Don't **** with the US electorate...

[Jakeic]

They arent our puppets, they had the same intel and came to the same conclusions.

so had we decided not to invade iraq, the brits would of done it?

 

[Reaktor4]

we pulled them into a fiasco in iraq and our economy is affecting theirs.

Not to mention the risk of terrorist attacks there has multiplied. Its already happened to spain for supporting america.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

So I guess we agree? Im really confused at what you're getting at. It seems like you are both agreeing and disagreeing with me on the same issue.

Not exactly, I see how it could be confusing though.


I'm saying that having someone from another country, or even from just somewhere outside my circumstances (Could be from another city, another town or just the next street, depending on what its all about) is basically a bad thing and I wouldn't like it. However, I wouldn't take it that step further which these people have by saying "We don't need you, we don't want you...we don't even like you".


I don't think terrorist attacks are much more of a risk than they have ever been. The UK isn't the focal point for that type of thing at the moment...besides, we've had to live with terrorism for a long time. The IRA being the obvious lot (Though the last decade has basically seen them almost stop that activity). Much like Spain has had to deal with groups there.

 

[seinfeldrules]

so had we decided not to invade iraq, the brits would of done it?

Who knows. What am I, Nostrodomus? What we do know is that they agreed with us that Iraq was a threat. They had their own intel on this. They went in. Case closed. We'll help them when they need it.

I'm saying that having someone from another country, or even from just somewhere outside my circumstances (Could be from another city, another town or just the next street, depending on what its all about) is basically a bad thing and I wouldn't like it. However, I wouldn't take it that step further which these people have by saying "We don't need you, we don't want you...we don't even like you".

I would agree with that. I dont think many people truly believe what you say in your last part, just an emotional outburst to the whole idea. Probably happened to me, I'll have to reread my posts.

Not to mention the risk of terrorist attacks there has multiplied. Its already happened to spain for supporting america.

So you are saying that we should elect leaders because of who gets attacked? I suppose we should just give Al Qaeda run of the world while we are at it.

 

[Jakeic]

Who knows. What am I, Nostrodomus? What we do know is that they agreed with us that Iraq was a threat. They had their own intel on this. They went in. Case closed. We'll help them when they need it.

well if we compare the number of troops on the ground, i think it'd be safe to assume that they would not of invaded iraq.

 

[seinfeldrules]

well if we compare the number of troops on the ground, i think it'd be safe to assume that they would not of invaded iraq.

How do you know they wouldnt have sent more if we hadnt gone in? In all reality they wouldnt have gone alone, but the fact remains they chose to go in on their own free will. Let them blame their leaders for their mistakes if they dont like it.

 

[Reaktor4]

So you are saying that we should elect leaders because of who gets attacked? I suppose we should just give Al Qaeda run of the world while we are at it.

Ok...??
Posted by you earlier: "If I felt President Bush was truly going to harm Britain in some way, then I wouldnt vote for him. I dont think this is the case and I feel the President is actually helping to protect your country."
That contradicts what you just said. Dont try to say something like "but bush isnt making terrorist attacks more likely" to get out of this because if you believed that you would have said it in reply to my last post. So how is that helping to protect the country?
The popular republican saying that bush is "making the world a safer place" is complete bs. In fact its an insult to the families of people who have died and will die in the future because of his mistakes.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Ok...??
Posted by you earlier: "If I felt President Bush was truly going to harm Britain in some way, then I wouldnt vote for him. I dont think this is the case and I feel the President is actually helping to protect your country."
That contradicts what you just said. Dont try to say something like "but bush isnt making terrorist attacks more likely" to get out of this because if you believed that you would have said it in reply to my last post. So how is that helping to protect the country?
The popular republican saying that bush is "making the world a safer place" is complete bs. In fact its an insult to the families of people who have died and will die in the future because of his mistakes.

So you are saying terrorism is some new thing that Pres. Bush introduced?

You are mistaken about this. Refer to this for more information.

 

[Reaktor4]

Do you know the definition of the word "more"?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Do you know the definition of the word "more"?

Again, I'm pretty damn stressed out right now (Sox v. Yanks). I apologize for any grammar mistakes I might make, just overlook them for now.

 

[Reaktor4]

I wasnt talking about your grammar, you completely missed my point..

 

[Foxtrot]

Are all of the replies made up? They seem like they are written by someone who is British.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I wasnt talking about your grammar, you completely missed my point..

Well it was a pretty weak point then.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Are all of the replies made up? They seem like they are written by someone who is British.

After rereading them, I would have to agree.

Consider this: stay out of American electoral politics. Unless you would like a company of US Navy Seals - Republican to a man - to descend upon the offices of the Guardian, bag the lot of you, and transport you to Guantanamo Bay, where you can share quarters with some lonely Taliban shepherd boys.

