My, how things change.

[Blown 472]

web page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm)

[78Eliminator]

Blown 472:
web page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3118262.stm) Baaaaaaa. Baaaaaaa. We are all sheep to the media.

[78Eliminator]

RiverDave:
Do you remember along time ago when I said there was no evidence linking the two and everybody jumped my shit in the interest of patriotism?
RD I didn't jump your shit. I still am of the opinion that we really don't know that acutal agenda of our government and the validity of the media.

[78Eliminator]

RiverDave:
No I know you didn't jump my shit.. But damn near everybody else did. :D
RD Maybe I should have. You seem to bash on me for the bimini dealeo a lot wink

[RiverToysJas]

This statement says it all.....
"Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. "
If you have links to the responsible party, and continue to support them after the offending action, you should be held accountable. Just because SH or his people didn't directly plan or execute the attacks, doesn't mean his money wasn't used or that he wasn't aware of the attacks before they happened. Direct, tangible links between the actual attacks and SH could be hard or impossible to prove. I personally believe they are linked though.
That report also states:
"Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that. "
I never thought that!
RTJas

[Blown 472]

78Eliminator:
RiverDave:
Do you remember along time ago when I said there was no evidence linking the two and everybody jumped my shit in the interest of patriotism?
RD I didn't jump your shit. I still am of the opinion that we really don't know that acutal agenda of our government and the validity of the media. Their agenda is to make all the money they can for themselves and it doesn't matter how many lives are lost in the process of it.

[Blown 472]

RiverDave:
Do you remember along time ago when I said there was no evidence linking the two and everybody jumped my shit in the interest of patriotism?
RD Care to guess who said this??
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

[summerlove]

Blown 472:
RiverDave:
Do you remember along time ago when I said there was no evidence linking the two and everybody jumped my shit in the interest of patriotism?
RD Care to guess who said this??
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." Uh, 78Eliminator.... wink lol

[78Eliminator]

summerlove:
Uh, 78Eliminator.... wink lol Not me. Them's big words in there that I don't understand :D

[Blown 472]

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

[BUSTI]

Ask your self this question? Why is it so hard, for the very same people that question whether Saddam had or didn't have nuclear weapons of mass destruction? Are the same people that firmly believe that Korea has nukes and that Iran also has a nuke program.
Iraq was discovered to have them in the 1980s and 1990's and self admittedly destroyed some of these weapons in the early 1990s. Now Saudi Arabia now has expressed a desire for acquirung nukes. We now have proof that Korea is developing weapons grade nuclear material. And Iran which sits on the 3rd largest oil reserve in the world. Iran for free, can produce energy for their country, is now saying they are developing a serious nuclear program for energy purposes. YEAH RIGHT! They are going to produce weapons grade material with in two years at their current rate of production according to Hanns Blix.
I am a little confused why is it plausible for these other terrorists states to have and want nukes but not reasonable that the Iraqiis do? And remember the President never said we were ever going to war with Iraq because we feared they had a nuke program...and he never said we were going to war because they were linked to 911. These are lies and misnomers spread by the liying democrats.
LEST THERE BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING GEORGE BUSH AND THE US LED COALITION OF THE WILLING INVADED IRAQ BECAUSE THEY VIOLATED OVER 18 UN RESOLUTIONS AND REFUSED THE INFERTTERED ACCESS TO THEIR COUNTRY BY UN INSPECTORS AS THEY PROMISED AT THE END OF THE GULF WAR. Be honest and accurately recall why we sought and got a final resolution of force from the UN to give Saddam an ultimatum. Its because he shit on 18 previous UN resolutions. It had nothing to do with 911 and so those of you that would like to say thats what the President used as justification for the war...you are lying! :mad:

[totenhosen]

BUSTI:
Ask your self this question? Why is it so hardBe honest and accurately recall why we sought and got a final resolution of force from the UN to give Saddam an ultimatum. Its because he shit on 18 previous UN resolutions. It had nothing to do with 911 and so those of you that would like to say thats what the President used as justification for the war...you are lying! :mad: Just being a devil's advocate here but Israel shits on UN resolutions on a daily basis but I don't hear about us going to war with them. (Kind of hypocritical!) There's more to the story than any of us will ever know.
[ September 18, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: totenhosen ]

[BUSTI]

Totenhosen... your assertion of hypocracy is a false premiss. Saddam Hussien funded the terrorist attack of the world trade center in the early 1990's. Did you for get that it was his money that bought the truck bomb the first time those Islamic ****s tried to knock down the World trade Center? Saddam also has been directly linked to provideng Al Queda funds for their terrorist attacks on our embasseies in Africa.
To date the Israeliis have never attacked and or supported terrorists that attack and kill Americans. Saddam publicly heralded and paid any one that inflicted terror on America and our interests. Your comparison of one America's greatest allies, Israel, and the Islamo-facist -terrorists of the middle east in dishonest and a lie. :mad:
Wake up and realize who the real enemy is. It is the Arab nations of Islam. Our fathers generation of World War II new the answer...complete obliteration of the enemy. eg Germany and Japan. I personally believe that we should make the cities of Tehran, Damascus, and Cario and Mecca glow in the dark! Ask your self this if every body that followed Islam suddenly disappeared off the face of the planet...would the planet be better off? Personnaly I think so!

