javier, PEOPLE DIE ALL THE TIME. Just because one dutch or german guy died one day doesn't mean it is a fucking tragedy that de-legitimizes Bush. Jesus. More people died that same day from SHARK attacks. Human life may be precious to the individual, but in the end, that's all it is... a human life. Sorry i'm not a bleeding heart liberal.

So anyway, i don't know where i am going with this. I'll just say that i think our nation's money is being better spent on the war on terrorism to ensure this nation's safety then going towards afterschool basketball programs. Unfortunately, a common Liberal habit is to take money from people and waste it on programs that have no relevance to the original donor's life. Either way, whatever, i don't care anyway. I'm tired of arguing.

Oh, and this time I won't apologize for my rudeness, it was in response to your rudeness, Javierdude. I don't like people judging me when they don't even know anything about me.

 

[jay_too]

javier..

thanks for reminding us of the support that our allies have and are giving us in the war on terrorism... from police and security operations in the balkans and afghanistan to sharing information on terrorists and arresting terrorist cells from indonesia to suadi arabia to europe and a identifying a few in the u.s.. americans tend to forget that this is an international war...maybe because it is not sold as one.

i cannot speak for many americans, but i know that with the bombing in bali that killed and wounded so many aussies...work essentially stopped for a few of days in my office as people went back and forth to the tv's to see if anything new had developed in the past few minutes. from the tears and husky voices of those around me, i think a large number of americans were devastated by this useless loss.

jay

 

[jay_too]

pecker..

i admit that bush and company did react to the 9/11 attack. they took many appropriate actions and enlisted international support to remove this threat to governments around the world. they led a coalition against the al queda-shielding taliban.

the war was won...but afghanistan remains a broken nation with an economy based upon heroin and extortion. the heroin is destined for the u.s. with some sharing with western europe. to date, we have not removed the taliban and al queda from afghanistan and pakistan. this was/is the greater threat to america and the rest of the world, and if we were going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, this is where many believe we would get the most bang for the buck.

the post-war problems in afghanistan should have alerted someone in the bush administration that after the victory, we faced the real difficulties. yeah, we set aside $600 million for halliburton for oil field repair...but apparently little for ge, siemens, toshiba, (or whoever makes electrical generators) to rebuild a reliable power system. like it or not, i think we have to commit large sums of american taxpayer money and american lives to rebuild another wrecked economy.

how we spend spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year for the next few years is a valid item for discussion. gven a choice, i would have voted for food, medicine and education....but since bush et al. stuck me and a few hundred million others with the bill, there is no doubt i will pay. BUT i and others do have the right to question whether the supposed decision process was flawed.

jay

 

[Pecker]

I agree, jay_too, that we're in a learning mode concerning our responsibilities after turning very old countries on their heads.

As for the deficit spending, the President told us that it was going to be necessary to spend more than we ever had before to get the job done. Admittedly, though, some in our congress have gone haywire with the cash that's suddenly available.

I know this old Republican (who does watch and enjoy Fox News) will not live long enough to see you young Democrats change over to driving Buicks and voting for the conservative candidate.

But it's fun trying.

 

[13788]

Javierdude22: Gig...your right, i tend to get a bit too sarcastic many times...its a flaw i have, sometimes usefull, often giving people a bad impression. I apologize for that.

But, for sake of this thread, i would like you to re-read my last post. You will notice me quoting your post, i gave an answer to certain claims you made, i think that is fair in a discussion. I made new claims, very true. But i didnt make them cause i think i am smarter (ill be the last one to claim that  :-/) or because i want to convert everyone, cause i didnt say that anywhere, and its also not a latent feeling of mine. No, i made them as a dírect reply to specific remarks you made, and gave you my version on it, what my view is on what you claimed. You need to be able to handle that, cause it is called a discussion, and that is what this forum is for.

I am all for opinions, but i think i came off strong cause i reacted to yóu claiming to know for a fact that this and that is true, or that yóu know for a fact that obviously Clinton bites and Bush doesnt. I am not turning posts upside down, you have put them upside down, cause youre using two methods of judging. You claim facts, and get away with it. I do it and i'm the bad guy. It doesnt work like that.  

About the Dutch thing. I know very well one Dutchman dying is nothing compared to millions dying anywhere in the world. I tend to get mad oftentimes about that in newsbulletins, where any Allied death is huge and terrible, but vice versa we say 'thats how war goes'. I mentioned the Dutch simply cause you claimed in a previous post that the Taliban war was over and Bush did a good thing on it. But that is true only in that the Taliban's powers are marginalized, but present.

Political threads tend to get a lotta heat, i will keep my replies for other posts.  