 

[Reaktor4]

Oh yes, anything you dont understand must be the problem, not you.... christ...
Ok ill spell it out. I didnt say bush introduced terrorism im saying he introduced MORE of it. Much, much more.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Ok ill spell it out. I didnt say bush introduced terrorism im saying he introduced MORE of it. Much, much more.

Did you even look at the timeline? You also need to take into account 9/11 electrifying terrorists around the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-American_terrorist_incidents

 

[Phraxtion]

Oh yes, anything you dont understand must be the problem, not you.... christ...
Ok ill spell it out. I didnt say bush introduced terrorism im saying he introduced MORE of it. Much, much more.

Forgive me if I dont make much sense, im really tired. The actions of the US and its allies in this war has caused more terrorism... why is that?

 

[Reaktor4]

No. I know all about terrorism anyway, believe me ive lived through it enough.
Anyway, stop trying to take what i say out of context. I wasnt saying hes causing more terrorism than all previous terrorism thats ever happened in the world put together, although for all we know that may well happen.

 

[Reaktor4]

Forgive me if I dont make much sense, im really tired. The actions of the US and its allies in this war has caused more terrorism... why is that?

You didnt hear about madrid, or the attempted bombing of old trafford for example?

 

[seinfeldrules]

How about the bombing of the USS Cole. 9/11. Countless hijackings from the 70s to present. US Embassy bombing. Trade Center bombing in the 90s. The Palestinians- Israeli conflict. The IRA. It goes on and on.

 

[Foxtrot]

You didnt hear about madrid, or the attempted bombing of old trafford for example?

So 2 acts of terrorism in no way related to Iraq or even the US is the fault of who?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Forgive me if I dont make much sense, im really tired. The actions of the US and its allies in this war has caused more terrorism... why is that?

Okay, find an example of an Iraqi terrorist before the war in Iraq.

Now, look at all the iraqi insurgents who have allied themselves with Al Queda in order to fight off the US in Iraq.

You'll see the second number is probably over a thousand times higher.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Okay, find an example of an Iraqi terrorist before the war in Iraq.

Now, look at all the iraqi insurgents who have allied themselves with Al Queda.

You'll see the second number is probably a thousand times higher.

And tell me the number of Iraqis Saddam would have killed this year.

 

[Jakeic]

How do you know they wouldnt have sent more if we hadnt gone in? In all reality they wouldnt have gone alone, but the fact remains they chose to go in on their own free will. Let them blame their leaders for their mistakes if they dont like it.

why don't they send more since we need more?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

And tell me the number of Iraqis Saddam would have killed this year.

You're dodging the question. You were talking about terrorism. I was talking about terrorism. Don't change the subject to Saddam.

I repeat:

Can you site the number of Iraqi terrorists before the war, and is that number higher than now?

It's not. The war in Iraq is creating terrorists.

 

[Reaktor4]

So 2 acts of terrorism in no way related to Iraq or even the US is the fault of who?

But it IS related to iraq.. that was the reason for it.

 

[CptStern]

Did you even look at the timeline? You also need to take into account 9/11 electrifying terrorists around the globe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-American_terrorist_incidents

hmm I noticed you didnt have this in that list:

Orlando Bosch, mastermind behind the 1976 Cuban-air bombing which killed 73 ..the same Orlando bosch pardoned by Bush sr, who's still wanted for the bombing by the cuban authorities

"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

-- President George Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001


US harbours known terrorist - Pardoned by GH Bush before standing trial for the murder of 73 cubans

 

[seinfeldrules]

hmm I noticed you didnt have this in that list:

Orlando Bosch, mastermind behind the 1976 Cuban-air bombing which killed 73 ..the same Orlando bosch pardoned by Bush sr, who's still wanted for the bombing by the cuban authorities

"From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

-- President George Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001


US harbours known terrorist - Pardoned by GH Bush before standing trial for the murder of 73 cubans

Holy crap Stern, I didnt realize I wrote for Wilkepedia. Thanks for pointing it out! Im sure they left off thousands of other attacks as well, not just your one little poster child.

You're dodging the question. You were talking about terrorism. I was talking about terrorism. Don't change the subject to Saddam.

I repeat:

Can you site the number of Iraqi terrorists before the war, and is that number higher than now?

It's not. The war in Iraq is creating terrorists.

You were trying to prove that the Iraq situation has fostered violence where there never was any before. This is clearly not the case. I would also say that it is much more likely Saddam would have killed more then have died so far.

 

[Reaktor4]

How about the bombing of the USS Cole. 9/11. Countless hijackings from the 70s to present. US Embassy bombing. Trade Center bombing in the 90s. The Palestinians- Israeli conflict. The IRA. It goes on and on.