[Blown 472]

BUSTI:
Totenhosen... your assertion of hypocracy is a false premiss. Saddam Hussien funded the terrorist attack of the world trade center in the early 1990's. Did you for get that it was his money that bought the truck bomb the first time those Islamic ****s tried to knock down the World trade Center? Saddam also has been directly linked to provideng Al Queda funds for their terrorist attacks on our embasseies in Africa.
To date the Israeliis have never attacked and or supported terrorists that attack and kill Americans. Saddam publicly heralded and paid any one that inflicted terror on America and our interests. Your comparison of one America's greatest allies, Israel, and the Islamo-facist -terrorists of the middle east in dishonest and a lie. :mad:
Wake up and realize who the real enemy is. It is the Arab nations of Islam. Our fathers generation of World War II new the answer...complete obliteration of the enemy. eg Germany and Japan. I personally believe that we should make the cities of Tehran, Damascus, and Cario and Mecca glow in the dark! Ask your self this if every body that followed Islam suddenly disappeared off the face of the planet...would the planet be better off? Personnaly I think so! Wow, you are one very narrow minded pin head, I bet you love McCarthy too?? People like you we dont need. :mad:

[Seadog]

While BUSTI's opinion may be extreme, his facts aren't. We went to war because Iraq had a history of agression towards its neighbors and a history of acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction. Without them following the terms of the original truce, it was impossible to verify that they were in compliance with the treaty. HIstory has shown that on other occasions, a country has agreed to a truce that calls for weapons reduction and then violated that treaty. If other nations had kept Germany from rebuilding their arsenal, WWII would not have happened.
Iran and North Korea are different animals. Iran is working through attempts to shrug off the controls of the religeous leadership towards a more democratic leadership. North Korea is an isolated nation with no idological allies. It also borders the PRC and any attempt to attack NK could bring the PRC into the fray again. Technically, we are at war with NK.
While we may have been condemned by many for taking over Iraq, ask yourselves this: Why did none of the other arab nations join in with Iraq. If they supported SH, why did they let the US go in without even token assistance. The reason is that while they understood the outrage of a portion of their people, they also realized what a danger to peace that SH posed.

[Blown 472]

Seadog:
While BUSTI's opinion may be extreme, his facts aren't. We went to war because Iraq had a history of agression towards its neighbors and a history of acquiring and using weapons of mass destruction. Without them following the terms of the original truce, it was impossible to verify that they were in compliance with the treaty. HIstory has shown that on other occasions, a country has agreed to a truce that calls for weapons reduction and then violated that treaty. If other nations had kept Germany from rebuilding their arsenal, WWII would not have happened.
Iran and North Korea are different animals. Iran is working through attempts to shrug off the controls of the religeous leadership towards a more democratic leadership. North Korea is an isolated nation with no idological allies. It also borders the PRC and any attempt to attack NK could bring the PRC into the fray again. Technically, we are at war with NK.
While we may have been condemned by many for taking over Iraq, ask yourselves this: Why did none of the other arab nations join in with Iraq. If they supported SH, why did they let the US go in without even token assistance. The reason is that while they understood the outrage of a portion of their people, they also realized what a danger to peace that SH posed. So what about the 80's when we were training his people and stood by while he gassed his own people?? because we did not like iran and we used him and supported him in his war agianst them, and now he is bad?? sounds like a double standard.
Maybe if we and the rest of the world stop ****ing with them maybe there would be peace?? but we need their oil much like england did and that is why they hate us, puppet regiems, and an outside force running their country.

[Backtanner]

BUSTI:
To date the Israeliis have never attacked and or supported terrorists that attack and kill Americans. You sure about that? USS Liberty (http://home.cfl.rr.com/gidusko/liberty/)

[totenhosen]

I firmly believe that the U.S. is the best country in the World to live in. That doesn't mean that our government doesn't do shady stuff without our knowledge! We put our trust in them taht whatever they do will benefit us. Sometimes it doesn't and eventually we learn about it.