 

[13788]

hawl: I can't believe I'm stirring up this hornet's nest on a board that's supposed to be about our large genitalia , but this seems to be one of our most popular topics, and I have previously tried here to drum up support for John Kerry's campaign. I've been quite neutral about Iraq so far, despite my abhorrence of Bush and his motley posse (Ashcroft, Clarence Thomas etc. ) for their in-your-face opposition of abortion. As the clock ticks toward 2004, I feel compelled to start asking some foreign policy questions: 1.When money's tight and the nation is at war, what is up with devoting precious time, money and manpower to Operation Pipe Dreams, the crackdown on bong-makers etc.-www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock030403.asp? Is it more important to have Tommy Chong in custody than Osama? The FBI is so on top of the war on terror that it can spend its time this way? 2. I am old enough to remember the '70's fuel crisis, the rush to make fuel-efficient cars, the skepticism about having nuclear power plants everywhere (anyone remember Chernobyl?) to power our stereos and big-screen T.V.'s, problems with OPEC, and the now arcane word "conservation". One reason we're always so involved in the Middle East is this country is after all these years both wildly heedless in its fuel consumption (like it's water!) and dependent on foreign sources of it. The Bush folks wag their fingers at us for being pro-choice, but there are no sermons about wasting electricity or driving gas-guzzlers. 3. When did Republicans start caring so much about human rights abuses, nation-building, and general international interventionism? Even conservatives like George Will are raising eyebrows, saying that if human rights were the real concern why not lend a military hand to the pro-democracy movement in Burma? Read Pat Buchanan's recent columns for an interesting, obviously non-"liberal" but just as skeptical "what are we doing way out there?" viewpoint. Would any of us risk our lives over Liberian politics? Should we expect other young Americans to? Protecting ourselves from suicidal terrorists is one thing, and as strange as it may seem these guys seem to grow on trees in some regions (is it a common genetic trait leading to low self-esteem?). However, policing every bad neighborhood on the globe, often without the support of other established outposts of Western Civilization, is a tall order. A good chunk of the Bush foreign policy crew appear to have a pumped-up but mysterious agenda that creeps out other Republicans. Speaking of which, I will finish by recommending you check out the most recent issue of The Nation (I'm not a regular reader, I'm more conservative) for an interesting story which for some reason hasn't gotten much attention. If it had happened during the Clinton administration there would have been so much noise, but that is true about so many stories these days. Anyway, it describes how former Ambassador Wilson's wife was apparently just "outed" as a "deep-cover" or "non-official cover"( a "NOC" like the Colin Ferrell character is training to be in The Recruit) CIA employee to a reporter by two unnamed administration officials. If this is true, not only was her career ruined (probably in retaliation for her husband's disclosures about the Niger uranium stuff), but everyone and everything she dealt with in her career is compromised if not endangered. Very interesting article, we'll see how the story develops. I'll leave you with the question, if Bush can't get on the right side of a no-brainer issue like the RU-486 pill, or even pronounce "nuclear" despite his expensive education, can he be trusted with complicated issues we don't even know all the details about?  

 

[jay_too]

javier,

i found a book made for you....one caveat, it is written by a small government conservative who was chief trade negotiator during the reagan administration, clyde prestowitz.

clyde prestowitz, rogue nation: american unilateralism and the failure of good intentions.

the thesis is that the bush administration has become an international bully...by ditching the international crimminal court, the kyoto treaty on climate change, and the abm treaty with russia....and oh yeah, publishing in september 2002, the national security strategy of the united states of american which established the doctrine of preemptive strike.

he characterizes this administration's foreign policy as "radicalism, egotism, and adventurism."

jay

 

[jonb]

[quote author=Pecker link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=40#41 date=07/24/03 at 17:21:50]OK.  You've converted me.  Let's just be humanitarians while all those poor, misunderstood terrorists and despots around the world take us down...

One skyscraper at a time.[/quote]
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. 15 of the 19 terrorists, as well as bin Laden himself, were Saudi.

And as I seem to recall, Ray-Gun gave money to both Saddam (while he was gassing Kurds) and Osama.

 

[jonb]

Oh, and gigantikok, Palestinians got along fine with Mizrakihm (sp?) before 1948. Prior to Islam, they were the same ethnic group. Better yet, prior to Roman occupation, all Jews were.

 

[13788]

mindseye: Okay -- I think I've figured out why I'm having so much trouble understanding the pro-war camp here.

I'm going to restate their argument -- and, admittedly, I'm oversimplifying a bit:

• We acknowledge GWB and his staff are untruthful, but we still believe the war is just.
• We believe the war is just because Saddam funded terrorists and represented a post-9/11-era threat.
• We know that Saddam funded terrorists and represented a post-9/11-era threat because we heard or read this in speeches by GWB and his staff.
• ...whom we acknowledge are untruthful.

In fact, Gigantikok pretty much stated this:

[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1058058510;start=40#42 date=07/24/03 at 19:15:00]Oh, and although Bush has lied and I have lost some faith in him, I like him because in his presidency whether you hate him or not... he has done something.[/quote]

Because from WHAT I HAVE READ i do think there was a link between Saddam and Osama, and I do think Saddam spent alot of his years funding many terrorist organizations. I know for a fact he had weapons of mass destruction, and that he gassed many innocent people. I know he was a threat, and I know he was smart enough to get rid of his weapons before the USA closed in.

So, here's my question -- can you close up the weak link here? Can you find evidence, not manufactured by the Bush administration, that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden; that Saddam Hussein provided funding to terrorists; that he had WMDs; and that these were ongoing or recent as of the start of the war?

Or, if your belief isn't based on evidence, then on what other basis were you able to distinguish that, even though Bush is lying on some points, he told the truth about the threat Saddam posed?