So theres been plenty of terrorism in the past, that makes it ok then.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So theres been plenty of terrorism in the past, that makes it ok then.

No it is not OK. But it also isnt all because of GW as is the popular belief held by many.

 

[Reaktor4]

You were trying to prove that the Iraq situation has fostered violence where there never was any before.

I dont think hes saying there was NONE.

This is clearly not the case. I would also say that it is much more likely Saddam would have killed more then have died so far.

err.. hasnt there been something like 15000 iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war?

 

[Reaktor4]

No it is not OK. But it also isnt all because of GW as is the popular belief held by many.

Nobodys saying its ALL because of him and twisting words wont help your argument. Looked up the definition of more yet?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You were trying to prove that the Iraq situation has fostered violence where there never was any before. This is clearly not the case. I would also say that it is much more likely Saddam would have killed more then have died so far.

Dammit, no I was not. Here's the full quote, in case you forget again.

Forgive me if I dont make much sense, im really tired. The actions of the US and its allies in this war has caused more terrorism... why is that?

Okay, find an example of an Iraqi terrorist before the war in Iraq.

Now, look at all the iraqi insurgents who have allied themselves with Al Queda in order to fight off the US in Iraq.

You'll see the second number is probably over a thousand times higher.

See the bold and italic? Terrorism. Not general violence.
Now please, stop changing the subject:

Can you site the number of Iraqi terrorists before the war, and is that number higher than now?

Again, it's not.

The fact is, Iraq hadn't even attempted any terrorist action against any western country since 1993.
Around the same time they had removed every WMD they had.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Saddam terrorized the Iraqi people. He also killed them. He was an ultimate terrorist.

Nobodys saying its ALL because of him and twisting words wont help your argument. Looked up the definition of more yet?

There has been just about the normal amount of terrorism considering the situation after 9/11.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Saddam terrorized the Iraqi people. He also killed them. He was an ultimate terrorist.

No, Saddam was not a terrorist. Not everyone who creates terror is a terrorist. Saddam was a dictator and a murderer, but he was not a terrorist.

Even allowing for your forced definition of Saddam as a "terrorist", the war in Iraq is still a net gain in the thousands in terms of terrorist manpower.

Either quit dodging the question, or admit that you cannot answer it.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Alright, going by your definition there were no terrorists in Iraq, that is because anyone who fought Saddam was killed. You have replaced the brutal regime of Saddam with a few years of unrest in Iraq. In the end, it will work out and we will see Iraq start to turn around. Could things have been done better? Sure, but no plan is perfect. It is pretty ridiculous to bring this terrorist argument up without also mentioning how brutal Saddam was beforehand.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Alright, going by your definition there were no terrorists in Iraq, that is because anyone who fought Saddam was killed. You have replaced the brutal regime of Saddam with a few years of unrest in Iraq. In the end, it will work out and we will see Iraq start to turn around. Could things have been done better? Sure, but no plan is perfect. It is pretty ridiculous to bring this terrorist argument up without also mentioning how brutal Saddam was beforehand.

What?

Even allowing for the possibility that Saddam was capable of killing every single person who opposed his rule, how would that explain the lack of terrorist attacks on anyone who isn't Saddam?

Fact: America went to war in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the US and other western countries.
Fact: The war has created thousands of terrorists where none were before. it has also created a powerful anti-western sentiment.

I'd call that a failure.

Sure, you can bring up Saddam's evils now, but that was not why there was a war. The war was begun to stop terrorism against the west. It created terrorists who hate the west.

The U.S. invasion probably killed more Iraqis than Saddam would have this year, even if he had carried out a major purge or two. For that matter, purges were not his forte. Everyday thuggery was enough to keep people running scared. The last big massacre was prompted by the Shiite uprising in 1991.

 

[Reaktor4]

There has been just about the normal amount of terrorism considering the situation after 9/11.

You may be right but thats no excuse. The fact is there is more than there probably would have been otherwise.

 

[Reaktor4]

Fact: America went to war in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the US and other western countries.

thats debatable :|

 

[seinfeldrules]

Even allowing for the possibility that Saddam was capable of killing every single person who opposed his rule, how would that explain the lack of terrorist attacks on anyone who isn't Saddam?

The dissidents were never allowed to organize. Whenever they did, they died.

Fact: The war has created thousands of terrorists where none were before.

It has drawn thousands of terrorists, who knows how many it has created. You are assuming on that one. Nowhere near a fact.

Sure, you can bring up Saddam's evils now, but that was not why there was a war. The war was begun to stop terrorism against the west. It created terrorists who hate the west.

It was, just not as loudly as the WMD argument.