[MagicMtnDan]

totenhosen:
Just being a devil's advocate here but Israel shits on UN resolutions on a daily basis but I don't hear about us going to war with them. (Kind of hypocritical!) There's more to the story than any of us will ever know. I hope you weren't being serious here.
The UN is a politically charged and motivated group made up of many third world nations where each one gets a vote. If you think the UN should have the final word on world matters you just might need to see a doctor.
Israel has one vote. The US has one vote. The Arab states each have one vote. What countries in the UN do you expect to support Israel or the US? France? Germany? China? Russia?

[MagicMtnDan]

Blown 472:
Their agenda is to make all the money they can for themselves and it doesn't matter how many lives are lost in the process of it. And YOU'RE the person calling someone else a narrow-minded pinhead?!
I guess this means that you think 9/11 wasn't the driving force behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess you think that the president isn't conducting a war on terror but is looking to line the pockets of big companies involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. I guess this means you're one of "those people" who think the Iraqi war is all about getting our hands on their oil.
Is it too much for you if I guess you're also a Gray Davis/Cruz Bustamante supporter? Sad that people like you are the ones who won't believe until there's another terror attack on/in the US.

[Blown 472]

MagicMtnDan:
Blown 472:
Their agenda is to make all the money they can for themselves and it doesn't matter how many lives are lost in the process of it. And YOU'RE the person calling someone else a narrow-minded pinhead?!
I guess this means that you think 9/11 wasn't the driving force behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess you think that the president isn't conducting a war on terror but is looking to line the pockets of big companies involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. I guess this means you're one of "those people" who think the Iraqi war is all about getting our hands on their oil.
Is it too much for you if I guess you're also a Gray Davis/Cruz Bustamante supporter? Sad that people like you are the ones who won't believe until there's another terror attack on/in the US. I moved out of california a long time ago, thanks.
unlike you Dan I dont watch CNN and have my opinon formed for me by the media, I can think for myself thanks.
I just think it odd that the back peddling has begun, and yes I dont like the fact that people are losing their lives for this. Time will show the real motives for this.

[Blown 472]

Blown 472:
MagicMtnDan:
Blown 472:
Their agenda is to make all the money they can for themselves and it doesn't matter how many lives are lost in the process of it. And YOU'RE the person calling someone else a narrow-minded pinhead?!
I guess this means that you think 9/11 wasn't the driving force behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess you think that the president isn't conducting a war on terror but is looking to line the pockets of big companies involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. I guess this means you're one of "those people" who think the Iraqi war is all about getting our hands on their oil.
Is it too much for you if I guess you're also a Gray Davis/Cruz Bustamante supporter? Sad that people like you are the ones who won't believe until there's another terror attack on/in the US. I moved out of california a long time ago, thanks.
unlike you Dan I dont watch CNN and have my opinon formed for me by the media, I can think for myself thanks.
I just think it odd that the back peddling has begun, and yes I dont like the fact that people are losing their lives for this. Time will show the real motives for this. And please dont start with the patriotism shit, because I question the motives of my government, you know the one I pay taxes to and I do have an interest in how MY country is run because it effects me and my own. So tell me, I should just follow blindly what they are doing??

[Blown 472]

Nice avitar RD.

[summerlove]

All I want to know is, where are the WMD's? You provide them to me, and I will be 100% supportive of the actions of the President. If they don't show up, then I will continue to question what went on and what the true motivations were/are. Simple question, and one I think the American people are entitled to know about. I just don't understand what's taking so long to find Osama and SH. You'd think 2 years later we'd have OBL, and more recently, SD.
And MMD, please dont imply that just because my politics are different than your's that I don't have same wishes and desires for this country as you - we just approach them from different philosophical agendas. My .02

[BiggusJimbus]

Just a point...
While Al Qaeda is literelly translated as "the center", it's entire structure is based on decenteralizing and un-linking activities and communications as much as possible. Thereby minimizing the links that can be exposed, exploited or proven.
So, any DIRECT link to 9/11 would most likely be slight and fuzzy. To say that there is not a "spiritual" link (for lack of a better word) is to stick you head in the sand.
Disconnecting the links is not an honest excercise.
This is part of what makes them so dangerous.

[totenhosen]

MagicMtnDan:
totenhosen:
Just being a devil's advocate here but Israel shits on UN resolutions on a daily basis but I don't hear about us going to war with them. (Kind of hypocritical!) There's more to the story than any of us will ever know. I hope you weren't being serious here.
The UN is a politically charged and motivated group made up of many third world nations where each one gets a vote. If you think the UN should have the final word on world matters you just might need to see a doctor.
Israel has one vote. The US has one vote. The Arab states each have one vote. What countries in the UN do you expect to support Israel or the US? France? Germany? China? Russia? Please see to what I responded to. His point was that we want to Iraq because of UN resolutions. My point is that there was/should be more to it than jsut that. Israel and others break UN resolutions on a daily basis and we don't go to war with them.

[Backtanner]

summerlove:
You'd think 2 years later we'd have OBL, and more recently, SD.Why? I would have thought the previous admin could have done something about him with 8 years.

[summerlove]

Backtanner:
summerlove:
You'd think 2 years later we'd have OBL, and more recently, SD.Why? I would have thought the previous admin could have done something about him with 8 years. President George Bush Sr. had his chance and dind't finish the job either, relating to SH. I'm not placing blame, on anybody, only asking questions...

[BiggusJimbus]

My belief at this point is that regardless of the reported motives, and the conspiracy of motives presented daily, the real reason for taking on Iraq was bringing the entire region under control of somebody other than Hussein.
While his direct rule was Iraq, his (actually the people of Iraqs) money supported the rulers of neighboring countries. This was Saddams consolidation of power. Taking down the regime in Iraq was the only sure way to get the neighboring countries to fall into line and break up the power block that was intent on destabilizing the Middle East and, as a side benefit, bringing down Isreal.
All of the hand wringing about the Middle East bursting into flames if the war happened has now been proven to be unfounded, and perhaps quite opposite to the true intended goal.
Taking down Hussein didn't bother me one bit. That there are not WMD's present doesn't matter to me. He's had them and he's used them. I didn't need proof of them to believe that removing his influence from the ENTIRE region was beneficial to the US (and the rest of the world that wasn't selling arms and mility support to Hussien). The war was expensive in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of deaths of American troops was not much beyond the average mortality rate for the American participants.
That hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers had to die for Hussien is terrible, considering a large majority of them were just family men or sons that had no particular love for their boss and were expendable to Hussien. In my mind, he is the cause of their death, perhaps not the instrument. Those that carried out his commands willingly and were the instruments of the terror machine that maintained his power are free to rot in hell)
Innocent civilians were killed as well. But I bet that it is a smaller number of dead than would have been killed or tortured in the period since the war had Saddam remained in power.
So, whatever was necessary to SELL The war to the average American was politics. Pure and simple. On average, the American public is pretty stupid and uninformed. That the nation reacts so readily to "public opinion polls" is almost frightening. The people that know the FACTS or have the raw information need to interperet it and act accordingly and not be hamstrung by public opinion. That will never be the general population. If the government won't act to improve the situation because they won't get re-elected than that sucks and it's wrong. But it is what we've come to.
Think about the people that you encounter everyday. It is purely by the diversity of opinion that this country keeps from veering off into a state that would be appealing to nobody.
If this was about Oil, we'd be shipping the oil and keeping the money. Anybody seeing this happen? Now,if it is about protecting the oil in the entire region, that makes more sense.
Anyway, now I'm rambling.

[BiggusJimbus]

By the way,
I don't plan on arguing my beliefs with anybody here. I don't expect to change your mind. I doubt you will change mine.
Everybody has their sources. But every source has an agenda, admitted or not.
Nobody I've heard on this board, especially myself, has the smarts, information and moral compass to be RIGHT on these issues. Whether they think they are or not. At least they have the desire to make the world a better place, right or wrong in their approach.
[ September 19, 2003, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: BiggusJimbus ]

[summerlove]

BiggusJimbus:
My belief at this point is that regardless of the reported motives, and the conspiracy of motives presented daily, the real reason for taking on Iraq was bringing the entire region under control of somebody other than Hussein.
While his direct rule was Iraq, his (actually the people of Iraqs) money supported the rulers of neighboring countries. This was Saddams consolidation of power. Taking down the regime in Iraq was the only sure way to get the neighboring countries to fall into line and break up the power block that was intent on destabilizing the Middle East and, as a side benefit, bringing down Isreal.
All of the hand wringing about the Middle East bursting into flames if the war happened has now been proven to be unfounded, and perhaps quite opposite to the true intended goal.
Taking down Hussein didn't bother me one bit. That there are not WMD's present doesn't matter to me. He's had them and he's used them. I didn't need proof of them to believe that removing his influence from the ENTIRE region was beneficial to the US (and the rest of the world that wasn't selling arms and mility support to Hussien). The war was expensive in terms of dollars and cents, but in terms of deaths of American troops was not much beyond the average mortality rate for the American participants.
That hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers had to die for Hussien is terrible, considering a large majority of them were just family men or sons that had no particular love for their boss and were expendable to Hussien. In my mind, he is the cause of their death, perhaps not the instrument. Those that carried out his commands willingly and were the instruments of the terror machine that maintained his power are free to rot in hell)
Innocent civilians were killed as well. But I bet that it is a smaller number of dead than would have been killed or tortured in the period since the war had Saddam remained in power.
So, whatever was necessary to SELL The war to the average American was politics. Pure and simple. On average, the American public is pretty stupid and uninformed. That the nation reacts so readily to "public opinion polls" is almost frightening. The people that know the FACTS or have the raw information need to interperet it and act accordingly and not be hamstrung by public opinion. That will never be the general population. If the government won't act to improve the situation because they won't get re-elected than that sucks and it's wrong. But it is what we've come to.
Think about the people that you encounter everyday. It is purely by the diversity of opinion that this country keeps from veering off into a state that would be appealing to nobody.
If this was about Oil, we'd be shipping the oil and keeping the money. Anybody seeing this happen? Now,if it is about protecting the oil in the entire region, that makes more sense.
Anyway, now I'm rambling. No, you're not - in fact, I think that your statement was one of the most compelling I've read. You posted some very good arguments that are thought provoking and were done so in non-attack mode. Thanks.

[fear the turtle]

Pretty good article from NY Times. Although I'm a Bush supporter I think it was pretty irresponsible in his part and not smart political to allow the misrepresentation. Whereas he could of easily pointed on the links between Saddam and terror many other times without and America would of bought into it. Rather then letting the general uninformed public believe Saddam had something to do with Sept 11 specifically. He should of seen this was gonna come back to bite him the ass.
Editorial from today's N.Y. Times:
The Terrorism Link That Wasn't
On Wednesday, President Bush finally got around to acknowledging that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
White House aides will tell you that Mr. Bush never made that charge directly. And that is so. But polls show that lots of Americans believe in the link. That is at least in part because the president's aides have left the implication burning.
President Bush himself drew a dotted line from the 9/11 attack in declaring the end of hostilities in Iraq. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on Sept. 11, 2001, and still goes on," Mr. Bush said. He continued the theme in his last major speech on the war.
But on Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney went too far. He said it was "not surprising" that many Americans drew a link between Mr. Hussein and 9/11. Asked if there was a connection, he replied, "We don't know."
But the administration does know, and Mr. Bush was forced to acknowledge it on Wednesday.
Of course, Mr. Cheney was not surprised that Americans had leapt to a conclusion. He was particularly enthusiastic in helping them do it. "Come back to 9/11 again," Mr. Cheney said on Sept. 8, 2002, "and one of the real concerns about Saddam Hussein, as well, is his biological weapons capability."
Mr. Cheney was careful then not to claim that any evidence really linked Mr. Hussein to the 2001 attacks. But he drew a convoluted argument about Mr. Hussein's ties to Al Qaeda and suggested in closing that he was not telling all he knew because he did not want to reveal top secrets.
Before the war began, Mr. Bush switched the justification for the invasion repeatedly. The argument that was most persuasive, the danger of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Mr. Hussein, has fallen flat since the weapons have failed to turn up.
Plenty of evidence has emerged that Mr. Hussein was a bloody despot who deserved to be ousted for the sake of his beleaguered people. But recent polls suggest that the American public is not as enthusiastic about making sacrifices to help the Iraqis as about making sacrifices to protect the United States against terrorism. The temptation to hint at a connection with Sept. 11 that did not exist must have been tremendous.
The Bush administration always bristles when people attempt to draw any parallels between the quagmire in Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. If the president is really intent on not repeating history, however, he should learn from it. The poison of Vietnam sprang from a political establishment that was unwilling to level with the American people about what was happening overseas. Stark honesty is the best weapon Mr. Bush can employ in maintaining public confidence in his leadership.

[OGShocker]

FTT,
Was that an article of an editorial? The leftist at the NYT show their leanings in all parts of the paper. Terms like "President Bush finally got around to" and "Vice President Dick Cheney went too far" are best left in the editoral section of that once great paper.

[fear the turtle]

editorial. I hesitated to even post it because I know how left wing they can be. Barely one step above the National Enquirer, the make up some of the most ludacris "Inside knowledge" sport trades every year. But I did think there was a pinch of truth there. Bad thing is is bush didn't have to use that tactic. He easily could of pointed to the first WTC attack as proof of Saddams support of Al Quida/Taliban and other like organizations.
Anyways later all, thanks for the help and have a good weekend I'm outta here.

[CA Stu]

"I'm looking for the sumbitch that tried to kill my paw..."
Get 'em George-a-loo!
CA Stu <-- you can shit in my face, but don't get up close and try to rub it in...